This could be due to confusion in the Keywords system, possibly. I know people that play a <Regiment> that isn't Cadia but uses the Cadian doctrine. Technically, they should not be able to use the Cadian stratagem/order/warlord trait.
I let them anyways, because it's literally a wording thing, but in this case, Flesh Tearers is more than just a chosen keyword - it gives access to Gabriel Seth (iirc?). Therefore, it's actually relevant that it's different from Blood Angels.
That is indeed illegal and as written the Flesh Tearers are not even able to benefit from the aura. It must suck to come that far and get DQ'd but it was easily preventable by asking for list reviews. The issue with successor chapters and relics is widely known among BA players.
Did a guy seriously get disqualified for playing an army with the exact same army rules as blood angels...just because he wanted to be called flesh tearers instead of blood angels?
Xenomancers wrote: Did a guy seriously get disqualified for playing an army with the exact same army rules as blood angels...just because he wanted to be called flesh tearers instead of blood angels?
Well, he also took Gabriel Seth who is Flesh Tearers exclusive.
sossen wrote: That is indeed illegal and as written the Flesh Tearers are not even able to benefit from the aura. It must suck to come that far and get DQ'd but it was easily preventable by asking for list reviews. The issue with successor chapters and relics is widely known among BA players.
Do fleshtearers have any rules to distinguish themselves from blood angels?
Xenomancers wrote: Did a guy seriously get disqualified for playing an army with the exact same army rules as blood angels...just because he wanted to be called flesh tearers instead of blood angels?
Well, he also took Gabriel Seth who is Flesh Tearers exclusive.
Xenomancers wrote: Did a guy seriously get disqualified for playing an army with the exact same army rules as blood angels...just because he wanted to be called flesh tearers instead of blood angels?
I assume that he wanted to run Gabriel Seth which definitely turns your army into Flesh Tearers.
Xenomancers wrote: Did a guy seriously get disqualified for playing an army with the exact same army rules as blood angels...just because he wanted to be called flesh tearers instead of blood angels?
I assume that he wanted to run Gabriel Seth which definitely turns your army into Flesh Tearers.
Indeed. Well in that case he should be disqualified.
Xenomancers wrote: Did a guy seriously get disqualified for playing an army with the exact same army rules as blood angels...just because he wanted to be called flesh tearers instead of blood angels?
This isn't a narrative game. It's a competative event, where reading the rules and abiding by them is somewhat required. It's not about what you "Want" to be called. By all means title your army list DEH FLESH TEARAHS, but when you note down what keywords each unit uses, it's pretty important to pick the correct ones.
Particularly, as the poster above noted, if they were in fact using that keyword to access a special character. I don't think people would be too happy if I played using the Cadian Doctine, called my army 'The Rough Riders' and then took Sly Marbo. Rules is rules.
His list is on BCP. It's mostly Astra Militarum with a Flesh Tearers detachment bolted on. Fleshies are Seth, Librarian, a big unit of Sanguinary Guard, Brotherhood Champion and a boatload of Aggressors.
Audustum wrote: His list is on BCP. It's mostly Astra Militarum with a Flesh Tearers detachment bolted on. Fleshies are Seth, Librarian, a big unit of Sanguinary Guard, Brotherhood Champion and a boatload of Aggressors.
Ah yes, the army with 1400 points of Blood Angels that is "mostly astra militarum."
I'm still waiting for the list that includes One Primaris Psyker that is also "mostly astra militarum".
Did he use Battlescribe to write his list, by chance?
This is a thing that never fails to amuse.
Last year we had the same damn thing happen at another, relatively smaller event with Guard and someone running a Primaris Psyker with the Cadian Relic.
You'd think that flipping Adepticon would have better standards.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Numerically speaking it _is_ mostly AM. It's just points wise it isn't.
Well, yes, numerically speaking the 4ppm models will outnumber the 13ppm models. That's... designed that way. I would still say it's not "mostly astra militarum" for the same reason I wouldn't say my 3 Superheavy list is "mostly mechanicum" because I have 30 Skitarii supporting 3 Baneblades.
Xenomancers wrote: Did a guy seriously get disqualified for playing an army with the exact same army rules as blood angels...just because he wanted to be called flesh tearers instead of blood angels?
This isn't a narrative game. It's a competative event, where reading the rules and abiding by them is somewhat required. It's not about what you "Want" to be called. By all means title your army list DEH FLESH TEARAHS, but when you note down what keywords each unit uses, it's pretty important to pick the correct ones.
Particularly, as the poster above noted, if they were in fact using that keyword to access a special character. I don't think people would be too happy if I played using the Cadian Doctine, called my army 'The Rough Riders' and then took Sly Marbo. Rules is rules.
I agree - didn't know about the special character issue. It's something anyone going to a tournament should just know not to do.
Audustum wrote: His list is on BCP. It's mostly Astra Militarum with a Flesh Tearers detachment bolted on. Fleshies are Seth, Librarian, a big unit of Sanguinary Guard, Brotherhood Champion and a boatload of Aggressors.
Ah yes, the army with 1400 points of Blood Angels that is "mostly astra militarum."
I'm still waiting for the list that includes One Primaris Psyker that is also "mostly astra militarum".
Easy there, big guy, I was speaking numerically. Not trying to tea-bag that beehive: you already fight with enough people on that.
Did he use Battlescribe to write his list, by chance?
This is a thing that never fails to amuse.
Last year we had the same damn thing happen at another, relatively smaller event with Guard and someone running a Primaris Psyker with the Cadian Relic.
You'd think that flipping Adepticon would have better standards.
Warzone Atlanta isn't that much smaller - its another ITC major. That said people need to actively check their opponent's list, especially relics. Its become a known issue at this point.
Audustum wrote: His list is on BCP. It's mostly Astra Militarum with a Flesh Tearers detachment bolted on. Fleshies are Seth, Librarian, a big unit of Sanguinary Guard, Brotherhood Champion and a boatload of Aggressors.
Ah yes, the army with 1400 points of Blood Angels that is "mostly astra militarum."
I'm still waiting for the list that includes One Primaris Psyker that is also "mostly astra militarum".
Easy there, big guy, I was speaking numerically. Not trying to tea-bag that beehive: you already fight with enough people on that.
I just bristle when Imperial Guard gets flak for being souped with other armies, when the other armies have the warlord, the relic, a majority of the points, and the units that do the heavy lifting. Literally the only role the IG fill is to die slowly enough for the army to function (OH! And to generate CP), but people still accuse the list of being "mostly AM" or "an Astra Militarum" list.
To be fair, dying slowly in droves while the Marines/sisters/Inquisition/etc do the real work is pretty much the Guard's role in fluff (a lot of the time.)
quentra wrote: To be fair, dying slowly in droves while the Marines/sisters/Inquisition/etc do the real work is pretty much the Guard's role in fluff (a lot of the time.)
Yeah, I don't have a problem with the role played! I just have a problem with the list being labelled an "Astra Militarum" list. Or even "mostly Astra Militarum" which is essentially saying the same thing.
Did he use Battlescribe to write his list, by chance?
This is a thing that never fails to amuse.
Last year we had the same damn thing happen at another, relatively smaller event with Guard and someone running a Primaris Psyker with the Cadian Relic.
You'd think that flipping Adepticon would have better standards.
Warzone Atlanta isn't that much smaller - its another ITC major. That said people need to actively check their opponent's list, especially relics. Its become a known issue at this point.
I think we need to ask GW to publish a step by step instructional video about "How to Write An Army List" at this point...
Interesting. So do these successor chapters have any relics or chapter traits at all? Or do they just get the character... That sucks if you give up all the for chat a single character. XD
lolman1c wrote: Interesting. So do these successor chapters have any relics or chapter traits at all? Or do they just get the character... That sucks if you give up all the for chat a single character. XD
Zimko wrote: Lol, if you leave it to GW then it'll be riddled with contradictions and errors.
This time around, GW's wording is actually pretty clear. I'm usually one of the first to go to town on them for getting sloppy, but they actually did a good job with clarifying who gets what in the BA codex.
Primark G wrote: This sets an great example. The mistake at this level is inexcusable.
Is it though?
I'm not familiar with tournaments, so do you have to hand in your list to a judge/representative for approval first?
Otherwise this comes down to the player level. Personally I know I can't take the raven guard relic as Ultramarines but who's to say my opponent does? More so if I call it by it's name, I know I could do that to my friends everytime lol
Depends some of the bigger tournaments don't check lists because they don't have the resources to do it. So it's left to each person to check it themselves. Given some of the high level players are prone to change their lists at the last minute before an event it's an easy mistake to make. I know I made the exact same mistake in a pick up game because I decided to add Seth to my list at the last minute and around turn 3 I realized my mistake.
Primark G wrote: This sets an great example. The mistake at this level is inexcusable.
Is it though?
I'm not familiar with tournaments, so do you have to hand in your list to a judge/representative for approval first?
100% inexcusable - you don't make top 16 at a major without knowing rules like that. I don't think Gonyo is a bad dude or anything but you can't make those mistakes at that tier.
Crimson Devil wrote: Depends some of the bigger tournaments don't check lists because they don't have the resources to do it. So it's left to each person to check it themselves.
If you're not going to set a list submission deadline before the event, you probably need to allow time before R1 kicks off for each table to check each other's army lists.
Alternatively, set the deadline far enough ahead of the event that the staff will have time to check the lists - even if it means saying that only books released before said date are valid.
Crimson Devil wrote: Depends some of the bigger tournaments don't check lists because they don't have the resources to do it. So it's left to each person to check it themselves.
If you're not going to set a list submission deadline before the event, you probably need to allow time before R1 kicks off for each table to check each other's army lists.
Alternatively, set the deadline far enough ahead of the event that the staff will have time to check the lists - even if it means saying that only books released before said date are valid.
That's far easier said than done. Even a GT level event with 60+ people takes an unbelievable amount of time to check all the lists. The best solution is for players to check their opponents list, the issue is most players would still miss the error in Gonyo's list.
If your a top tier player you shouldn't have anything wrong with your list. At that level generally judge calls are for intangibles on the table, does this model have LOS or not, does this model have distance. Not rules questions
I haven't seen it here, but on a FB group some people are asking if this was deliberate. Not as an accusation, but as a rule at a top 16 level at this, its really inconceivable it wasn't a known issue.
Did he use Battlescribe to write his list, by chance?
Actually most BS catalogs now have explicit logic to prevent exactly this kind of issue, so using BS then a manual check would probably have prevented the issue in the first place.
For all the gak people give BS, it's done by volunteers, and bugs that get reported unless particularly thorny get squashed within a day or two
Good to see the TO's step up and make the big call, it's a much better precedent for the other TO's.
Its your responsibility to ensure that you have a legal list, if in doubt check it with a TO beforehand.
While I fully agree he was in error, it's a shame it didn't get caught earlier on. Had it been caught in the first game I'd have been tempted to give him a pass and simply bar the relic from the rest of his games, etc. Seems a quick and easy fix.
However, a harsh penalty does serve a purpose - you know damn well everyone will be double/triple checking their lists going forward.
Cephalobeard wrote: I'm fairly confident almost every major event since 8th has had some kind of list error worthy of DQ in every single final top 8-16,
I'm pretty sure there has been. At this point, it's a little ridiculous even if they are honest mistakes.
Correct, he won the Nova Open with Kurov's Aquilla on a Primaris Psyker that was illegal. It was caught early on and during the final and he docked himself 4 CP.
People cheat all the time in tournaments. All the time. Winning small events just as much catching rules bending as being a good player with a good list.
A simple mistake to make, but I'm glad he did get disqualified. If he didn't, I'd imagine several WAAC type players would try to pull similar stunts to win...
Kanluwen wrote: I think we need to ask GW to publish a step by step instructional video about "How to Write An Army List" at this point...
Speaking of dumb GW flowcharts, I am still waiting for someone to abuse the Index chart on big tourney. Say, supreme command detachment of exarchs sniping enemy characters from across the table or five commissars with power axes using Index morale rules
lolman1c wrote: Interesting. So do these successor chapters have any relics or chapter traits at all? Or do they just get the character... That sucks if you give up all the for chat a single character. XD
Eh, in this case, yes. FT have cheap chapter master, BA have amazing standard relic. The guy combined both.
It's a far less clear and ambiguous case in regular SM book, though. The rules are so stupidly written that only the big 6 of original first founding chapters are entitled to anything at all. You want to play Novamarines, a chapter so ridiculously Ultramarine in spirit they revere Calgar above their actual Chapter Master? Nope, no access to anything Ultramarine for you, ever, unless you declare you're playing Ultramarines who forgot to paint half of their armour. These pink 'Imperial Fists' on the next table? Ditto, apparently having similar 'count as' relic or trait as their parent Chapter would be somehow OP
Remember when Matt Ward, actual player and tester of his rules, said in 5th edition SM book he is totally cool with taking special characters from the book, filing serial numbers off, and using them as 'count as' similarly legendary characters of their successor chapters? When UM successor could use say 'count as' Sicarius as tactically adept captain, something that today is 100% banned? Why, frak your ingenuity and creativity, paint your plastic dudes exactly as you see in the book or no toys for you!
It's even worse in the case of (totally 'balanced' as usual) FW chapters, who can either field their special Characters, and lose access to literally everything becoming Index-grade force, or you can leave the only thing that makes your Raptors or Blood Ravens unique in the first place on the shelf and get actual rules by pretending these are weirdly painted Raven Guard or Blood Angels...
Clearly they do well with Hive Tyrant spam. Also disgusted to see a Supreme Command with 5 tyrants, and the rest imperial guard with some cult sentinels. That list is everything wrong with 8th edition.
Irbis wrote: It's a far less clear and ambiguous case in regular SM book, though. The rules are so stupidly written that only the big 6 of original first founding chapters are entitled to anything at all. You want to play Novamarines, a chapter so ridiculously Ultramarine in spirit they revere Calgar above their actual Chapter Master? Nope, no access to anything Ultramarine for you, ever, unless you declare you're playing Ultramarines who forgot to paint half of their armour. These pink 'Imperial Fists' on the next table? Ditto, apparently having similar 'count as' relic or trait as their parent Chapter would be somehow OP
You know successors get access to both the Chapter Tactics and Stratagems of their parent chapter right? They lose access to the WL trait and relic. This discounts the further effect of simply playing your <Keyword> as the parent chapter while painting them however you want.
Is there no way for a big tournament like AdeptiCon to have people turn in lists by a certain date so that the TOs can go over them in depth before the players show up?
ServiceGames wrote: Is there no way for a big tournament like AdeptiCon to have people turn in lists by a certain date so that the TOs can go over them in depth before the players show up?
SG
Adepticon had 240~ people playing this year. The time frame to check and adjust all those lists would be astronomical. I know it seems like the ready solution but I just don't think there's a feasible amount of time to get it done in. I think they'd be better served by doing list checking pods ala magic on day 1.
ServiceGames wrote: Is there no way for a big tournament like AdeptiCon to have people turn in lists by a certain date so that the TOs can go over them in depth before the players show up?
SG
Way to much work for tournaments the size of Adepticon or Nova. WIth all the tournaments going on you end up checking what? 500+ lists?
I am however in favor of something like checking the top 16 lists if they are held on a separate day.
In the end, players should learn to write legal lists or be DQ'd.
Ordana wrote: A tournament I'm going to in june simply banned the Supreme Command detachment. Its only used for stupid abuse anyway.
Eh, I dunno about that. I'm a fan of it in general. It's on the big baddies with 10+ Wounds like Flyrants where it's bad.
We have a total of 7 Shield Captains in the top 16, none in top 8, and they're clearly not dominating like having the tens of tens of hive tyrants we're looking at for Nids.
It looks like his list has a flesh tearer's <chapter> but the banner he's carrying is a relic called the standard of devastation. I can't find that standard anywhere but it's listed as free so presumably it's from somewhere in the Blood Angel codex. I thought the only relic that flesh tearers could take was an Archangels shard.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: It looks like his list has a flesh tearer's <chapter> but the banner he's carrying is a relic called the standard of devastation. I can't find that standard anywhere but it's listed as free so presumably it's from somewhere in the Blood Angel codex. I thought the only relic that flesh tearers could take was an Archangels shard.
Thousand Sons are there, but only as a detachment with Ahriman, a Daemon Prince, and tzaangors.
Vindication!
It is personal vindication for me, I've been arguing for quite some time that competitively the book is an amazing chaos soup addition (more than a few posters did not agree).
Thousand Sons are there, but only as a detachment with Ahriman, a Daemon Prince, and tzaangors.
Vindication!
It is personal vindication for me, I've been arguing for quite some time that competitively the book is an amazing chaos soup addition (more than a few posters did not agree).
Yeah, I was in the same boat as you; those exact three units I expected to end up in competitive lists while the rest of the codex would be non-competitive, and lo and behold there they are.
ServiceGames wrote: Is there no way for a big tournament like AdeptiCon to have people turn in lists by a certain date so that the TOs can go over them in depth before the players show up?
SG
Way to much work for tournaments the size of Adepticon or Nova. WIth all the tournaments going on you end up checking what? 500+ lists?
I am however in favor of something like checking the top 16 lists if they are held on a separate day.
In the end, players should learn to write legal lists or be DQ'd.
If they're gonna be checking lists (which IMO they absolutely should be, kinda hard to call yourself a competitive event if you don't ensure that your participants are following the rules), then they need to be doing it before the event starts. Doing it for just the top 16 is far too late, as if there are any problems found, then the offending player already cheated everyone they played against to get to the top 16, which could have drastically affected the standings of the tournament.
Tournaments need to be checking lists for their events. There is no excuse not to. They need to be checking these lists prior to the event starting in order to ensure that no player is cheated from the get go. Yes, this is most likely gonna be a logistical nightmare for the TOs. Tough . If you want your event to be considered legitimate and worthy of being called a tournament, that is what you're gonna have to do. Especially if you're gonna be one of the largest tournaments in the US. Don't like it? Too much for you to handle? Quit, and let someone more competent take over. The amount of nonsense the 40k tournament circuit has seen in 8th edition is frankly unacceptable and needs to be dealt with.
GI_Redshirt wrote: If they're gonna be checking lists (which IMO they absolutely should be, kinda hard to call yourself a competitive event if you don't ensure that your participants are following the rules), then they need to be doing it before the event starts. Doing it for just the top 16 is far too late, as if there are any problems found, then the offending player already cheated everyone they played against to get to the top 16, which could have drastically affected the standings of the tournament.
Tournaments need to be checking lists for their events. There is no excuse not to. They need to be checking these lists prior to the event starting in order to ensure that no player is cheated from the get go. Yes, this is most likely gonna be a logistical nightmare for the TOs. Tough . If you want your event to be considered legitimate and worthy of being called a tournament, that is what you're gonna have to do. Especially if you're gonna be one of the largest tournaments in the US. Don't like it? Too much for you to handle? Quit, and let someone more competent take over. The amount of nonsense the 40k tournament circuit has seen in 8th edition is frankly unacceptable and needs to be dealt with.
That's a cool attitude from someone who hasn't ever organized anything close to the scale of an event like Adepticon. I've organized and run 50-60 person events and it takes about 2 weeks to go through all those (given that I also work a full time job). It simply isn't feasible to check every list before a major event unless you give yourself a 3 month window (which is an infeasible time frame). The excuse not to is it simply isn't possible to get it done in a timely manner that will give players time to submit lists in a reasonable window. And if they quit? Well I can tell you no one is going to magically step-up to fill the void (especially not anyone with the experience, know how, and infrastructure to run an event of any size).
GI_Redshirt wrote: If they're gonna be checking lists (which IMO they absolutely should be, kinda hard to call yourself a competitive event if you don't ensure that your participants are following the rules), then they need to be doing it before the event starts. Doing it for just the top 16 is far too late, as if there are any problems found, then the offending player already cheated everyone they played against to get to the top 16, which could have drastically affected the standings of the tournament.
Tournaments need to be checking lists for their events. There is no excuse not to. They need to be checking these lists prior to the event starting in order to ensure that no player is cheated from the get go. Yes, this is most likely gonna be a logistical nightmare for the TOs. Tough . If you want your event to be considered legitimate and worthy of being called a tournament, that is what you're gonna have to do. Especially if you're gonna be one of the largest tournaments in the US. Don't like it? Too much for you to handle? Quit, and let someone more competent take over. The amount of nonsense the 40k tournament circuit has seen in 8th edition is frankly unacceptable and needs to be dealt with.
That's a cool attitude from someone who hasn't ever organized anything close to the scale of an event like Adepticon. I've organized and run 50-60 person events and it takes about 2 weeks to go through all those (given that I also work a full time job). It simply isn't feasible to check every list before a major event unless you give yourself a 3 month window (which is an infeasible time frame). The excuse not to is it simply isn't possible to get it done in a timely manner that will give players time to submit lists in a reasonable window. And if they quit? Well I can tell you no one is going to magically step-up to fill the void (especially not anyone with the experience, know how, and infrastructure to run an event of any size).
Really? The argument is that it's okay not to ensure that every player is not cheating when they build their lists simply because it will take a long time? I'm sorry, but no. Do major MtG tournaments not check every deck to ensure the players aren't cheating right out of the gate? Would it be so hard to simply have every player show up an hour or two early to the first day of the event, have every player assigned to a TO in groups, and have the TO go over each list in their group prior to the first round of play? Is it really so much to ask that a tournament ensure that each player who shows up at the very least plays with a legal list for the event? Is that really something that needs to be argued against?
Also, thank you, random nobody on the internet, for assuming my history, both professional and personal, at organizing major events of any kind. I really appreciate the unfounded assumptions on your part buddy.
GI_Redshirt wrote: If they're gonna be checking lists (which IMO they absolutely should be, kinda hard to call yourself a competitive event if you don't ensure that your participants are following the rules), then they need to be doing it before the event starts. Doing it for just the top 16 is far too late, as if there are any problems found, then the offending player already cheated everyone they played against to get to the top 16, which could have drastically affected the standings of the tournament.
Tournaments need to be checking lists for their events. There is no excuse not to. They need to be checking these lists prior to the event starting in order to ensure that no player is cheated from the get go. Yes, this is most likely gonna be a logistical nightmare for the TOs. Tough . If you want your event to be considered legitimate and worthy of being called a tournament, that is what you're gonna have to do. Especially if you're gonna be one of the largest tournaments in the US. Don't like it? Too much for you to handle? Quit, and let someone more competent take over. The amount of nonsense the 40k tournament circuit has seen in 8th edition is frankly unacceptable and needs to be dealt with.
That's a cool attitude from someone who hasn't ever organized anything close to the scale of an event like Adepticon. I've organized and run 50-60 person events and it takes about 2 weeks to go through all those (given that I also work a full time job). It simply isn't feasible to check every list before a major event unless you give yourself a 3 month window (which is an infeasible time frame). The excuse not to is it simply isn't possible to get it done in a timely manner that will give players time to submit lists in a reasonable window. And if they quit? Well I can tell you no one is going to magically step-up to fill the void (especially not anyone with the experience, know how, and infrastructure to run an event of any size).
Really? The argument is that it's okay not to ensure that every player is not cheating when they build their lists simply because it will take a long time? I'm sorry, but no. Do major MtG tournaments not check every deck to ensure the players aren't cheating right out of the gate? Would it be so hard to simply have every player show up an hour or two early to the first day of the event, have every player assigned to a TO in groups, and have the TO go over each list in their group prior to the first round of play? Is it really so much to ask that a tournament ensure that each player who shows up at the very least plays with a legal list for the event? Is that really something that needs to be argued against?
Also, thank you, random nobody on the internet, for assuming my history, both professional and personal, at organizing major events of any kind. I really appreciate the unfounded assumptions on your part buddy.
Sitting some players and a judge down does what? Is every player suddenly a perfect font of knowledge? If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If they were the first opponent would catch the illegal part.
Checking lists takes time. Go to the army list section of the forum here. Grab 10 random lists and check them. Really check them, grab the relevant codexes and CA. check all point costs, check all legallity, check everything.
Now do another 200+.
Really? The argument is that it's okay not to ensure that every player is not cheating when they build their lists simply because it will take a long time? I'm sorry, but no. Do major MtG tournaments not check every deck to ensure the players aren't cheating right out of the gate? Would it be so hard to simply have every player show up an hour or two early to the first day of the event, have every player assigned to a TO in groups, and have the TO go over each list in their group prior to the first round of play? Is it really so much to ask that a tournament ensure that each player who shows up at the very least plays with a legal list for the event? Is that really something that needs to be argued against?
Also, thank you, random nobody on the internet, for assuming my history, both professional and personal, at organizing major events of any kind. I really appreciate the unfounded assumptions on your part buddy.
No worries - if you have credentials worth discussing present them, otherwise I'll carry on with my assumption. Generally if you're going to level those kinds of 'if you don't like it then get out' types of criticisms and you've got relevant experience you should go ahead and present them. Now that we've addressed you being offended I can move on to the rest of this.
Do MTG events check decks? Yes - this is a a far simpler task than checking 40k lists because its literally looking at a deck list and making sure there is nothing from the ban list - done. That's nowhere near the complexity of checking a multiple source 40k list or even something like the DQ'd list where if you aren't aware of a specific line in the relic section you may still miss it. And how many TOs do you think a major event has? Do you think they have enough for each TO to only check 8 lists? If so you have no clue how many judges are at a major event (usually 6-8 for 200+ people, so each judge would need to check over 20 lists). And no one is arguing against legal lists - however the onus is on the player to check their opponent's list. It is simply unreasonable to ask 10 people to check 20 lists each in an hour (and that's being generous with the math). The reason I made assumptions about your personal history - to be clear - is you are arguing from a position that indicates you lack any practical experience in this area.
docdoom77 wrote: I'm confused about this. Do Flesh Tearers get any special rules or units that Blood Angels do not?
Or is it simply a matter of which keywords were used and you get penalized (power-wise) for being a successor?
They get access to Gabriel Seth who is one of the cheapest chapter masters available. If it were he just chose Flesh Tearers and there were no actual rules for it, it would not have mattered. However he specifically chose the cheap CM option and one of the drawbacks is he can only take a specific single relic per the codex.
Primark G wrote: This sets an great example. The mistake at this level is inexcusable.
Is it though?
I'm not familiar with tournaments, so do you have to hand in your list to a judge/representative for approval first?
100% inexcusable - you don't make top 16 at a major without knowing rules like that. I don't think Gonyo is a bad dude or anything but you can't make those mistakes at that tier.
I don't have a well constructed argument but Olympians still get caught using performance enhancements
docdoom77 wrote: I'm confused about this. Do Flesh Tearers get any special rules or units that Blood Angels do not?
Or is it simply a matter of which keywords were used and you get penalized (power-wise) for being a successor?
They get access to Gabriel Seth who is one of the cheapest chapter masters available. If it were he just chose Flesh Tearers and there were no actual rules for it, it would not have mattered. However he specifically chose the cheap CM option and one of the drawbacks is he can only take a specific single relic per the codex.
There really is no reason that flesh tearers don't get access to the same relics as blood angels. It is the rules though - he should have known better.
docdoom77 wrote: I'm confused about this. Do Flesh Tearers get any special rules or units that Blood Angels do not?
Or is it simply a matter of which keywords were used and you get penalized (power-wise) for being a successor?
They get access to Gabriel Seth who is one of the cheapest chapter masters available. If it were he just chose Flesh Tearers and there were no actual rules for it, it would not have mattered. However he specifically chose the cheap CM option and one of the drawbacks is he can only take a specific single relic per the codex.
There really is no reason that flesh tearers don't get access to the same relics as blood angels. It is the rules though - he should have known better.
Yeah I;m not arguing if he should be able to - this is Adepticon, the rules are the rules and its a major.
One thing to point out is we are assuming he used the Blood Angel's "Standard of Sacrifice" with Seth. Gonyo's list names the "Standard of Devastation" which is a Dark Angel Relic. So his list writing was sloppier than we thought.
Crimson Devil wrote: One thing to point out is we are assuming he used the Blood Angel's "Standard of Sacrifice" with Seth. Gonyo's list names the "Standard of Devastation" which is a Dark Angel Relic. So his list writing was sloppier than we thought.
Yeah I think everyone is giving him the benefit of having selected the 'correct' standard (given that even that was incorrect).
Really? The argument is that it's okay not to ensure that every player is not cheating when they build their lists simply because it will take a long time? I'm sorry, but no. Do major MtG tournaments not check every deck to ensure the players aren't cheating right out of the gate? Would it be so hard to simply have every player show up an hour or two early to the first day of the event, have every player assigned to a TO in groups, and have the TO go over each list in their group prior to the first round of play? Is it really so much to ask that a tournament ensure that each player who shows up at the very least plays with a legal list for the event? Is that really something that needs to be argued against?
Also, thank you, random nobody on the internet, for assuming my history, both professional and personal, at organizing major events of any kind. I really appreciate the unfounded assumptions on your part buddy.
No worries - if you have credentials worth discussing present them, otherwise I'll carry on with my assumption. Generally if you're going to level those kinds of 'if you don't like it then get out' types of criticisms and you've got relevant experience you should go ahead and present them. Now that we've addressed you being offended I can move on to the rest of this.
Do MTG events check decks? Yes - this is a a far simpler task than checking 40k lists because its literally looking at a deck list and making sure there is nothing from the ban list - done. That's nowhere near the complexity of checking a multiple source 40k list or even something like the DQ'd list where if you aren't aware of a specific line in the relic section you may still miss it. And how many TOs do you think a major event has? Do you think they have enough for each TO to only check 8 lists? If so you have no clue how many judges are at a major event (usually 6-8 for 200+ people, so each judge would need to check over 20 lists). And no one is arguing against legal lists - however the onus is on the player to check their opponent's list. It is simply unreasonable to ask 10 people to check 20 lists each in an hour (and that's being generous with the math). The reason I made assumptions about your personal history - to be clear - is you are arguing from a position that indicates you lack any practical experience in this area.
Well define what relevant credentials are then. Do my 8 years in the Marine Corps organizing countless convoys, training operations, ranges, etc. with all the logistics and planning that goes into that count? Or are you only looking for experience in running tournaments and the like? Because if the latter, fair enough I do not have much experience running 40k tournaments. If that nullifies my opinion and thoughts on the subject in your eyes, so be it, ignore everything else I say and move on with your life, as it is likely nothing productive will come from a discussion between us then.
As for the rest of it. If you're going to be a TO at a major event like Adepticon, I would expect you to have a fairly in depth understanding of the rules of 40k, both in play and in listbuilding. It has been a common rule across all SM codices so far that successor chapters do not have access to parent chapter relics, I would expect a TO to know that. For the numbers, it sounds like these events need vastly more TOs than they currently have, but that is obviously a different discussion and debate, I am well aware that it is not that simple to get more TOs to an event. But why is it the job of the other players at the tournament to ensure that their opponents are playing fairly? I cannot think of any other competitive event where that is the case. It is not the job of a baseball team to ensure the other team is not using corked bats. It's not the job of other gamblers at Vegas to ensure someone doesn't have cards up their sleeve. It is not the job of other countries to ensure competitors aren't doping at the Olympics. Its not the job of Magic players to check their opponent's deck to make sure it's on the up and up. (Just as a few examples). Why then do we not hold the judges and organizers of competitive 40k events responsible for enforcing their rules and making sure everyone is playing fairly and legally like we do for everything else? That last question, I think, is kinda the heart of the matter, at least to me.
I think this says more about the stupid BA successor chapter relics limitation than anything. Does literally ANY other codex have a similar limitation? I can see how it was missed, and I think likely not an intentional mistake. What would be the point in turning up with an illegal list to such a big tournament? If you did well it would be guaranteed to be caught due to it being a high profile event with loads of internet scrutiny
Organizing Marines is far easier than Gamers. If you organized a bunch of cats with head injuries and personality disorders into something coherent, than you be closer to the mark.
Your examples all involve lots of money at risk to pull off a good event. 40k tournaments are closer to a school trips with volunteer labor.
Crimson Devil wrote: One thing to point out is we are assuming he used the Blood Angel's "Standard of Sacrifice" with Seth. Gonyo's list names the "Standard of Devastation" which is a Dark Angel Relic. So his list writing was sloppier than we thought.
That's really sleazy
Here's hoping that once GW has a list builder for matched play people will be expected to use it for tournament play
Well define what relevant credentials are then. Do my 8 years in the Marine Corps organizing countless convoys, training operations, ranges, etc. with all the logistics and planning that goes into that count? Or are you only looking for experience in running tournaments and the like? Because if the latter, fair enough I do not have much experience running 40k tournaments. If that nullifies my opinion and thoughts on the subject in your eyes, so be it, ignore everything else I say and move on with your life, as it is likely nothing productive will come from a discussion between us then.
No not really because your access to resources in that environment are far different from running a volunteer, no pay style event. Ultimately you're talking about two very different kinds of organizational skills and obviously hugely different parameters.
As for the rest of it. If you're going to be a TO at a major event like Adepticon, I would expect you to have a fairly in depth understanding of the rules of 40k, both in play and in listbuilding. It has been a common rule across all SM codices so far that successor chapters do not have access to parent chapter relics, I would expect a TO to know that. For the numbers, it sounds like these events need vastly more TOs than they currently have, but that is obviously a different discussion and debate, I am well aware that it is not that simple to get more TOs to an event. But why is it the job of the other players at the tournament to ensure that their opponents are playing fairly? I cannot think of any other competitive event where that is the case. It is not the job of a baseball team to ensure the other team is not using corked bats. It's not the job of other gamblers at Vegas to ensure someone doesn't have cards up their sleeve. It is not the job of other countries to ensure competitors aren't doping at the Olympics. Its not the job of Magic players to check their opponent's deck to make sure it's on the up and up. (Just as a few examples). Why then do we not hold the judges and organizers of competitive 40k events responsible for enforcing their rules and making sure everyone is playing fairly and legally like we do for everything else? That last question, I think, is kinda the heart of the matter, at least to me.
Because what you're asking for is not feasible. That's the part you want to keep talking around even after you already addressed that they need more TOs than they have and they're hard to get. Until those events have the amount of judges a MtG event has (to be clear these are compensated judges at those events with mandatory amounts of staffing so still not an apples to apples comparison) it simply is not possible for 40kTOs to go through and check every list. Not unless they place an unreasonable 2+ month cut off time. And just to address the rest of your 'well these things have judges' comparisons:
-Baseball Team - a major league professional sport with a billion dollar infrastructure designed to enforce its rules. Paid officials.
-Vegas - a multi-billion dollar business apparatus that has a finical stake in finding and preventing cheating. Paid officials.
-The Olympics - a multi-billion dollar sports committee with infrastructure to prevent cheating. Paid officials
So I think its fairly clear why we don't hold 40kTOs to the same standard. They aren't even close to the same thing, 40kTOs are volunteers with a small volunteer staff and they have to manage the entirety of the event, not just checking and enforcing lists and rules but scheduling, logistics, pairings, the whole thing. Unless you want to start paying 40kTOs then stop asking them to check 250+ lists before a major event.
Crimson Devil wrote: One thing to point out is we are assuming he used the Blood Angel's "Standard of Sacrifice" with Seth. Gonyo's list names the "Standard of Devastation" which is a Dark Angel Relic. So his list writing was sloppier than we thought.
DoomMouse wrote: I think this says more about the stupid BA successor chapter relics limitation than anything. Does literally ANY other codex have a similar limitation? I can see how it was missed, and I think likely not an intentional mistake. What would be the point in turning up with an illegal list to such a big tournament? If you did well it would be guaranteed to be caught due to it being a high profile event with loads of internet scrutiny
DoomMouse wrote: I think this says more about the stupid BA successor chapter relics limitation than anything. Does literally ANY other codex have a similar limitation? I can see how it was missed, and I think likely not an intentional mistake. What would be the point in turning up with an illegal list to such a big tournament? If you did well it would be guaranteed to be caught due to it being a high profile event with loads of internet scrutiny
What other successor gets its own special character?
DoomMouse wrote: I think this says more about the stupid BA successor chapter relics limitation than anything. Does literally ANY other codex have a similar limitation? I can see how it was missed, and I think likely not an intentional mistake. What would be the point in turning up with an illegal list to such a big tournament? If you did well it would be guaranteed to be caught due to it being a high profile event with loads of internet scrutiny
What other successor gets its own special character?
Crimson Fists.
Black Templars as well, although that's a separate Chapter Tactic.
DoomMouse wrote: I think this says more about the stupid BA successor chapter relics limitation than anything. Does literally ANY other codex have a similar limitation? I can see how it was missed, and I think likely not an intentional mistake. What would be the point in turning up with an illegal list to such a big tournament? If you did well it would be guaranteed to be caught due to it being a high profile event with loads of internet scrutiny
What other successor gets its own special character?
Honestly this is inexcusable from.a top ITC player. This isn't an obscure rule, it's right in the codex. Since this is the second time it's happened, a similar thing with the same person, I am beginning to think that it might be intentional. Even a new player could read the book and see that is not allowed.
I don't know the player in question and I am not accusing him, specifically, of bad intent. However, I have played in big events and against top players and I would say that about half of them are bullies. This cuts across games. Back in the day I played DBM against the top Elo-rated players in the world (they happened to be in my local group) and it was the exact same.
They're not awful people or anything, but they subtly bully their way to gain an advantage. They know exactly what they are doing, and they try to cover up their poor sportsmanship with bluster and bravado. Sloppy reading, sloppy writing, and using imprecision as a weapon are all tools of the trade. They act casual until they suddenly spring a trap on you and try to twist the rules to catch you in a no-win situation. It can be be exhausting to deal with.
Audustum wrote: Easy there, big guy, I was speaking numerically.
My list has eighteen terminators (including three terminator characters) and 20 scouts. Clearly, my list is a scout-focused list, not a terminator-focused list.
I get what you were saying. It's just that what you were saying is an awful argument.
Honestly what if all major tournaments used the same "online" army builder. If it was sponsored and made as good as it can be then every player could use the same army builder and submit their armies. If there is a rules discrepancy from the book to the builder the player can petition for the exception. This would reduce the judges work load for checking lists and put everyone on the same footing.
Ordana wrote: A tournament I'm going to in june simply banned the Supreme Command detachment. Its only used for stupid abuse anyway.
I used to be against this but the further on we've gotten in 8th I tend to agree with it.
Same reaction here.
In a general sense I would like to see the detachments adjusted. A little more restrictions never hurt anything...
Supreme command is the only realistic way for guard baneblade variants to benefit from regiments. So you're saying you just want to majorly f*** any guard army with a baneblade. Got it.
Audustum wrote: Easy there, big guy, I was speaking numerically.
My list has eighteen terminators (including three terminator characters) and 20 scouts. Clearly, my list is a scout-focused list, not a terminator-focused list.
I get what you were saying. It's just that what you were saying is an awful argument.
It's. . it's not an argument. It's just a vanilla description. I feel like you're missing the overall point of the post, which was not what the majority faction is.
Timeshadow wrote: Honestly what if all major tournaments used the same "online" army builder. If it was sponsored and made as good as it can be then every player could use the same army builder and submit their armies. If there is a rules discrepancy from the book to the builder the player can petition for the exception. This would reduce the judges work load for checking lists and put everyone on the same footing.
This exists, it's called Battlescribe.
As someone who has worked on the data for it, I will out and out say that many, many people do not have an appreciation for just how much work it is maintaining the ruleset, and how many arguments we have among the data authors in the Gitter channel we use for coordination about how to implement some cases of really extraordinarily sloppy rules writing (especially the designer commentary, it exists for a good purpose but holy gak is it poorly written)
The funny thing is that GW's own app for AoS - Azyr - Has a not inconsiderable number of issues that are very similar to those that get BS slammed by a usually fairly entitled-attitude userbase.
Ultimately until GW ruleset writers actually apply harsh logic tests (or at least better directions on precedence) and concise language, any list builder will potentially have flaws based on the differing interpretations that individuals may have.
There are some cases where the BS Data author team has made changes explicitly for the Quality of life for TOs, namely tagging index option implementations so that they stand out in list construction.
Yes, in fact, it is. The statement is making the argument that the majority of the army is not Flesh Tearers, because cheap, expendable models that aren't Flesh Tearers outnumber them, even though the vast majority of the points are in Flesh Tearers. It's not missing the point, rather, the point is irrelevant to begin with.
So, Audustum, is my army of 18 terminators and 20 scouts a scout based army, or a terminator based army? 280 points of numerically superior scout marines, vs the rest of the 1500 points being terminators. But there's more scouts! Clearly, according to your argument, it's not a terminator list, because there's more scouts than terminators!
Your insistence on saying "but there's numerically more guard!" is just silly.
Hey, a army of three Imperial Knights and a five man squad of Skitarii Rangers is totally a Skitarii based army!
Yes, in fact, it is. The statement is making the argument that the majority of the army is not Flesh Tearers, because cheap, expendable models that aren't Flesh Tearers outnumber them, even though the vast majority of the points are in Flesh Tearers. It's not missing the point, rather, the point is irrelevant to begin with.
So, Audustum, is my army of 18 terminators and 20 scouts a scout based army, or a terminator based army? 280 points of numerically superior scout marines, vs the rest of the 1500 points being terminators. But there's more scouts! Clearly, according to your argument, it's not a terminator list, because there's more scouts than terminators!
Your insistence on saying "but there's numerically more guard!" is just silly.
No, what's silly is your collective insistence to argue a point that was not the point of the post. The post was meant to provide the units in the Flesh Tearers detachment with an off-hand, rough identification of the rest. If I had 5 1-pound white turkey and one 6-pound black turkey, I'd say I was dealing with mostly white turkeys, despite the fact that, by weight, it's mostly black turkey.
The list is, numerically, Guard. That bothers you? You don't like people using that as a descriptor? Fine, doesn't matter. The point of the post was not to label it a Guard army.. The point was to help people talk about the Flesh Tearers portion.
I get the Guard community has a massive chip on its shoulder. Don't impute it to everyone else. It does you no favors.
Your dismissive response doesn't change the fact that you made a nonsensical argument purely in order to whine about "ermagerd sooooop", and you damned well know it. If you have a 750 point army of four Leman Russ tanks and a single conscript squad, no one who actually knew a damn thing about 40k would argue that it's an infantry list.
Except, apparently, you, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Does/can battlescribe set up an event type list service like conflict chamber does for Warmahordes?
I'm not familiar with the service, but I'm sure if such a web service were to be created and gain enough traction that the creator of the app would be able to do some form of integration
Melissia wrote: Your dismissive response doesn't change the fact that you made a nonsensical argument purely in order to whine about "ermagerd sooooop", and you damned well know it. If you have a 750 point army of four Leman Russ tanks and a single conscript squad, no one who actually knew a damn thing about 40k would argue that it's an infantry list.
Except, apparently, you, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
edit: freaking typos...
It's dismissive because you only ever pull a line or two and refuse to engage substance directly. You get what you give.
This is also what I mean about the chip on your shoulder. If you read enough of my posts, it's pretty apparent I LOVE soup and use it almost exclusively. Soup is good, soup is love. I want Come the Apocalypse allies back for maximum souping. I used to run Riptides and Imperial Knights in 7th.
So yeah, you've got huge blinders on and it's leading you to swing wildly at invisible enemies. Take a chill pill and enjoy the day!
And well, stay on topic.
Just to avoid misinterpreting your intent: why did you lie about the list? I assumed it was because you didn't like Guard for some reason, but I am willing to assume it was a mistake? Or you had some other motivation?
I would assume observation bias as if you read more guard list entries than anything else in the list, its guard, despite them being less than half the points. I know I don't check points when just reading someone's list.
I'm interested to see what the next tournament shows list wise as it looks like anti flyer firepower or captain smash is a must have.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Does/can battlescribe set up an event type list service like conflict chamber does for Warmahordes?
I'm not familiar with the service, but I'm sure if such a web service were to be created and gain enough traction that the creator of the app would be able to do some form of integration
If you go to this site: https://conflictchamber.com/?tournaments you will see a list of events and the teams that participated. Also each team will have a list breakdown of models used. If you attend a big event a lot of times they'll tell you to submit your list via Conflict Chamber. i don't know the technical aspects but I do know that you can't submit a list that isn't validated.
If there was some sort of ranking for the most ridiculous arguments in Dakka's history that would have to make it on there.
On topic I'm happy this happened because it's a precedence that needs to be set, as others have said. It sucks for that specific player if it was unintentionally done(was it really though?) but there's no excuse at this high of a level of gameplay. Understanding the workings of your army's rules is a basic requirement.
The problem with the entire "TO's should check lists" debate is both sides are right in some way. On one hand it's not realistic for them to physically check such large events, on the other dealing with list cheesing in a tournament setting shouldn't happen. Hopefully GDubs list building app is the answer we need and will allow us a specific way to build lists within the rules and submit them for tournaments easily. Then the only burden would be to make sure the units fielded match the list submitted.
For the group that thinks the TOs should check everything it's not really realistic and from my experience, it's not only Warhammer that functions, but most large events for any sport/ activity.
2 examples I will give are
1. when I was younger I played competitive paintball. You did not do speed checks on everyone's gun in a tournament because it would be an extra day long just sitting around checking guns and nobody would want to attend. So you only got speed checks if a ref thought it was shooting too fast, another team complained or you made it to the finals.... Very similar to how these TOs are handling this issue.
2.I played college and pro hockey. Not every player or every team gets tested for banned substances. The reason why is because it takes too much time and costs too much money (keep in mind that the funds available to carry out testing at these levels are far greater than a Warhammer tournament). In fact, you only ever got tested if someone suspected you of cheating or your team made it to the playoffs. even when you made it to the playoffs only random players would be selected for the test. This is why on the news you hear pro athletes admitting to doing steroids decades after they have played.
IMO tournaments are doing a good job checking lists thoroughly Once they make the higher rounds. Id also suspect they will start to keep tabs on "problem players" and always check them before the tournaments start. Also if you really think its so easy to check 500 lists why don't you guys volunteer and help the community out.
maybe if your found cheating or whatever you get dq'd from all tournaments for a year and lose you ITC ranking. Right now there really isn't any form of punishment beyond the immediate disqual.
Racerguy180 wrote: maybe if your found cheating or whatever you get dq'd from all tournaments for a year and lose you ITC ranking. Right now there really isn't any form of punishment beyond the immediate disqual.
I think immediate DQ is a good punishment. if they are checking top rank lists (which they seem to be doing because players have been caught with mistakes several times before) then players will never even have a chance to win if they bring an incorrect list. I do think you start to make any repeat offender submit early and check their list or eventually ban them if its a continuing problem. But currently, with the rate of new books and FAQs it's very easy to accidentally pop the wrong piece of war gear on a guy or relic, so punishing too much for small mistakes seems a bit heavy-handed.
Yeah, people make mistakes...I think if it was up to me...an illegal list is a DQ, I'd try to get checks on every undefeated list after a day or two, auto check the top 24, to 16. Getting DQ'd is a strike, three times and you're out. That means you never play this tourney again. And I'd expect any other tourney to be eyes out for folks that got DQ'd anyplace else.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, self reported illegal lists etc is a DQ, but no strike.
So in light of what happened at Adepticon (Andrew Gonyo DQed himself after it was pointed out he was using a Blood Angels relic in a Flesh Tearers List) can we PLEASE get some official rule somewhere on how to deal correctly...
Ghaz wrote: Saw this on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page:
So in light of what happened at Adepticon (Andrew Gonyo DQed himself after it was pointed out he was using a Blood Angels relic in a Flesh Tearers List) can we PLEASE get some official rule somewhere on how to deal correctly...
Deal correctly with what?
There is nothing confusing about why the list was illegal.
Dysartes wrote: What's the rest of the question, Ghaz? It seems to tail off without...
It's just someone who can't understand that most of what he's asking for is already covered in the rules. Anyway, here's the rest of the post:
... in matched-play with home chapters / hive fleets / dynastys etc. It's so confusing atm. Like do Red Scorpions FW chapter for example can they use the Blooad Angels book one day and the DA book another? what about a custom "The Indicisive Marines" chapter? has a non-cannon paint scheme... can they use any book at whim? what about other factions? FW has a Dynasty - Maynarkh that isn't covered in the new codex? can it just chose wich Dynasty's relics / stratagems / characters to use or is it stuck with generic Necron ones? We allways houserule it that yeah "just pick a book and stick to it +/- special characters found outside the book".
Anyway, the key point I wanted to note was it looked like the player disqualified himself after someone brought up that he had an illegal list.
I dono man... at least the BA and DA books are fairly specific "no you can't use relics if you're a succesor except for this pokey stick" but other books are worse tho... like Codex: SM in the stratagems page says essentially "treat Crimson Fists as Imperial Fists in the example of the bolter drill stratategy. The Relics page has no mention about who can use what but some people argue succesors can't use relics because they have specific wording 'A White Scars unit', on the other hand on the chapter tactics page it says <Your chapter> can pick an apropriate tactic but some are specific as well Like again, "A White Scars unit may..." So i can pick the White Scars tactic but not use it? And in the WL traits it just says "is from the relevant chapter".... WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN? In codex admech for example you can pick your FW dogma if it's not listed BUT on the next page the stratagems don't handle this scenario... So i can be <The Red Zealots> PIck the mars dogma but can't activate "Wrath of Mars" because it's "A Mars unit" ?! Nwm the rat's nest of characters of chapters in FW, that just gives a headache on who can take what... Then there's Stuff like <Sept> or <Dynasty> ... The Meynarkh Dyansty in the FW index has an HQ with a 12" "can charge after advancing" Do they not get dynastic codes? Can they pick? Can i give Maynarch the "auto advance 6" through terrain and / or units"? Can i use the specific Stratagem... Relics? my brain...
As far as GT's checking lists in advanced, GW has annoucing they're releasing an OFFICIAL matched play army builder so as the intern they pawn it off to will make it originally.... at least if everyone uses that they'll be official mistakes =)) "GW said i could do it!"
It;s pretty straight forward and explained clearly in each book.
To take one of your examples...
Yes, you can have the Mars Dogma but not use Wrath of Mars if you're using <HerpDerpNotMars> As your Forgeworld. You're allowed to use the Dogma that most suits your faction, but because you've elected not to use <Mars> you're not able to use Mars Stratagems or Special Characters, because they're <YourDoods> not <Geedubs> Dudes.
The suggestion would be...
Just use the factions out the book.
Or Play Narrative.
Or play Open!
AdmiralHalsey wrote: It;s pretty straight forward and explained clearly in each book.
To take one of your examples...
Yes, you can have the Mars Dogma but not use Wrath of Mars if you're using <HerpDerpNotMars> As your Forgeworld. You're allowed to use the Dogma that most suits your faction, but because you've elected not to use <Mars> you're not able to use Mars Stratagems or Special Characters, because they're <YourDoods> not <Geedubs> Dudes.
The suggestion would be...
Just use the factions out the book.
Or Play Narrative.
Or play Open!
Yes, it's basically the same in Codex Space Marines. You can replace <CHAPTER> with SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES and choose to use the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics since they're an Ultramarines successor. However that only replaces instances of <CHAPTER> with SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES, the ULTRAMARINES keyword does not change and the two are not interchangeable.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: It;s pretty straight forward and explained clearly in each book.
To take one of your examples...
Yes, you can have the Mars Dogma but not use Wrath of Mars if you're using <HerpDerpNotMars> As your Forgeworld. You're allowed to use the Dogma that most suits your faction, but because you've elected not to use <Mars> you're not able to use Mars Stratagems or Special Characters, because they're <YourDoods> not <Geedubs> Dudes.
The suggestion would be...
Just use the factions out the book.
Or Play Narrative.
Or play Open!
Yes, it's basically the same in Codex Space Marines. You can replace <CHAPTER> with SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES and choose to use the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics since they're an Ultramarines successor. However that only replaces instances of <CHAPTER> with SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES, the ULTRAMARINES keyword does not change and the two are not interchangeable.
AdmiralHalsey wrote:It;s pretty straight forward and explained clearly in each book.
To take one of your examples...
Yes, you can have the Mars Dogma but not use Wrath of Mars if you're using <HerpDerpNotMars> As your Forgeworld. You're allowed to use the Dogma that most suits your faction, but because you've elected not to use <Mars> you're not able to use Mars Stratagems or Special Characters, because they're <YourDoods> not <Geedubs> Dudes.
The suggestion would be...
Just use the factions out the book.
Or Play Narrative.
Or play Open!
Yep , i aggree, it's _RELATIVELY_ cut and dry with <personal chaapter / legion / sept etc etc> (Tho the fact that "universal" paint scheme are sort of discouraged if you're trying to keep up with codexes / faqs and are on a budget is kinda .. a discussion for another time) But what about FW, who have special characters? Again, specifically what about Maynarkh's "Kutlakh the world Killer"? Or Red Scorpions Carab Culn? Or Astral Claws Lugft Huron? Those Ghost Razors would love some 3d6 charging....
Then you're playing <NotthebasicFaction> so you don't get <BasicFactions> goodies. You get NothebasicFaction's special character, it may use the army trait if it's a successor/fightsliketheother dudes, but it _Isn't_ the other dudes, so it doesn't get special stratagems, or special units.
A Guard Army that fights like Catachan's, But _Isn't_ Catachans, can't take Colonel Straken, because they're _NOT_ Catachan's. This same principle is consistent across the books. _Like_ does not equal _Same_.
It's the same until Forge World says otherwise. Replace <CHAPTER> with RED SCORPIONS and choose a Chapter Tactic. Your force can now take models such as Sevrin Loth, but again the RED SCORPIONS keyword is not interchangeable with the keyword of the chapter you chose for your Chapter Tactics.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: A Guard Army that fights like Catachan's, But _Isn't_ Catachans, can't take Colonel Straken, because they're _NOT_ Catachan's. This same principle is consistent across the books. _Like_ does not equal _Same_.
That seems like a bit of an donkey-cave way of doing things, though - there should be nothing wrong with saying to your opponent (and making it clear in your army lists) that "This is my Savlar Chem-Dog army, but for the purposes of keywords, all my IG will be using CATACHAN."
Given making your own Chapter/Regiment/whatever is often encouraged by GW, they shouldn't really be imposing such a mechanical disadvantage on people who do what they suggest.
However, in this AdeptiCon example, you don't get to cherry-pick the SC from one "faction", and a relic from a different one, and still expect the benefits from both - that's not on.
RE the problem with list checking, why doesn't the community do it. For example, before a tournament, people are divided into groups based on faction, and every person has to check just one other persons list. If a problem gets brought up, then the TO can have a look. This seems to be a soloution that should please everyone. TO's arent left with a mammoth pile of lists to check, and because it is divided into faction pools, then the checking is reasonably accurate.
Booger ork wrote: RE the problem with list checking, why doesn't the community do it. For example, before a tournament, people are divided into groups based on faction, and every person has to check just one other persons list. If a problem gets brought up, then the TO can have a look. This seems to be a soloution that should please everyone. TO's arent left with a mammoth pile of lists to check, and because it is divided into faction pools, then the checking is reasonably accurate.
If players knew all the ins and outs and had perfect knowledge of their own faction 90+% of these mistakes would not happen in the first place.
Booger ork wrote: RE the problem with list checking, why doesn't the community do it. For example, before a tournament, people are divided into groups based on faction, and every person has to check just one other persons list. If a problem gets brought up, then the TO can have a look. This seems to be a soloution that should please everyone. TO's arent left with a mammoth pile of lists to check, and because it is divided into faction pools, then the checking is reasonably accurate.
If players knew all the ins and outs and had perfect knowledge of their own faction 90+% of these mistakes would not happen in the first place.
As they always say, 2 is better than one though, and there is some suspicion that one or two of these "mistakes" are intentional.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: A Guard Army that fights like Catachan's, But _Isn't_ Catachans, can't take Colonel Straken, because they're _NOT_ Catachan's. This same principle is consistent across the books. _Like_ does not equal _Same_.
That seems like a bit of an donkey-cave way of doing things, though - there should be nothing wrong with saying to your opponent (and making it clear in your army lists) that "This is my Savlar Chem-Dog army, but for the purposes of keywords, all my IG will be using CATACHAN."
Given making your own Chapter/Regiment/whatever is often encouraged by GW, they shouldn't really be imposing such a mechanical disadvantage on people who do what they suggest.
However, in this AdeptiCon example, you don't get to cherry-pick the SC from one "faction", and a relic from a different one, and still expect the benefits from both - that's not on.
But that's totally not the issue here.
I already posted earlier in this very thread I don't care, and nor do the rules, what words you write at the top of your army list. "2,000 Points of Ultra Blood Flesh Tearer Angels."
Great. Good for you.
What matters is what keyword you use. If you're using the Catachan Keyword, Great! Good for you. If you're using the <Death Korps of Krieg> Keyword because you like them, but Catchan rules, and you're mysteriously taken Death Riders, and not Rough Riders, and also somehow getting +1ld from a nearby Officer and your Death Riders are +1 S, then we going to have an issue.
Booger ork wrote: RE the problem with list checking, why doesn't the community do it. For example, before a tournament, people are divided into groups based on faction, and every person has to check just one other persons list. If a problem gets brought up, then the TO can have a look. This seems to be a soloution that should please everyone. TO's arent left with a mammoth pile of lists to check, and because it is divided into faction pools, then the checking is reasonably accurate.
If players knew all the ins and outs and had perfect knowledge of their own faction 90+% of these mistakes would not happen in the first place.
As they always say, 2 is better than one though, and there is some suspicion that one or two of these "mistakes" are intentional.
It shouldnt factor in if the breaking of the rules is intentional or not, you need to be judging matters based on the 'crime', for similar action/result there needs to be similar punishment. It's not like we are judging loss of life where distinction between murder and gross negligence (workplace accident for example) is important.
This is a casual board game, similar breaking of rules should be punished similarly. You cant follow some some 'good guy' metrics, where basically outsiders get punished more harshly because they dont have regulars vouching for them to be a 'good guy', or even better that one guy who has a reputation of being uptight player or sore loser gets punished more more harshly just because he generally is not a 'nice guy'? Do we want to end up in situation where breaking of rules is generally accepted if you are otherwise 'nice'?
Bottom line, similar actions need to be punished similarly, no matter if it was intentional, and especially when the person being punished is recognized by regular tournament scene as 'good guy'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record let me add that these disqualifications for relatively minor offenses are too harsh punishments.
First of all these cases are very stigmatizing for the persons in question.
Secondly everyone must understand that if you really started digging through all the lists there would much more disqualifications.
All in all, these disqualifications are perfect example where lack of effective rules enforcement leads to these harsh 'showcase' punishments. These are mostly to keep up the illusion of existence of efficient enforcement of the rules.
For the record let me add that these disqualifications for relatively minor offenses are too harsh punishments.
Not when it's the person's second or third offense. If this is the same guy from Atlanta, he had an illegal list then and claimed he "didn't know" that Primaris Psykers lack the <Regiment> keyword when he gave them the Relic of Lost Cadia.
First of all these cases are very stigmatizing for the persons in question.
Good.
Secondly everyone must understand that if you really started digging through all the lists there would much more disqualifications.
Good. Maybe it'll teach people to read their fething books and understand how to write an army list appropriately.
a really easy way to have lists pre-verified would be to crowdsource it.
When you submit your list, you have to choose two factions and then you are asked to look at two lists blind from those factions and see if there are any glaring faults.
Of course theres bound to be some factions more popular, but for the most part this puts some accountability into the picture. If you submit a list and it flubs twice, the to's can ask you to remake it.
It's also probably inevitable when you meta chase, most players have an army/faction and maybe an second army.
You play an army week in week out you'll learn the rules much more than someone choping and changing army every month or so.
But they should surely be having a second person check their list it seems common sence to me.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Wait this is the same relic guy from last time? Yeah I have my suspicions now.
Yes, it is.
wow, in that case I think the punishment should be harsher, like forfeit all previous wins to get to top 16, and forfeit any ITC pts gotten from those games at least.
Ghaz wrote: Saw this on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page:
So in light of what happened at Adepticon (Andrew Gonyo DQed himself after it was pointed out he was using a Blood Angels relic in a Flesh Tearers List) can we PLEASE get some official rule somewhere on how to deal correctly...
It's like GW didn't announce they are working on a Listbuilding App for Matched Play at Adepticon....
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Wait this is the same relic guy from last time? Yeah I have my suspicions now.
Yes, it is.
wow, in that case I think the punishment should be harsher, like forfeit all previous wins to get to top 16, and forfeit any ITC pts gotten from those games at least.
The first time it happened the issue was brought forward and he played the remainder of the Tournament down the offending unit.
The second time he DQed himself
I think that's more than fair.. He never argued and admitted the mistake... Mistakes happen.
Alex Fennel ...hero of LVO ... Built his AM list this past October at BFS Tournamnet using the wrong points for his Conscripts.,When he realized his mistake at the end of day one.. He immediately DQed himself.
These mistakes happen..
none of these guys have denied what happened... I can't say the same for others
I don’t recall going to a major tournament where I didn’t double check my list.
If he had made the list in Battlescribe he would have seen it wasn’t an option.
But I’m not one of those guys that would try to say the list builder is the complete authority. If the list builder doesn’t allow it, then go in and careful reread all passages, and errata. And then if your still sure you should, put in to get the list builder fixed?
Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.
And that's why you read your codex before writing up a list using BattleScribe.
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.
And that's why you read your codex before writing up a list using BattleScribe.
This a million times over. Battlescribe (or any program) is not a replacement for your codex.
davou wrote: a really easy way to have lists pre-verified would be to crowdsource it.
When you submit your list, you have to choose two factions and then you are asked to look at two lists blind from those factions and see if there are any glaring faults.
Of course theres bound to be some factions more popular, but for the most part this puts some accountability into the picture. If you submit a list and it flubs twice, the to's can ask you to remake it.
Easy solution: Expect all lists turned in three weeks before the tournament. Remove names, and post each list online with the ability for anyone to flag it for validity issues. There is a week for people to look at any issues they might have and change their list as appropriate. They're locked in at that point. People can't change their lists. At that point, the process repeats, with any 'bad' lists that time then getting disqualified. The people handling the disqualification can be staff or something, reviewing the feedback from other people. They have two weeks to do it, and they don't need to vet the list, they only need to vet the things people claim are disqualifying, which takes about 2-3 minutes per complaint, assuming people leave the kind of meticulous responses like they do here in YMDC.
That might sound harsh, but it's either that or live with the possibility stuff like this happens.
As far as technical complexity goes, it wouldn't be a very difficult platform to build, and I believe several list sharing / comment systems exist currently. Some sort of partnership between the people making these and the TOs for stuff like Adepticon might be beneficial for everyone. I'm picturing something like BCP, but better because in the fantasy in my mind it would actually work right half the time.
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.
And that's why you read your codex before writing up a list using BattleScribe.
Hey - Andrew Gonyo here, just saw this thread. Nope, the Warzone Atlanta issue was a different Andrew (Andrew Whittaker)
Didn't read all the comments, but the long and short of the situation is - had no idea I couldn't access the relics and made the (very wrong) assumption it worked like a ravenguard model taking space marine relics/strats, ie, the relic would just say which were just for one type or another. The judges gave me approval to play after checking my list that morning when I got there, and at that time I brought to their attention (as someone had messaged me in the AM hours to inform me of my error) and we chatted about it. While it wasn't required to list relics or warlords at Adepticon (you could change them every game) and as such they felt it wasn't *technically* an illegal list, we both felt it was still something pretty egregious since I'd essentially cheated, whether I realized it or not, for four straight games. I offered to drop, and they agreed that was the best option. We were getting a late start as is and most players had begun their games, so replacing me would require a re-pairing of the whole top 16. Steve (my rnd 1 opponent) still wanted to get a game, so him and I played and had a good time regardless, with him winning (it was a forfeit regardless of the outcome of the game obviously).
I apologized to my rnd 1 opponents I could find, as I felt terrible for playing it wrong, and contacted BCP to remove my score for the event. Definitely a sucky situation that was entirely my fault - live and learn, I'll just post up my lists in advance on the internet for future events I think to ensure I don't miss anything again. Apologies to anyone else impacted by my error that I didn't get a chance to talk to over the weekend.
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.
And that's why you read your codex before writing up a list using BattleScribe.
Hey - Andrew Gonyo here, just saw this thread. Nope, the Warzone Atlanta issue was a different Andrew (Andrew Whittaker)
Didn't read all the comments, but the long and short of the situation is - had no idea I couldn't access the relics and made the (very wrong) assumption it worked like a ravenguard model taking space marine relics/strats, ie, the relic would just say which were just for one type or another. The judges gave me approval to play after checking my list that morning when I got there, and at that time I brought to their attention (as someone had messaged me in the AM hours to inform me of my error) and we chatted about it. While it wasn't required to list relics or warlords at Adepticon (you could change them every game) and as such they felt it wasn't *technically* an illegal list, we both felt it was still something pretty egregious since I'd essentially cheated, whether I realized it or not, for four straight games. I offered to drop, and they agreed that was the best option. We were getting a late start as is and most players had begun their games, so replacing me would require a re-pairing of the whole top 16. Steve (my rnd 1 opponent) still wanted to get a game, so him and I played and had a good time regardless, with him winning (it was a forfeit regardless of the outcome of the game obviously).
I apologized to my rnd 1 opponents I could find, as I felt terrible for playing it wrong, and contacted BCP to remove my score for the event. Definitely a sucky situation that was entirely my fault - live and learn, I'll just post up my lists in advance on the internet for future events I think to ensure I don't miss anything again. Apologies to anyone else impacted by my error that I didn't get a chance to talk to over the weekend.
Bravo and well played. Sucks that it happened to you, but like you said: live and learn. I do appreciate the steps you took to try to rectify the situation.
Hey - Andrew Gonyo here, just saw this thread. Nope, the Warzone Atlanta issue was a different Andrew (Andrew Whittaker)
Didn't read all the comments, but the long and short of the situation is - had no idea I couldn't access the relics and made the (very wrong) assumption it worked like a ravenguard model taking space marine relics/strats, ie, the relic would just say which were just for one type or another. The judges gave me approval to play after checking my list that morning when I got there, and at that time I brought to their attention (as someone had messaged me in the AM hours to inform me of my error) and we chatted about it. While it wasn't required to list relics or warlords at Adepticon (you could change them every game) and as such they felt it wasn't *technically* an illegal list, we both felt it was still something pretty egregious since I'd essentially cheated, whether I realized it or not, for four straight games. I offered to drop, and they agreed that was the best option. We were getting a late start as is and most players had begun their games, so replacing me would require a re-pairing of the whole top 16. Steve (my rnd 1 opponent) still wanted to get a game, so him and I played and had a good time regardless, with him winning (it was a forfeit regardless of the outcome of the game obviously).
I apologized to my rnd 1 opponents I could find, as I felt terrible for playing it wrong, and contacted BCP to remove my score for the event. Definitely a sucky situation that was entirely my fault - live and learn, I'll just post up my lists in advance on the internet for future events I think to ensure I don't miss anything again. Apologies to anyone else impacted by my error that I didn't get a chance to talk to over the weekend.
Well hopefully you've learned to read your Codex at least. I'm sorry that you got disqualified for a legitimate mistake but really, this kind of nonsense is unacceptable in any level of competitive play.
Hey - Andrew Gonyo here, just saw this thread. Nope, the Warzone Atlanta issue was a different Andrew (Andrew Whittaker)
Didn't read all the comments, but the long and short of the situation is - had no idea I couldn't access the relics and made the (very wrong) assumption it worked like a ravenguard model taking space marine relics/strats, ie, the relic would just say which were just for one type or another. The judges gave me approval to play after checking my list that morning when I got there, and at that time I brought to their attention (as someone had messaged me in the AM hours to inform me of my error) and we chatted about it. While it wasn't required to list relics or warlords at Adepticon (you could change them every game) and as such they felt it wasn't *technically* an illegal list, we both felt it was still something pretty egregious since I'd essentially cheated, whether I realized it or not, for four straight games. I offered to drop, and they agreed that was the best option. We were getting a late start as is and most players had begun their games, so replacing me would require a re-pairing of the whole top 16. Steve (my rnd 1 opponent) still wanted to get a game, so him and I played and had a good time regardless, with him winning (it was a forfeit regardless of the outcome of the game obviously).
I apologized to my rnd 1 opponents I could find, as I felt terrible for playing it wrong, and contacted BCP to remove my score for the event. Definitely a sucky situation that was entirely my fault - live and learn, I'll just post up my lists in advance on the internet for future events I think to ensure I don't miss anything again. Apologies to anyone else impacted by my error that I didn't get a chance to talk to over the weekend.
Well hopefully you've learned to read your Codex at least. I'm sorry that you got disqualified for a legitimate mistake but really, this kind of nonsense is unacceptable in any level of competitive play.
I have to agree. I mean... You don't just buy a new Codex and "Assume" what the rules are in it.
How did you decide how to write the list and what to take if you didn't even read the book?
Not looking for any sympathy on it, trust me - no one feels worse about it than me. I couldn't care less about winning one GT, I've been in the hobby long enough that good games and reputation are more important, which is why I offered to dq myself, as nothing good come possibly come from me continuing on, and I flat out didn't deserve to.
Additionally, I think we're going a tad far to assume I didn't read the book - I missed a line in the relics section, yes, but I have opened the thing once or twice :-p
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.
And that's why you read your codex before writing up a list using BattleScribe.
Hey - Andrew Gonyo here, just saw this thread. Nope, the Warzone Atlanta issue was a different Andrew (Andrew Whittaker)
Didn't read all the comments, but the long and short of the situation is - had no idea I couldn't access the relics and made the (very wrong) assumption it worked like a ravenguard model taking space marine relics/strats, ie, the relic would just say which were just for one type or another. The judges gave me approval to play after checking my list that morning when I got there, and at that time I brought to their attention (as someone had messaged me in the AM hours to inform me of my error) and we chatted about it. While it wasn't required to list relics or warlords at Adepticon (you could change them every game) and as such they felt it wasn't *technically* an illegal list, we both felt it was still something pretty egregious since I'd essentially cheated, whether I realized it or not, for four straight games. I offered to drop, and they agreed that was the best option. We were getting a late start as is and most players had begun their games, so replacing me would require a re-pairing of the whole top 16. Steve (my rnd 1 opponent) still wanted to get a game, so him and I played and had a good time regardless, with him winning (it was a forfeit regardless of the outcome of the game obviously).
I apologized to my rnd 1 opponents I could find, as I felt terrible for playing it wrong, and contacted BCP to remove my score for the event. Definitely a sucky situation that was entirely my fault - live and learn, I'll just post up my lists in advance on the internet for future events I think to ensure I don't miss anything again. Apologies to anyone else impacted by my error that I didn't get a chance to talk to over the weekend.
One would think you would read your armies more carefully after the mistake at Nova Open.
Obviously not, maybe now you will?
Or maybe we'll have a 3e incident before long.
Target wrote: Not looking for any sympathy on it, trust me - no one feels worse about it than me. I couldn't care less about winning one GT, I've been in the hobby long enough that good games and reputation are more important, which is why I offered to dq myself, as nothing good come possibly come from me continuing on, and I flat out didn't deserve to.
Additionally, I think we're going a tad far to assume I didn't read the book - I missed a line in the relics section, yes, but I have opened the thing once or twice :-p
Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't own the Blood Angels book, but isn't it Gabriel Seth's rules that would be necessary to know not the Relics section?
Target wrote: Not looking for any sympathy on it, trust me - no one feels worse about it than me. I couldn't care less about winning one GT, I've been in the hobby long enough that good games and reputation are more important, which is why I offered to dq myself, as nothing good come possibly come from me continuing on, and I flat out didn't deserve to.
Additionally, I think we're going a tad far to assume I didn't read the book - I missed a line in the relics section, yes, but I have opened the thing once or twice :-p
Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't own the Blood Angels book, but isn't it Gabriel Seth's rules that would be necessary to know not the Relics section?
No its the relic rules you'd need to know. Gabriel Seth just has a set <Flesh Tearers> tag but he specifically makes no mention of anything about relics. The pertinent line is in the relics rules section.
Target wrote: Not looking for any sympathy on it, trust me - no one feels worse about it than me. I couldn't care less about winning one GT, I've been in the hobby long enough that good games and reputation are more important, which is why I offered to dq myself, as nothing good come possibly come from me continuing on, and I flat out didn't deserve to.
Additionally, I think we're going a tad far to assume I didn't read the book - I missed a line in the relics section, yes, but I have opened the thing once or twice :-p
Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't own the Blood Angels book, but isn't it Gabriel Seth's rules that would be necessary to know not the Relics section?
Not really, Seth doesn't state that. My (wrong) assumption was flesh tearers are just a type of blood angel, so since I had a detachment entirely composed of them I'd unlock relics and stratagems like any other book. However if I'd of read the headers of the relic and stratagems pages closer, there is a line that says "the stratagems listed here, with the exception of the armory of baal, can also be used by any of the blood angels successor chapters"
And I was using the relic stratagem/relics and was a successor chapter. Essentially successor chapters get everything *except* relics other than the archangels shard
Even then, successor chapters can just take everything they want anyway and just say they're using the <Blood Angels> keyword with a different colour scheme, but in the case of Seth that obviously doesn't work since he's got <Flesh Tearers>.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Even then, successor chapters can just take everything they want anyway and just say they're using the <Blood Angels> keyword with a different colour scheme, but in the case of Seth that obviously doesn't work since he's got <Flesh Tearers>.
Which is honestly pretty dumb the way they choose to do it.
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.
And that's why you read your codex before writing up a list using BattleScribe.
The lack of consistency across codexes is kind of wonky.
I played a game recently with someone mixing various kinds of chaos. After a point i just stopped asking questions and let him do whatever he wanted whether it was legal or not, I just didn't have the knowledge of all the tiny lines in that book to question it, and asking to see a codex eats into round timers.
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.
I just spent 10 minutes looking for the Standard of Devastation on Battle Scribe under the Blood Angels entry. I didn't find it. How did you find it? Please let us know so it can be reported and fixed.
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.
I just spent 10 minutes looking for the Standard of Devastation on Battle Scribe under the Blood Angels entry. I didn't find it. How did you find it? Please let us know so it can be reported and fixed.
1) Its Standard of Sacrafice
2) It doesn't show up until you plus on "No Force Org Slot" and add armoury of Baal.
3) The issue is that successor chapters don't have access to the whole armoury of Baal, only 1 item out of that list.
It sounds like to fix this you'll have to add a chapter tag to BA detachments, and then when you take Armoury of Baal you only get Archangel's Shard if you have any Chapter other than Blood Angels for that Detachment
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.
I just spent 10 minutes looking for the Standard of Devastation on Battle Scribe under the Blood Angels entry. I didn't find it. How did you find it? Please let us know so it can be reported and fixed.
1) Its Standard of Sacrafice
2) It doesn't show up until you plus on "No Force Org Slot" and add armoury of Baal.
3) The issue is that successor chapters don't have access to the whole armoury of Baal, only 1 item out of that list.
It sounds like to fix this you'll have to add a chapter tag to BA detachments, and then when you take Armoury of Baal you only get Archangel's Shard if you have any Chapter other than Blood Angels for that Detachment
Here is a picture of the list in question. It clearly says Standard of Devastation. (top list) But, who knows what he really meant? Its hard to say.
To fix it, your most likely right, there would need to be those tags added. Either way, I don't see how this guy spent any effort in list building. And he should have.
Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.
What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.
Yeah and that was my point.
If your worried about list verification... Try to build it in the army builders. It is clear they are not 100%, but it is a good place to start. And it is clear that if this guy had done that, he might not have been DQ'ed.
After its gone through a army builder, maybe run it by the facebook group, or even just run the actual most problematic portions. Either way, this could have been avoided.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.
What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.
Was it not the same guy? I heard it was the same guy at Atlanta and this one.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.
What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.
Was it not the same guy? I heard it was the same guy at Atlanta and this one.
You heard incorrectly. They both share the first name.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.
What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.
Was it not the same guy? I heard it was the same guy at Atlanta and this one.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.
What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.
At the Nova Open he was caught using Creed's CP bonus without having him as his warlord.
This is not the first time he 'forgot' to read the rules for his army.
Breng77 wrote: Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.
I just spent 10 minutes looking for the Standard of Devastation on Battle Scribe under the Blood Angels entry. I didn't find it. How did you find it? Please let us know so it can be reported and fixed.
As others have mentioned it is misnamed on his list. That said to unlock relics for Blood Angels you need to set a BA character to your warlord. Once you do you can choose the relic banner on an ancient, and unlike space marines there is no place to set your chapter in BA so it never restricts your relics. Now the codex should always be checked, my response was simply to he idea that had he used BS he would not have had an issue.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.
What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.
At the Nova Open he was caught using Creed's CP bonus without having him as his warlord.
This is not the first time he 'forgot' to read the rules for his army.
Just an FYI, once that was pointed out to him he took a negative to his CP for the rest of the tournament.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.
What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.
At the Nova Open he was caught using Creed's CP bonus without having him as his warlord.
This is not the first time he 'forgot' to read the rules for his army.
Just an FYI, once that was pointed out to him he took a negative to his CP for the rest of the tournament.
'The rest of the tournament' being 1 game since I believe it was discovered in the finals (not 100% sure).
Anyway the point was that this is not his first offense of missing rules.
And as I pointed out to him when he came by in the thread earlier, one would think getting caught out like that once would make someone take extra care to avoid it in the future.
Obviously it did not.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.
What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.
At the Nova Open he was caught using Creed's CP bonus without having him as his warlord.
This is not the first time he 'forgot' to read the rules for his army.
Just an FYI, once that was pointed out to him he took a negative to his CP for the rest of the tournament.
A lot of people in these tournaments take ideas from one another. So you see someone you trust misplaying something, add it to your army, and boom - hosed.
You guys are expecting rules perfection. Until 40k has an app with all of this information in it, you're going to continue to see these errors.
Marmatag wrote: A lot of people in these tournaments take ideas from one another. So you see someone you trust misplaying something, add it to your army, and boom - hosed.
You guys are expecting rules perfection. Until 40k has an app with all of this information in it, you're going to continue to see these errors.
GW needs to get with the digital age, badly.
Or perhaps people who play in competitions/tournaments should do their utmost to ensure a legal list. I mean, you spend so much effort in playing you should ensure your list is 100% legal. Rolling out excuses such as "battlescribe in corrections" or "unclear rules" only wash in casual games. You have the tools at your disposal to check and verify your list - not doing so is mind boggling.
No one is expecting rules perfection - what we expect is a level of professionalism rather than abusing a hazy rule and blaming" xyx"when caught.
Crimson Devil wrote: Dakka does love a good lynching. Have you guys picked out a tree yet?
Yes, because calling out cheaters for cheating is lynching, and not at all a desire to see top-level competitive play actually be top-level competitive play. Even if it was a mistake (and kudos to the guy for trying to rectify it as he wrote earlier), it is pretty inexcusable that a top level player (Top 16) had a list-building error.
I said it before and I'll say it again - I can only hope that GW won't ever balance by these events, because they're clearly no different than casual games in my apartment, aside from the fact that there are arbitrarily assigned rankings and more players. Is 7 Flyrants a problem? Mathhammer says probably, and that's what you should balance by, not by these conventions.
Math hammer never tells the whole story, we are far better off using game results. The point is more it should never be just based off one players performance but instead consistent or numerous people using the same/similar builds around broken units. Put simply mat hammer alone doesn’t paint the full flyrant picture as it doesn’t take into account things like the ability to deepstrike, movement, interaction with psychic powers/stratagems/chapter traits, etc.
Crimson Devil wrote: Dakka does love a good lynching. Have you guys picked out a tree yet?
Yes, because calling out cheaters for cheating is lynching, and not at all a desire to see top-level competitive play actually be top-level competitive play. Even if it was a mistake (and kudos to the guy for trying to rectify it as he wrote earlier), it is pretty inexcusable that a top level player (Top 16) had a list-building error.
I said it before and I'll say it again - I can only hope that GW won't ever balance by these events, because they're clearly no different than casual games in my apartment, aside from the fact that there are arbitrarily assigned rankings and more players. Is 7 Flyrants a problem? Mathhammer says probably, and that's what you should balance by, not by these conventions.
No, it was a straight up lynching. People took the word of someone else that the same person did this twice and ran with it. We'll be waiting for when you screw up. We have the pitchforks ready. *stab stab*
quentra 753409 9901545 nullI wrote: said it before and I'll say it again - I can only hope that GW won't ever balance by these events, because they're clearly no different than casual games in my apartment, aside from the fact that there are arbitrarily assigned rankings and more players. Is 7 Flyrants a problem? Mathhammer says probably, and that's what you should balance by, not by these conventions.
Ahh the no true tournament argument. So what other points of data collection should they use to collect information on what players are running and what is the issue? They can't use tournaments because effectively they don't exist.
auticus wrote: I would ask TO's to step up and start validating army lists, especially at the level of Adepticon.
This kind of thing should never happen.
This has already been discussed as close to impossible to do given the size of the event relative to the size of the staff.
To support this argument: I don't think anything like this has ever come out of a 40k Invitational, where attendance is kept down to people who are "invited" (obviously).
How many of you guys could have your games streamed online and survive the scrutiny?
The answer is none of you.
How many of you are willing to volunteer your time to check army lists? Or Judge?
None of you. It might negatively effect your post count.
How many of you have spread bad information around?
Quite a few, so far Andrew Gonyo is still being accused in other threads for the crimes of all other Andrews. So good job guys! Criticize him for what he did, not every phantom that pops out of your bad memories and imaginations.
So yes I call it a lynching. He was punished and DQ from the event. I'm sorry your appetite for blood wasn't satisfied.
Wayniac wrote: Hopefully, the GW list building app will fix it. Any serious tournament game needs to have an official app for validating lists.
Yup, if GW says that the app makes lists legal, whether or not it agrees with the codex it would work. Then just have all players build their lists in the app and they are auto verified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson Devil wrote: How many of you guys could have your games streamed online and survive the scrutiny?
The answer is none of you.
How many of you are willing to volunteer your time to check army lists? Or Judge?
None of you. It might negatively effect your post count.
How many of you have spread bad information around?
Quite a few, so far Andrew Gonyo is still being accused in other threads for the crimes of all other Andrews. So good job guys! Criticize him for what he did, not every phantom that pops out of your bad memories and imaginations.
So yes I call it a lynching. He was punished and DQ from the event. I'm sorry your appetite for blood wasn't satisfied.
Largely this, a big problem in all these discussions is the number of players who believe they are flawless in their play, or expect something different from people on the top tables. But that is the disconnect again with the reality of competitive 40k and what a vocal minority of online players say is needed.
Crimson Devil wrote: How many of you guys could have your games streamed online and survive the scrutiny?
The answer is none of you.
How many of you are willing to volunteer your time to check army lists? Or Judge?
None of you. It might negatively effect your post count.
How many of you have spread bad information around?
Quite a few, so far Andrew Gonyo is still being accused in other threads for the crimes of all other Andrews. So good job guys! Criticize him for what he did, not every phantom that pops out of your bad memories and imaginations.
So yes I call it a lynching. He was punished and DQ from the event. I'm sorry your appetite for blood wasn't satisfied.
"We are not perfect, therefor we should stop trying to be better"
horsegak.
I worst part of this is that he is still being crucified after he voluntarily LEFT the competition. The disqualification was, by his admission, self-imposed.
Yeah, tell-tale sign of a cheater.
Judge questions list, player says oops... what do we do about it? Judge says fix it. Player says I think I don't deserve to be here anymore.
Yeah, roast this poor sod.
Couldn't have been a mistake that he is/has paid for. Let's make sure we rub it home.
He even tried to come here and confess the issue to you all, yet it was not enough to sate the bloodlust.
Crimson Devil wrote: How many of you guys could have your games streamed online and survive the scrutiny?
The answer is none of you.
How many of you are willing to volunteer your time to check army lists? Or Judge?
None of you. It might negatively effect your post count.
How many of you have spread bad information around?
Quite a few, so far Andrew Gonyo is still being accused in other threads for the crimes of all other Andrews. So good job guys! Criticize him for what he did, not every phantom that pops out of your bad memories and imaginations.
So yes I call it a lynching. He was punished and DQ from the event. I'm sorry your appetite for blood wasn't satisfied.
I used to run a battlereport youtube for our campaign games and yeah you get hammered pretty hard in those, that was one reason I stopped. No one wanted to be in them anymore because every little mistake was blown up and people accused of cheating etc when they were just honest mistakes.
I will say that when I run events I do check every list, though I deal with 20-30 lists usually not 120 or whatever Adepticon and LVO are. I still think that they need to put time in policing the lists if they want to run the world series of gaming tournaments though.
I used to run a battlereport youtube for our campaign games and yeah you get hammered pretty hard in those, that was one reason I stopped. No one wanted to be in them anymore because every little mistake was blown up and people accused of cheating etc when they were just honest mistakes.
I will say that when I run events I do check every list, though I deal with 20-30 lists usually not 120 or whatever Adepticon and LVO are. I still think that they need to put time in policing the lists if they want to run the world series of gaming tournaments though.
The hard part is is we're not talking 120, we're talking three to five hundred.
I recall the first time my group went to the Adepticon TT during the golden age of 5th, we marveled at how every team we played wanted to play cover rules substantially different from the others.
I think we were playing it right, because we have that one anal retentive guy everyone knows that reads the rules waaay more carefully than everyone else. But I always wondered if anyone really plays the same game as anyone else..
Think about it. That suggests that there were 12-20 people I alone witnessed that day "cheating", possibly including myself. It the huge event, but that's still what, 2.5% of the total and 60-100% of the people I personally observed?
Yes, yes, list mistakes are list mistakes, and people really need to know better about that kind of stuff, but let's not pretend that rules getting fethed up in a game are new or specific to any one particular person. They're really not.
Crimson Devil wrote: How many of you guys could have your games streamed online and survive the scrutiny?
The answer is none of you.
How many of you are willing to volunteer your time to check army lists? Or Judge?
None of you. It might negatively effect your post count.
How many of you have spread bad information around?
Quite a few, so far Andrew Gonyo is still being accused in other threads for the crimes of all other Andrews. So good job guys! Criticize him for what he did, not every phantom that pops out of your bad memories and imaginations.
So yes I call it a lynching. He was punished and DQ from the event. I'm sorry your appetite for blood wasn't satisfied.
"We are not perfect, therefor we should stop trying to be better"
horsegak.
There's a big gap between a lynching and retrospection.
Primark G wrote: It will be possible when GW releases Battle Roster.
Apart from mistakes it has.
Depends on GW, if they come out and state (or a specific tournament does I guess) that any list made using their app is legal. Then they are legal regardless of any disagreement they might have with the actual rules.
In fact there is nothing currently stopping a TO from saying all players must make their lists in battlescribe and all of those lists are legal. They just don't because they are aware mistakes exist.
Primark G wrote: It will be possible when GW releases Battle Roster.
Apart from mistakes it has.
Depends on GW, if they come out and state (or a specific tournament does I guess) that any list made using their app is legal. Then they are legal regardless of any disagreement they might have with the actual rules.
In fact there is nothing currently stopping a TO from saying all players must make their lists in battlescribe and all of those lists are legal. They just don't because they are aware mistakes exist.
So great. Paid codex invalidated. Nope. I bet codex will trump app
Then there will always be mistakes unless the app is mistake free. From a competitive standpoint having a list building app be the final say is far superior to having codex trump app.
The way they sell codices is by not having rules (just points, which with all the changes is a good thing). The big hit would be chapter approved since points changes are a big part of that book.
Largely this, a big problem in all these discussions is the number of players who believe they are flawless in their play, or expect something different from people on the top tables. But that is the disconnect again with the reality of competitive 40k and what a vocal minority of online players say is needed.
Speaking strictly for myself: I'm not flawless in my play. I'm quite aware of this. I have to consult my rules, I have to check things, I secondguess myself quite often. My rulebook and codices have stickynotes poking out with crudely written "Regimental Doctrines Here" or "Markerlights 'n' PewPews". It makes for a bit more ease of play and allows for me to be able to flip to the page quick and consult for either myself or my opponent.
What I expect from competitive players is that the people who purportedly have been the driving focus for this new edition and its "Matched Play" component and who are playing "competitively" to be able to do something as simple as build a freaking army list without there being such glaring issues that people can reasonably make an argument that either they were cheating or they have no business playing competitively.
Maybe I do expect too much from the people "on the top tables", but given that things they're doing are affecting every facet of the game? I expect them to be able to do something as simple as write a damned army list without screwing up.
Largely this, a big problem in all these discussions is the number of players who believe they are flawless in their play, or expect something different from people on the top tables. But that is the disconnect again with the reality of competitive 40k and what a vocal minority of online players say is needed.
Speaking strictly for myself:
I'm not flawless in my play. I'm quite aware of this. What I expect is that the people who purportedly have been the driving focus for this new edition and its "Matched Play" component and who are playing "competitively" to be able to do something as simple as build a freaking army list without there being such glaring issues that people can reasonably make an argument that either they were cheating or they have no business playing competitively.
Maybe I do expect too much from the people "on the top tables", but given that things they're doing are affecting every facet of the game? I expect them to be able to do something as simple as write a damned army list without screwing up.
The only changes they're driving are the changes to matched play. Ultimately yes I'd prefer it if they were mistake free, the counter point I'd offer is Andrew's mistakes doesn't discount other data garnered in the same space.
The only changes they're driving are the changes to matched play. Ultimately yes I'd prefer it if they were mistake free, the counter point I'd offer is Andrew's mistakes doesn't discount other data garnered in the same space.
The nerf to Commissars affects all facets of play. It was an Errata that replaced the Commissar's rules.
Now, you could say that outside of Matched Play you can discount it...but really, who's going to let you get away with that?
I will say that my point is not that Andrew's mistakes "discount other data garnered in the same space" but it raises a huge concern that players either:
a) Don't actually know what they're doing and are getting to where they are simply based on metagaming.
b) Are actively bending/flaunting rules in order to win.
c) Showcase that competitive play is inherently ridiculous.
Largely this, a big problem in all these discussions is the number of players who believe they are flawless in their play, or expect something different from people on the top tables. But that is the disconnect again with the reality of competitive 40k and what a vocal minority of online players say is needed.
Speaking strictly for myself:
I'm not flawless in my play. I'm quite aware of this. I have to consult my rules, I have to check things, I secondguess myself quite often. My rulebook and codices have stickynotes poking out with crudely written "Regimental Doctrines Here" or "Markerlights 'n' PewPews". It makes for a bit more ease of play and allows for me to be able to flip to the page quick and consult for either myself or my opponent.
What I expect from competitive players is that the people who purportedly have been the driving focus for this new edition and its "Matched Play" component and who are playing "competitively" to be able to do something as simple as build a freaking army list without there being such glaring issues that people can reasonably make an argument that either they were cheating or they have no business playing competitively.
Maybe I do expect too much from the people "on the top tables", but given that things they're doing are affecting every facet of the game? I expect them to be able to do something as simple as write a damned army list without screwing up.
And as a former TO I would tell you that list mistakes happen all the time. Top players are actually more likely to make them because they chase the meta and change armies more frequently. In this case most codices don't have language preventing you from taking "generic" relics on any non-named characters. I believe only Dark Angels and Blood Angels work this way. So for someone jumping books it is not beyond reason that this mistake could happen, and the player would not even know to look for it.
Marmatag wrote: He was disqualified. That is punishment enough.
Again, you can try to attack the playerbase, but this is a symptom of two things:
1. A living ruleset that is regularly changing, and also totally inconsistent from book to book in how it plays
2. Total lack of a tool to enable players to build their lists
The amount of changes to keep up with- this last year - were insane.
And we're still in for the same ride this year with Tau, DE, Necrons, IK, DW, and Harlies hitting the scene PLUS whatever other codexes hit PLUS the "Spring" FAQ, Fall FAQ, and CA.
The only changes they're driving are the changes to matched play. Ultimately yes I'd prefer it if they were mistake free, the counter point I'd offer is Andrew's mistakes doesn't discount other data garnered in the same space.
The nerf to Commissars affects all facets of play. It was an Errata that replaced the Commissar's rules.
Now, you could say that outside of Matched Play you can discount it...but really, who's going to let you get away with that?
I will say that my point is not that Andrew's mistakes "discount other data garnered in the same space" but it raises a huge concern that players either:
a) Don't actually know what they're doing and are getting to where they are simply based on metagaming.
b) Are actively bending/flaunting rules in order to win.
c) Showcase that competitive play is inherently ridiculous.
I'm actually quite worried about A.
It saddens me we might be in a state in the hobby where everyone just netlists, without really understanding the list themselves. They take lists to events they havn't thought of, with an understanding of the rules for that list they picked up watching youtube or the forums, and might misplay things or take wrong units or illegal lists because they assumed whoever they copied it off was doing it right.
It really wouldn't feel right to me to "win" an event with a list you made zero effort to write yourself. How much of that win is really yours, given how important we all agree list writing is to 40k?
Marmatag wrote: He was disqualified. That is punishment enough.
Again, you can try to attack the playerbase, but this is a symptom of two things:
1. A living ruleset that is regularly changing, and also totally inconsistent from book to book in how it plays
Again, I don't have Blood Angels to check but does Gabriel Seth even have the Blood Angels keyword?
2. Total lack of a tool to enable players to build their lists
It's called the army book, paper, and a pencil. It might be a low tech approach but pretending that people can't handwrite lists in advance to check them over is a joke.
The amount of changes to keep up with- this last year - were insane.
Yes, because it was a brand new edition. I'm frankly surprised that anybody bothered with tournaments until all the codices are out.
It saddens me we might be in a state in the hobby where everyone just netlists, without really understanding the list themselves. They take lists to events they havn't thought of, with an understanding of the rules for that list they picked up watching youtube or the forums, and might misplay things or take wrong units or illegal lists because they assumed whoever they copied it off was doing it right.
It really wouldn't feel right to me to "win" an event with a list you made zero effort to write yourself. How much of that win is really yours, given how important we all agree list writing is to 40k?
I can mostly guarantee you that people don't win with a list they don't understand and just picked from the internet. They will have played their list locally against the toughest crap they can find several times before heading to a tournament.
One possible exception - the Stormraven bonanza before the nerf.
And as a former TO I would tell you that list mistakes happen all the time. Top players are actually more likely to make them because they chase the meta and change armies more frequently. In this case most codices don't have language preventing you from taking "generic" relics on any non-named characters. I believe only Dark Angels and Blood Angels work this way. So for someone jumping books it is not beyond reason that this mistake could happen, and the player would not even know to look for it.
Again, without having read Blood Angels I can't directly respond to this. It concerns me however that if it were worded something like this:
The following Relics are available to models with the Blood Angels keyword...
and if Gabriel Seth had something like:
Replace the Blood Angels keyword with the Flesh Tearers keyword
If any wording like that is present, it concerns me that people missed that in their rush to metachase.
It saddens me we might be in a state in the hobby where everyone just netlists, without really understanding the list themselves. They take lists to events they havn't thought of, with an understanding of the rules for that list they picked up watching youtube or the forums, and might misplay things or take wrong units or illegal lists because they assumed whoever they copied it off was doing it right.
It really wouldn't feel right to me to "win" an event with a list you made zero effort to write yourself. How much of that win is really yours, given how important we all agree list writing is to 40k?
I can mostly guarantee you that people don't win with a list they don't understand and just picked from the internet. They will have played their list locally against the toughest crap they can find several times before heading to a tournament.
And every single one of those toughest crap games with serious comparative players failed to spot the list was illegal not once, but twice? And that this person isn't the first time this has happened at a major event?
Because, like, if these lists have totally been playtested this much against such serious people, how do list errors like this keep popping up? Because it's hardly like this one guy is the glaring exception to 40k's spotless record of lists at major events, is it?
And as a former TO I would tell you that list mistakes happen all the time. Top players are actually more likely to make them because they chase the meta and change armies more frequently. In this case most codices don't have language preventing you from taking "generic" relics on any non-named characters. I believe only Dark Angels and Blood Angels work this way. So for someone jumping books it is not beyond reason that this mistake could happen, and the player would not even know to look for it.
Again, without having read Blood Angels I can't directly respond to this. It concerns me however that if it were worded something like this:
The following Relics are available to models with the Blood Angels keyword...
and if Gabriel Seth had something like:
Replace the Blood Angels keyword with the Flesh Tearers keyword
If any wording like that is present, it concerns me that people missed that in their rush to metachase.
The good news is none of that language is present. The language regarding successor chapters and their relics is the third sentence down in the relic section.
And every single one of those toughest crap games with serious comparative players failed to spot the list was illegal not once, but twice? And that this person isn't the first time this has happened at a major event?
Because, like, if these lists have totally been playtested this much against such serious people, how do list errors like this keep popping up? Because it's hardly like this one guy is the glaring exception to 40k's spotless record of lists at major events, is it?
People tweak their list all the time. What he started testing may not be what ended up being in the final list.
It saddens me we might be in a state in the hobby where everyone just netlists, without really understanding the list themselves. They take lists to events they havn't thought of, with an understanding of the rules for that list they picked up watching youtube or the forums, and might misplay things or take wrong units or illegal lists because they assumed whoever they copied it off was doing it right.
It really wouldn't feel right to me to "win" an event with a list you made zero effort to write yourself. How much of that win is really yours, given how important we all agree list writing is to 40k?
I can mostly guarantee you that people don't win with a list they don't understand and just picked from the internet. They will have played their list locally against the toughest crap they can find several times before heading to a tournament.
And every single one of those toughest crap games with serious comparative players failed to spot the list was illegal not once, but twice? And that this person isn't the first time this has happened at a major event?
Because, like, if these lists have totally been playtested this much against such serious people, how do list errors like this keep popping up? Because it's hardly like this one guy is the glaring exception to 40k's spotless record of lists at major events, is it?
Real question? What's your aim? What's the goal here? To prove that tournaments are bad? That top level players are bad? I see this kind of stuff posted and I'm curious as to what you hope accomplish by making this statement?
It saddens me we might be in a state in the hobby where everyone just netlists, without really understanding the list themselves. They take lists to events they havn't thought of, with an understanding of the rules for that list they picked up watching youtube or the forums, and might misplay things or take wrong units or illegal lists because they assumed whoever they copied it off was doing it right.
It really wouldn't feel right to me to "win" an event with a list you made zero effort to write yourself. How much of that win is really yours, given how important we all agree list writing is to 40k?
I can mostly guarantee you that people don't win with a list they don't understand and just picked from the internet. They will have played their list locally against the toughest crap they can find several times before heading to a tournament.
And every single one of those toughest crap games with serious comparative players failed to spot the list was illegal not once, but twice? And that this person isn't the first time this has happened at a major event?
Because, like, if these lists have totally been playtested this much against such serious people, how do list errors like this keep popping up? Because it's hardly like this one guy is the glaring exception to 40k's spotless record of lists at major events, is it?
Real question? What's your aim? What's the goal here? To prove that tournaments are bad? That top level players are bad? I see this kind of stuff posted and I'm curious as to what you hope accomplish by making this statement?
To provoke conversation and thought about how netlisting is unhealthy for the hobby, to the extent that it's used by the "Pro Players" And _why_ it's used by the Pro-players, and what can be done to generate a better hobby?
The good news is none of that language is present. The language regarding successor chapters and their relics is the third sentence down in the relic section.
I'll make sure I check the wording on Saturday if I pop over to my local shop.
Real question? What's your aim? What's the goal here? To prove that tournaments are bad? That top level players are bad? I see this kind of stuff posted and I'm curious as to what you hope accomplish by making this statement?
I can't speak for him, but frankly for me? It's to "prove" that matched play is a joke and that the trend of netlists based off of tournament lists is not just silly it can be downright harmful to the game. I've seen at least one or two people locally running the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia garbage and have called them out on it accordingly, not a single one actually bothered to read the entries. They just copy/paste and call it a day.
And every single one of those toughest crap games with serious comparative players failed to spot the list was illegal not once, but twice? And that this person isn't the first time this has happened at a major event?
If none of them were against BA players, then yeah. Probably. As has been said already, those restrictions only exist in the DA/BA books. And the DA book doesn't even have any reason to be a successor chapter over "Dark Angels". How would anyone who hasn't read Blood Angels know?
The good news is none of that language is present. The language regarding successor chapters and their relics is the third sentence down in the relic section.
I'll make sure I check the wording on Saturday if I pop over to my local shop.
Real question? What's your aim? What's the goal here? To prove that tournaments are bad? That top level players are bad? I see this kind of stuff posted and I'm curious as to what you hope accomplish by making this statement?
I can't speak for him, but frankly for me? It's to "prove" that matched play is a joke and that the trend of netlists based off of tournament lists is not just silly it can be downright harmful to the game. I've seen at least one or two people locally running the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia garbage and have called them out on it accordingly, not a single one actually bothered to read the entries. They just copy/paste and call it a day.
The good news is none of that language is present. The language regarding successor chapters and their relics is the third sentence down in the relic section.
I'll make sure I check the wording on Saturday if I pop over to my local shop.
Real question? What's your aim? What's the goal here? To prove that tournaments are bad? That top level players are bad? I see this kind of stuff posted and I'm curious as to what you hope accomplish by making this statement?
I can't speak for him, but frankly for me? It's to "prove" that matched play is a joke and that the trend of netlists based off of tournament lists is not just silly it can be downright harmful to the game. I've seen at least one or two people locally running the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia garbage and have called them out on it accordingly, not a single one actually bothered to read the entries. They just copy/paste and call it a day.
There is no end result there - effectively you've stated your intent is to denigrate a group of players. Or do you think by posting about it on Dakka you're going to meaningfully change what is happening? I fail to understand what possible positive thing can occur from statements of this nature.
And every single one of those toughest crap games with serious comparative players failed to spot the list was illegal not once, but twice? And that this person isn't the first time this has happened at a major event?
If none of them were against BA players, then yeah. Probably. As has been said already, those restrictions only exist in the DA/BA books. And the DA book doesn't even have any reason to be a successor chapter over "Dark Angels". How would anyone who hasn't read Blood Angels know?
I dunno, about anyone else, like, but when I play competatively the first thing to come to my mind is "Know Thine Enemy."
You'd seriously prep for Adeptacon against people who'd never even read your book? You'd play against competative tourny lists and never read their book?
How are you going to know what your opponent might do? How their units might work? What their stratagems are? Don't we have a whole thread dedicated to the fact It is now your responsibility to catch your opponent cheating at an event, the judge will not intervene. how can you possibly do this if you've not made the slightest effort to read and memorise their rules?
The good news is none of that language is present. The language regarding successor chapters and their relics is the third sentence down in the relic section.
I'll make sure I check the wording on Saturday if I pop over to my local shop.
Real question? What's your aim? What's the goal here? To prove that tournaments are bad? That top level players are bad? I see this kind of stuff posted and I'm curious as to what you hope accomplish by making this statement?
I can't speak for him, but frankly for me? It's to "prove" that matched play is a joke and that the trend of netlists based off of tournament lists is not just silly it can be downright harmful to the game. I've seen at least one or two people locally running the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia garbage and have called them out on it accordingly, not a single one actually bothered to read the entries. They just copy/paste and call it a day.
There is no end result there - effectively you've stated your intent is to denigrate a group of players. Or do you think by posting about it on Dakka you're going to meaningfully change what is happening? I fail to understand what possible positive thing can occur from statements of this nature.
Ehhh...I stated that my intent is to denigrate a system of play, not the players themselves.
The possible positive thing that can occur from statements of this nature, however, is that people actually start reading their damn army books before just copy/pasting army lists.
And every single one of those toughest crap games with serious comparative players failed to spot the list was illegal not once, but twice? And that this person isn't the first time this has happened at a major event?
If none of them were against BA players, then yeah. Probably. As has been said already, those restrictions only exist in the DA/BA books. And the DA book doesn't even have any reason to be a successor chapter over "Dark Angels". How would anyone who hasn't read Blood Angels know?
I kinda feel like this is a catch 22. While sure, people who haven't read Blood Angels likely wouldn't know...I'd imagine that the more competitive players who metachase at least have torrents/PDFs of the books to peruse?
It just boggles my mind that we can have people argue that: a) Competitive players are more likely to metachase than noncompetitive players. and b) Competitive players can't be expected to at least having a passing familiarity with the books out there.
And every single one of those toughest crap games with serious comparative players failed to spot the list was illegal not once, but twice? And that this person isn't the first time this has happened at a major event?
If none of them were against BA players, then yeah. Probably. As has been said already, those restrictions only exist in the DA/BA books. And the DA book doesn't even have any reason to be a successor chapter over "Dark Angels". How would anyone who hasn't read Blood Angels know?
I dunno, about anyone else, like, but when I play competatively the first thing to come to my mind is "Know Thine Enemy."
You'd seriously prep for Adeptacon against people who'd never even read your book? You'd play against competative tourny lists and never read their book?
How are you going to know what your opponent might do? How their units might work? What their stratagems are? Don't we have a whole thread dedicated to the fact It is now your responsibility to catch your opponent cheating at an event, the judge will not intervene. how can you possibly do this if you've not made the slightest effort to read and memorise their rules?
So you mean to tell me you know every stratagem in every competitive book? Come on man. I have a really strong memory recall and I know many of the major strats but I don't commit to memory every nuance of every book I could play against. It just isn't possible. If you told me a Leman Russ did something that seemed unreasonable I'd ask to see the rules.
It saddens me we might be in a state in the hobby where everyone just netlists, without really understanding the list themselves. They take lists to events they havn't thought of, with an understanding of the rules for that list they picked up watching youtube or the forums, and might misplay things or take wrong units or illegal lists because they assumed whoever they copied it off was doing it right.
It really wouldn't feel right to me to "win" an event with a list you made zero effort to write yourself. How much of that win is really yours, given how important we all agree list writing is to 40k?
I can mostly guarantee you that people don't win with a list they don't understand and just picked from the internet. They will have played their list locally against the toughest crap they can find several times before heading to a tournament.
And every single one of those toughest crap games with serious comparative players failed to spot the list was illegal not once, but twice? And that this person isn't the first time this has happened at a major event?
Because, like, if these lists have totally been playtested this much against such serious people, how do list errors like this keep popping up? Because it's hardly like this one guy is the glaring exception to 40k's spotless record of lists at major events, is it?
Real question? What's your aim? What's the goal here? To prove that tournaments are bad? That top level players are bad? I see this kind of stuff posted and I'm curious as to what you hope accomplish by making this statement?
To provoke conversation and thought about how netlisting is unhealthy for the hobby, to the extent that it's used by the "Pro Players" And _why_ it's used by the Pro-players, and what can be done to generate a better hobby?
I'm surprised people are still making a big deal about this. He DQed himself and attempted to apologize to all his previous opponents.I understand how easy it is to make a mistake like this (especially when meta chasing in an edition that's been updated at a pace we have never seen). As long as he learns from his mistake and takes precautions to prevent it in the future I don't see a big deal. The issue with practice games is your opponents typically play different codexes as you. I helped my friend prep for LVO but id have no clue if one unit in his list had the wrong keyword because I don't play DG. I like the idea of having to download your list to something like Dakka before the tournament so the players can see what players are running and point out mistakes like this.
And every single one of those toughest crap games with serious comparative players failed to spot the list was illegal not once, but twice? And that this person isn't the first time this has happened at a major event?
If none of them were against BA players, then yeah. Probably. As has been said already, those restrictions only exist in the DA/BA books. And the DA book doesn't even have any reason to be a successor chapter over "Dark Angels". How would anyone who hasn't read Blood Angels know?
I dunno, about anyone else, like, but when I play competatively the first thing to come to my mind is "Know Thine Enemy."
You'd seriously prep for Adeptacon against people who'd never even read your book? You'd play against competative tourny lists and never read their book?
How are you going to know what your opponent might do? How their units might work? What their stratagems are? Don't we have a whole thread dedicated to the fact It is now your responsibility to catch your opponent cheating at an event, the judge will not intervene. how can you possibly do this if you've not made the slightest effort to read and memorise their rules?
So you mean to tell me you know every stratagem in every competitive book? Come on man. I have a really strong memory recall and I know many of the major strats but I don't commit to memory every nuance of every book I could play against. It just isn't possible. If you told me a Leman Russ did something that seemed unreasonable I'd ask to see the rules.
I like to think I do, yes. It's like... 2 A4 pages. Across like, a dozen books, give or take.
We're not talking university exam level studies here.
I don't expect every single player to put this much effort into the hobby, but we're specifically discussing The Best Players In The World. If they don't know, then... Who does?
I'm surprised people are still making a big deal about this. He DQed himself and attempted to apologize to all his previous opponents.I understand how easy it is to make a mistake like this (especially when meta chasing in an edition that's been updated at a pace we have never seen). As long as he learns from his mistake and takes precautions to prevent it in the future I don't see a big deal. The issue with practice games is your opponents typically play different codexes as you. I helped my friend prep for LVO but id have no clue if one unit in his list had the wrong keyword because I don't play DG. I like the idea of having to download your list to something like Dakka before the tournament so the players can see what players are running and point out mistakes like this.
I can't confirm or deny this, but someone has mentioned that this particular individual had also ran a list at Nova where he was giving himself the bonus Command Points from Creed while not having Creed as his Warlord.
IF this is true, then it's not just one mistake at this point--it's a case of this individual just metachasing and not reading the damn rules.
And every single one of those toughest crap games with serious comparative players failed to spot the list was illegal not once, but twice? And that this person isn't the first time this has happened at a major event?
If none of them were against BA players, then yeah. Probably. As has been said already, those restrictions only exist in the DA/BA books. And the DA book doesn't even have any reason to be a successor chapter over "Dark Angels". How would anyone who hasn't read Blood Angels know?
I dunno, about anyone else, like, but when I play competatively the first thing to come to my mind is "Know Thine Enemy."
You'd seriously prep for Adeptacon against people who'd never even read your book? You'd play against competative tourny lists and never read their book?
How are you going to know what your opponent might do? How their units might work? What their stratagems are? Don't we have a whole thread dedicated to the fact It is now your responsibility to catch your opponent cheating at an event, the judge will not intervene. how can you possibly do this if you've not made the slightest effort to read and memorise their rules?
Your post kinda proves how this mistake is made. His opponent said "hey whats that relic do" He says "relic x does y".... they go on playing. The player is now reinforced that relic x does y even though he misread the entry by cause he's the only player of "z" faction in his group. He might even be avoiding faction "z" because he doesn't want his list to be stolen.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: I like to think I do, yes. It's like... 2 A4 pages. Across like, a dozen books, give or take.
We're not talking university exam level studies here.
I don't expect every single player to put this much effort into the hobby, but we're specifically discussing The Best Players In The World. If they don't know, then... Who does?
So you mean to tell me you have committed to memory all roughly 170 stratagems that an army might use? Color me dubious.
I can't speak for him, but frankly for me? It's to "prove" that matched play is a joke
You'll only damage yourself while the rest of us push forward.
and that the trend of netlists based off of tournament lists is not just silly it can be downright harmful to the game.
Which is why we have FAQs and why this one was delayed.
I've seen at least one or two people locally running the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia garbage and have called them out on it accordingly, not a single one actually bothered to read the entries. They just copy/paste and call it a day.
Your post kinda proves how this mistake is made. His opponent said "hey whats that relic do" He says "relic x does y".... they go on playing. The player is now reinforced that relic x does y even though he misread the entry by cause he's the only player of "z" faction in his group. He might even be avoiding faction "z" because he doesn't want his list to be stolen.
This has happened quite a few times locally. Some players reads something the wrong way, states it with conviction during a game, and the other players goes on to their next game with the same conviction until someone steps in and says, "I'm not sure that's correct - show me".
AdmiralHalsey wrote: I like to think I do, yes. It's like... 2 A4 pages. Across like, a dozen books, give or take.
We're not talking university exam level studies here.
I don't expect every single player to put this much effort into the hobby, but we're specifically discussing The Best Players In The World. If they don't know, then... Who does?
So you mean to tell me you have committed to memory all roughly 170 stratagems that an army might use? Color me dubious.
That's significantly less than someone has to learn at High School.
Are you suggesting you find it hard to believe that I'm capable of learning to the extent of a high school student, or...?
I'm pretty good with Magic cards too, and there are significantly more than 170 of those per set.
I can't speak for him, but frankly for me? It's to "prove" that matched play is a joke
You'll only damage yourself while the rest of us push forward.
Guard changes & the Tau Commander 'nerf' beg to differ.
and that the trend of netlists based off of tournament lists is not just silly it can be downright harmful to the game.
Which is why we have FAQs and why this one was delayed.
FAQs don't do diddly when they're trying to patch up holes in a sunken ship.
I've seen at least one or two people locally running the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia garbage and have called them out on it accordingly, not a single one actually bothered to read the entries. They just copy/paste and call it a day.
That people netlist =\= matched play is a joke
"MATCHED PLAY IS THE MOST BALANCED WAY TO PLAY! OPTIMIZE ALL THE THINGS! NETLISTS!"
*play lists that are illegal because you netlisted and didn't read the rules*
It absolutely, 100% does equate to matched play being a damned joke. It's the meta now and with how GW keeps plugging the tournaments on the Community page, these kinds of trash lists where they're not legal keep getting exposure.
Your post kinda proves how this mistake is made. His opponent said "hey whats that relic do" He says "relic x does y".... they go on playing. The player is now reinforced that relic x does y even though he misread the entry by cause he's the only player of "z" faction in his group. He might even be avoiding faction "z" because he doesn't want his list to be stolen.
This has happened quite a few times locally. Some players reads something the wrong way, states it with conviction during a game, and the other players goes on to their next game with the same conviction until someone steps in and says, "I'm not sure that's correct - show me".
Which was actually the point that Halsey seemed to have been making--that competitive players are, based upon the idea of "they're the metachasers!" going to be the ones asking "show me how that works".
I dunno, about anyone else, like, but when I play competatively the first thing to come to my mind is "Know Thine Enemy."
You'd seriously prep for Adeptacon against people who'd never even read your book? You'd play against competative tourny lists and never read their book?
I'd prep against whoever I had available to prep against. I've played at Adepticon having never read some codexes. I think there were four years we played. Only time it ever bit us in the ass was on one table of one game in one year when someone threw Demons with three CSM players. And we won that one.
How are you going to know what your opponent might do? How their units might work? What their stratagems are? Don't we have a whole thread dedicated to the fact It is now your responsibility to catch your opponent cheating at an event, the judge will not intervene. how can you possibly do this if you've not made the slightest effort to read and memorise their rules?
There might be a little bit of a gap between "missing third sentence of the introductory section paragraph no one reads because they're identical except for two exceptions, apparently" and "not made the slightest effort to read and memorise their rules". You might have infinite time and an eidetic memory, but I've got a job and perpetual distractions.
And, ya know, tournaments are full of sleep deprived drunk dudes who haven't showered in a day or two. Stuff's going to slip through the cracks everywhere. You can either set your world view to take that into account with the goal of trying to do better, or you can be perpetually angry and shocked when it happens.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: I like to think I do, yes. It's like... 2 A4 pages. Across like, a dozen books, give or take.
We're not talking university exam level studies here.
I don't expect every single player to put this much effort into the hobby, but we're specifically discussing The Best Players In The World. If they don't know, then... Who does?
So you mean to tell me you have committed to memory all roughly 170 stratagems that an army might use? Color me dubious.
That's significantly less than someone has to learn at High School.
Are you suggesting you find it hard to believe that I'm capable of learning to the extent of a high school student, or...?
I'm pretty good with Magic cards too, and there are significantly more than 170 of those per set.
Magic cards have far less variance in language and bearing that stratagems due (thanks to a more coherent core rules block they plug in to). Also, I'm not asking you know generally what they do, I'm asking if you know the exact wording for each.
I can't speak for him, but frankly for me? It's to "prove" that matched play is a joke
You'll only damage yourself while the rest of us push forward.
Guard changes & the Tau Commander 'nerf' beg to differ.
and that the trend of netlists based off of tournament lists is not just silly it can be downright harmful to the game.
Which is why we have FAQs and why this one was delayed.
FAQs don't do diddly when they're trying to patch up holes in a sunken ship.
I've seen at least one or two people locally running the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia garbage and have called them out on it accordingly, not a single one actually bothered to read the entries. They just copy/paste and call it a day.
That people netlist =\= matched play is a joke
"MATCHED PLAY IS THE MOST BALANCED WAY TO PLAY! OPTIMIZE ALL THE THINGS! NETLISTS!"
*play lists that are illegal because you netlisted and didn't read the rules*
It absolutely, 100% does equate to matched play being a damned joke. It's the meta now and with how GW keeps plugging the tournaments on the Community page, these kinds of trash lists where they're not legal keep getting exposure.
Your post kinda proves how this mistake is made. His opponent said "hey whats that relic do" He says "relic x does y".... they go on playing. The player is now reinforced that relic x does y even though he misread the entry by cause he's the only player of "z" faction in his group. He might even be avoiding faction "z" because he doesn't want his list to be stolen.
This has happened quite a few times locally. Some players reads something the wrong way, states it with conviction during a game, and the other players goes on to their next game with the same conviction until someone steps in and says, "I'm not sure that's correct - show me".
Which was actually the point that Halsey seemed to have been making--that competitive players are, based upon the idea of "they're the metachasers!" going to be the ones asking "show me how that works".
While I haven't chased the Meta in 40k it seems to work just like every other game I've played. People chasing the meta have to change deck, list, builds so often to keep up that they often don't know as much about what they are playing as people who play whatever for fun. For example, when I played ESO I played a heavy armor build when it first came out that nobody played because cloth was slightly better. After a small patch and someone making a PVP video of me solo pvping everyone wanted to play my build. I go no stop DMs for like a week from very experienced and good players wanting my build. They didn't understand the ins and outs of it they just wanted to keep up.
My point is these people are in a rush to keep up wich gives them less opertunity to read the rules and ask questions (they are trying to squeeze in as much practice as they can and are most likely using time limits to simulate the tournament they are attending). Im not suprised at all that the most competitive players play the sloppiest. Its the person thats played the same army for 5 editions and has read the book 20 times thats going to have the best understanding of the rules not the guy who picked up the army after it won some local event.
And as a former TO I would tell you that list mistakes happen all the time. Top players are actually more likely to make them because they chase the meta and change armies more frequently. In this case most codices don't have language preventing you from taking "generic" relics on any non-named characters. I believe only Dark Angels and Blood Angels work this way. So for someone jumping books it is not beyond reason that this mistake could happen, and the player would not even know to look for it.
Again, without having read Blood Angels I can't directly respond to this. It concerns me however that if it were worded something like this:
The following Relics are available to models with the Blood Angels keyword...
and if Gabriel Seth had something like:
Replace the Blood Angels keyword with the Flesh Tearers keyword
If any wording like that is present, it concerns me that people missed that in their rush to metachase.
The wording is as follows
"IF your army is led by a Blood Angles warlord, then before the battle you may give one of the following relics to a blood angels character.....If your army is led by a blood angels successor chapter , then before the battle you may give one character from that chapter an Archangel's Shard."
So it is clear if you read it. It just so happens that there are only 2 books like this, and only Blood Angels actually has successor characters. So flesh tearers are really the only place that this would come up in any army competitively. Every other book has a bunch of generic relics that can be given to any "chapter" and then specific relics for specific "chapters".
So if someone picked up the book after playing basically any other army they might just assume that relics work the same way as any other book.
So could it have been caught by reading every word in the codex, absolutely.
Is it an easy mistake to make, absolutely.
He deserved the DQ/resignation.
He doesn't deserve the continued bashing based upon said mistake.
As I said top players change armies a lot, this leads to a more shallow knowledge of rules that are in some of those books because they don't have a ton of time with each army list.
My overall point was how often list mistakes happen. When I used to list check I found errors all the time, and this was before the day of relics, chapter traits etc. I once found a list that was literally 500 points over that was submitted by a player for a 2k tournament.
Asmodios wrote: Im not suprised at all that the most competitive players play the sloppiest. Its the person thats played the same army for 5 editions and has read the book 20 times thats going to have the best understanding of the rules not the guy who picked up the army after it won some local event.
I don't know about that - this is fairly anecdotal. We don't have data on how often "casual only" players screw up their lists and abilities.
I recently played a game with a gentlemen who assured me he had been playing this army since "2nd ed" and screwed up so many rules - to his benefit - that are written plain as day in the codex. It's just not a high profile case that he didn't pay for X when he should have, or that he was generating this or that when he shouldn't have. It is entirely feasible he could make it through day 1 with these kinds of errors and win his games.
Anyway, what competitive players have is an understanding of 40k in a topical breadth kind of way. If you are used to seeing specific rules called out in a specific way across NUMEROUS codexes, to have one deviate and have separate language and restrictions presented in an entirely different way, is rather confusing.
To me this is a consistency problem that 8th edition has. Faction keywords in general are WHOLLY inconsistent from book to book. Chaos makes this even harder to understand, because it's NOT the same from book to book.
This seems like an honest mistake. He paid the penalty. It doesn't invalidate tournaments as a whole.
This seems like an honest mistake. He paid the penalty. It doesn't invalidate tournaments as a whole.
I agree with this 100% but the gist of this (and several other threads for that matter) is that effectively it does. One single rules error at any point during the game means several things, the players aren't actually good (they're just cheaters and net-listers) and that the results are invalid (GW cannot use them to balance the game because they aren't actually competitive games). Until a tournament is played with no mistakes ever it cannot be looked at as anything other than a joke and a collection of cheaters.
This seems like an honest mistake. He paid the penalty. It doesn't invalidate tournaments as a whole.
I agree with this 100% but the gist of this (and several other threads for that matter) is that effectively it does. One single rules error at any point during the game means several things, the players aren't actually good (they're just cheaters and net-listers) and that the results are invalid (GW cannot use them to balance the game because they aren't actually competitive games). Until a tournament is played with no mistakes ever it cannot be looked at as anything other than a joke and a collection of cheaters.
Realistically, what the "gist" of my comments are is that: a) If GW is going to be looking at and plugging these people and events, they can't just showcase them when everything goes right. They HAVE to be calling these individuals out for not playing properly. They HAVE to make it so that these events penalize people for playing improperly, whether they do it on purpose or by accident. They have to be making it damned clear that these people got to where they were in an event with a specific list by the list breaking rules, not because it was "skilled play" or any such nonsense. b) If GW is going to be balancing the game as a whole(not just in Matched Play) based on these things, I expect the people to be held to a standard of damned near perfection. There shouldn't be amateur hour garbage like people making lists with invalid Relic/Character choices. lastly c) I expect major tournaments to actually be proactive in spotting and countering nonsense like this. It's one thing if the events are running every month and people are constantly tweaking their lists to play in constant games--it's another thing when it's a once a year event.
I'm surprised people are still making a big deal about this. He DQed himself and attempted to apologize to all his previous opponents.I understand how easy it is to make a mistake like this (especially when meta chasing in an edition that's been updated at a pace we have never seen). As long as he learns from his mistake and takes precautions to prevent it in the future I don't see a big deal. The issue with practice games is your opponents typically play different codexes as you. I helped my friend prep for LVO but id have no clue if one unit in his list had the wrong keyword because I don't play DG. I like the idea of having to download your list to something like Dakka before the tournament so the players can see what players are running and point out mistakes like this.
I can't confirm or deny this, but someone has mentioned that this particular individual had also ran a list at Nova where he was giving himself the bonus Command Points from Creed while not having Creed as his Warlord.
IF this is true, then it's not just one mistake at this point--it's a case of this individual just metachasing and not reading the damn rules.
Wait a fething minute. Are you admitting you have not done your homework before discussing this subject? How dare you denigrate our thread by not do your research. I really hope GW and Dakka ignores your opinion because it could negatively effect casual conversationalists.
This seems like an honest mistake. He paid the penalty. It doesn't invalidate tournaments as a whole.
I agree with this 100% but the gist of this (and several other threads for that matter) is that effectively it does. One single rules error at any point during the game means several things, the players aren't actually good (they're just cheaters and net-listers) and that the results are invalid (GW cannot use them to balance the game because they aren't actually competitive games). Until a tournament is played with no mistakes ever it cannot be looked at as anything other than a joke and a collection of cheaters.
Realistically, what the "gist" of my comments are is that:
a) If GW is going to be looking at and plugging these people and events, they can't just showcase them when everything goes right. They HAVE to be calling these individuals out for not playing properly. They HAVE to make it so that these events penalize people for playing improperly, whether they do it on purpose or by accident. They have to be making it damned clear that these people got to where they were in an event with a specific list by the list breaking rules, not because it was "skilled play" or any such nonsense.
b) If GW is going to be balancing the game as a whole(not just in Matched Play) based on these things, I expect the people to be held to a standard of damned near perfection. There shouldn't be amateur hour garbage like people making lists with invalid Relic/Character choices.
lastly
c) I expect major tournaments to actually be proactive in spotting and countering nonsense like this. It's one thing if the events are running every month and people are constantly tweaking their lists to play in constant games--it's another thing when it's a once a year event.
They aren't GW's events so GW has no capacity to force anything to happen during them. GW has 2 options - partner with these major events (who are effectively massive free advertising and recruiting opportunities) and work with them to maximize the benefit to GW's bottom line or do what they did for years and ignore them and reap no rewards from them. Ultimately no one is going to hold tournament players to a standard of damn near perfection, these are people doing this for fun, not professionals, the tournament isn't going to bill itself as the event that kicks out players for tiny mistakes (that's a great way to get no sign ups).
This is amateur hour to be clear - even at the highest levels 40k tournaments are amateur hour. No one is making a living off it, no one is doing it full time, its a hobby. GW as a company who is making money off of it figured out the best thing they can do is use these events to showcase their product and get it in front of more people. What you want to happen and what you expect to happen never will because it simply isn't grounded in reality. This is toy soldiers played for bragging rights on weekends, not anybody's career.
Asmodios wrote: Im not suprised at all that the most competitive players play the sloppiest. Its the person thats played the same army for 5 editions and has read the book 20 times thats going to have the best understanding of the rules not the guy who picked up the army after it won some local event.
I don't know about that - this is fairly anecdotal. We don't have data on how often "casual only" players screw up their lists and abilities.
I recently played a game with a gentlemen who assured me he had been playing this army since "2nd ed" and screwed up so many rules - to his benefit - that are written plain as day in the codex. It's just not a high profile case that he didn't pay for X when he should have, or that he was generating this or that when he shouldn't have. It is entirely feasible he could make it through day 1 with these kinds of errors and win his games.
Anyway, what competitive players have is an understanding of 40k in a topical breadth kind of way. If you are used to seeing specific rules called out in a specific way across NUMEROUS codexes, to have one deviate and have separate language and restrictions presented in an entirely different way, is rather confusing.
To me this is a consistency problem that 8th edition has. Faction keywords in general are WHOLLY inconsistent from book to book. Chaos makes this even harder to understand, because it's NOT the same from book to book.
This seems like an honest mistake. He paid the penalty. It doesn't invalidate tournaments as a whole.
You and me are saying the same thing. The inconsistency across books is more likely to affect the guy who is army hopping every couple of months (yes there are exceptions to every rule). The more often you hop armies the more of a chance you're going to read x in the same way it was applied in book y. Im sure i mess rules up playing with my friends but i guarantee id miss a lot more if i completely swapped my codex out every month
I'm surprised people are still making a big deal about this. He DQed himself and attempted to apologize to all his previous opponents.I understand how easy it is to make a mistake like this (especially when meta chasing in an edition that's been updated at a pace we have never seen). As long as he learns from his mistake and takes precautions to prevent it in the future I don't see a big deal. The issue with practice games is your opponents typically play different codexes as you. I helped my friend prep for LVO but id have no clue if one unit in his list had the wrong keyword because I don't play DG. I like the idea of having to download your list to something like Dakka before the tournament so the players can see what players are running and point out mistakes like this.
I can't confirm or deny this, but someone has mentioned that this particular individual had also ran a list at Nova where he was giving himself the bonus Command Points from Creed while not having Creed as his Warlord.
IF this is true, then it's not just one mistake at this point--it's a case of this individual just metachasing and not reading the damn rules.
Wait a fething minute. Are you admitting you have not done your homework before discussing this subject? How dare you denigrate our thread by not do your research. I really hope GW and Dakka ignores your opinion because it could negatively effect casual conversationalists.
Firstly, it's "affect". My opinion might have an effect upon another individual, but it might also affect someone.
Second of all, I've made it clear quite a few times in this thread that some of what I've stated has been conditional upon certain items being true. I'm not going to Naftka, Faeit, BoLS or Spikeybits to do "research"--I prefer not to visit those dumpsterfires of sites, and quite frankly most of the information that's necessary could be copy/pasted over here by someone interested in disproving my stances.
I'm surprised people are still making a big deal about this. He DQed himself and attempted to apologize to all his previous opponents.I understand how easy it is to make a mistake like this (especially when meta chasing in an edition that's been updated at a pace we have never seen). As long as he learns from his mistake and takes precautions to prevent it in the future I don't see a big deal. The issue with practice games is your opponents typically play different codexes as you. I helped my friend prep for LVO but id have no clue if one unit in his list had the wrong keyword because I don't play DG. I like the idea of having to download your list to something like Dakka before the tournament so the players can see what players are running and point out mistakes like this.
I can't confirm or deny this, but someone has mentioned that this particular individual had also ran a list at Nova where he was giving himself the bonus Command Points from Creed while not having Creed as his Warlord.
IF this is true, then it's not just one mistake at this point--it's a case of this individual just metachasing and not reading the damn rules.
Wait a fething minute. Are you admitting you have not done your homework before discussing this subject? How dare you denigrate our thread by not do your research. I really hope GW and Dakka ignores your opinion because it could negatively effect casual conversationalists.
Firstly, it's "affect". My opinion might have an effect upon another individual, but it might also affect someone.
Second of all, I've made it clear quite a few times in this thread that some of what I've stated has been conditional upon certain items being true. I'm not going to Naftka, Faeit, BoLS or Spikeybits to do "research"--I prefer not to visit those dumpsterfires of sites, and quite frankly most of the information that's necessary could be copy/pasted over here by someone interested in disproving my stances.
I hope you didn't miss he was mostly poking fun at your hardline stance of perfection or nothing for people who play 40k at tournaments.
This seems like an honest mistake. He paid the penalty. It doesn't invalidate tournaments as a whole.
I agree with this 100% but the gist of this (and several other threads for that matter) is that effectively it does. One single rules error at any point during the game means several things, the players aren't actually good (they're just cheaters and net-listers) and that the results are invalid (GW cannot use them to balance the game because they aren't actually competitive games). Until a tournament is played with no mistakes ever it cannot be looked at as anything other than a joke and a collection of cheaters.
Realistically, what the "gist" of my comments are is that:
a) If GW is going to be looking at and plugging these people and events, they can't just showcase them when everything goes right. They HAVE to be calling these individuals out for not playing properly. They HAVE to make it so that these events penalize people for playing improperly, whether they do it on purpose or by accident. They have to be making it damned clear that these people got to where they were in an event with a specific list by the list breaking rules, not because it was "skilled play" or any such nonsense.
b) If GW is going to be balancing the game as a whole(not just in Matched Play) based on these things, I expect the people to be held to a standard of damned near perfection. There shouldn't be amateur hour garbage like people making lists with invalid Relic/Character choices.
lastly
c) I expect major tournaments to actually be proactive in spotting and countering nonsense like this. It's one thing if the events are running every month and people are constantly tweaking their lists to play in constant games--it's another thing when it's a once a year event.
They aren't GW's events so GW has no capacity to force anything to happen during them. GW has 2 options - partner with these major events (who are effectively massive free advertising and recruiting opportunities) and work with them to maximize the benefit to GW's bottom line or do what they did for years and ignore them and reap no rewards from them. Ultimately no one is going to hold tournament players to a standard of damn near perfection, these are people doing this for fun, not professionals, the tournament isn't going to bill itself as the event that kicks out players for tiny mistakes (that's a great way to get no sign ups).
There's a difference between "kicking players out for tiny mistakes" and "holding players accountable". You can also pretend that people are "doing this for fun" but I would point out that the level of seriousness some people take competitive play sucks the fun out of everything...but you'll just argue that it's me "denigrating an entire base of players" again or some such nonsense.
This is amateur hour to be clear - even at the highest levels 40k tournaments are amateur hour. No one is making a living off it, no one is doing it full time, its a hobby. GW as a company who is making money off of it figured out the best thing they can do is use these events to showcase their product and get it in front of more people. What you want to happen and what you expect to happen never will because it simply isn't grounded in reality. This is toy soldiers played for bragging rights on weekends, not anybody's career.
Can we stop pretending for just one damned second that anyone is claiming there are people playing to "make a living" or doing it as a career or anything like that?
I can damned well expect someone to understand their codex and its rules. You can argue I can't, but guess what? I can absolutely expect someone who is playing competitively in an event where other people have paid money to be part of that event and expect an event that isn't going to have nonsense like this present.
I hope you didn't miss he was mostly poking fun at your hardline stance of perfection or nothing for people who play 40k at tournaments.
Yes, and he's also been arguing that there's people going in and spreading rumors, etc. I've made no secret of there being certain qualifiers attached to some of my argument in this particular instance. You can hit "Filter Thread" and view them.
Can we stop pretending for just one damned second that anyone is claiming there are people playing to "make a living" or doing it as a career or anything like that?
I can damned well expect someone to understand their codex and its rules. You can argue I can't, but guess what? I can absolutely expect someone who is playing competitively in an event where other people have paid money to be part of that event and expect an event that isn't going to have nonsense like this present.
Saying damned a bunch doesn't make you that much more emphatic (since you like to criticize grammar I figure I can criticize structure). And that's fine that you can expect that - it doesn't mean its going to happen. Again this is amateur hour, mistakes happen. Just because its a tournament that people paid to play at doesn't change that it is still 40k. Guys make the same mistakes at events as they do at the FLGS table. You can stand on your soap box and demand that for one damned second players do their damned jobs and know their damned rules all day long. It just makes you look extreme and like you probably don't get it. A 40k tournament is a chance to play 3-5 games of 40k over a weekend. At the end of the day that's all it is - the structure around it, the rules, the competition, all of its just window dressing. Some people want to win more than others so they bring harder lists and try harder. But they're still just a 40k player like anyone else. Mistakes will happen, its human nature.
As for people being held accountable? He was DQ'd, at the end of the day that's accountability.
There's a difference between "kicking players out for tiny mistakes" and "holding players accountable". You can also pretend that people are "doing this for fun" but I would point out that the level of seriousness some people take competitive play sucks the fun out of everything...but you'll just argue that it's me "denigrating an entire base of players" again or some such nonsense.
So how else would they be held accountable? The player in question was DQ'd. That is being held accountable.
The issue is that these disqualifications and the like keep happening after the damage is already done. Purportedly this is the second event where Target has benefited from rules mistakes.
You want real accountability? Throw out some bans, whether it be from playing in Matched Play tournaments or some other such nonsense, and throw some humiliation out there. They don't have to be permanent bans unless it's particularly egregious offenses but that kind of stuff makes it seem like it's not just "Well he got disqualified, sorry to everyone else who got screwed over!"
Can we stop pretending for just one damned second that anyone is claiming there are people playing to "make a living" or doing it as a career or anything like that?
I can damned well expect someone to understand their codex and its rules. You can argue I can't, but guess what? I can absolutely expect someone who is playing competitively in an event where other people have paid money to be part of that event and expect an event that isn't going to have nonsense like this present.
Saying damned a bunch does make you that much more emphatic (since you like to criticize grammar I figure I can criticize structure).
That's fine. I don't like to do it but given that bold/italics/underlining can start to be annoying after awhile I figured I'd change it up and given that particular poster was, again, trying to poke fun at me for "not being perfect" I felt it was perfectly appropriate to grammar nitpick a little bit.
And that's fine that you can expect that - it doesn't mean its going to happen. Again this is amateur hour, mistakes happen. Just because its a tournament that people paid to play at doesn't change that it is still 40k. Guys make the same mistakes at events as they do at the FLGS table. You can stand on your soap box and demand that for one damned second players do their damned jobs and know their damned rules all day long. It just makes you look extreme and like you probably don't get it. A 40k tournament is a chance to play 3-5 games of 40k over a weekend. At the end of the day that's all it is - the structure around it, the rules, the competition, all of its just window dressing. Some people want to win more than others so they bring harder lists and try harder. But they're still just a 40k player like anyone else. Mistakes will happen, its human nature.
The difference seeming to be that at the FLGS table, I don't get looked down upon for asking someone to show me their book or "slowing down play" by consulting the rules...well, I take that back as I have had that happen(the individual in question playing the Relic of Lost Cadia and Primaris Psyker started trying to claim that I was trying to "drag out the game" by forcing him to show me in his book where that particular combination was allowed) in a "friendly" game as well.
I don't demand that people have a photographic insight as to their army as that is unreasonable but I do at least demand that someone be able to put together an army list without it being invalid.
He may have been forced to DQ himself. The main TO for the other event he cheated is extremely forgiving or has been. A lot of major events have been marred by cheating since the advent of eighth edition. Getting your list wrong once well okay it happens but twice?
When GW releases Battle Roster for matched play there will be one standard by which everyone uses. Except for ATC the TOs for major events will not accept responsibility for checking army lists and I’m in no way knocking any of them for that policy. The main advantage of GW publically releasing an army list builder is one standard everyone can adhere to and it will be totally official. It may not be perfect but it can be very close to perfect and if they do it right it can be a tool that ties players, TOs and the developers all together. If it turns out to be really good I think there’s no reason not for everyone to be behind it.
Many manufacturers provide a set of minimum standards to which their products must meet which in turn are industry standards. Of course there will always be those that have nothing good to say and will always knock GW but like I said this could be a great thing.
Guard changes & the Tau Commander 'nerf' beg to differ.
Opinion.
FAQs don't do diddly when they're trying to patch up holes in a sunken ship.
Hyperbole.
"MATCHED PLAY IS THE MOST BALANCED WAY TO PLAY! OPTIMIZE ALL THE THINGS! NETLISTS!"
*play lists that are illegal because you netlisted and didn't read the rules*
It absolutely, 100% does equate to matched play being a damned joke. It's the meta now and with how GW keeps plugging the tournaments on the Community page, these kinds of trash lists where they're not legal keep getting exposure.
I can't wait to scrutinize your games. I bet you're spot on perfect. Record them and let us judge you.
And note the meta is changing faster than most people can keep up with just because of the pace of releases. So, yea, a list here and there gets to live on a bubble before it's popped.
Which was actually the point that Halsey seemed to have been making--that competitive players are, based upon the idea of "they're the metachasers!" going to be the ones asking "show me how that works".
Except in your quest to prove a point you just put your foot in your mouth, because these people weren't net listing meta-chasers. They were basic humans making basic human mistakes.
Guard changes & the Tau Commander 'nerf' beg to differ.
Opinion.
I mean, you can say that it's opinion--but how many people do you see running Commissars again?
FAQs don't do diddly when they're trying to patch up holes in a sunken ship.
Hyperbole.
The "sunken ship" in this case being the competitive events that you're trying to FAQ. Metachasing means that it's over and done effectively.
"MATCHED PLAY IS THE MOST BALANCED WAY TO PLAY! OPTIMIZE ALL THE THINGS! NETLISTS!"
*play lists that are illegal because you netlisted and didn't read the rules*
It absolutely, 100% does equate to matched play being a damned joke. It's the meta now and with how GW keeps plugging the tournaments on the Community page, these kinds of trash lists where they're not legal keep getting exposure.
I can't wait to scrutinize your games. I bet you're spot on perfect. Record them and let us judge you.
Oh I know I'm not perfect. I do take steps to try and mitigate it--but once again, I'm not playing competitively in tournaments. The highest stakes I've played for amounted to "who pays for lunch?".
Which was actually the point that Halsey seemed to have been making--that competitive players are, based upon the idea of "they're the metachasers!" going to be the ones asking "show me how that works".
Except in your quest to prove a point you just put your foot in your mouth, because these people weren't net listing meta-chasers. They were basic humans making basic human mistakes.
You've now taken two separate arguments and tried to conflate them into one. The tournament players are, by comments made from others within this thread, the ones who are metachasing and thus "can be forgiven these kinds of mistakes".
The netlisters that follow their lead are a separate issue entirely.
I think the real question is, should the tournament community be held to a higher standard than the casual community?
It's a fair question. Anyone with enough money can go to a tournament. If I had wanted to go to Adepticon I could have - it's not like you have to be rich. I just didn't care to go. I could also go to the BAO, but i'm on the fence about it - i've had quite a few bad experiences lately in tournament games. Am i a "pro" player? Nope. I've won some tournaments this year, but nothing with more than 20 entrants.
So if i go, and somehow make it to the top 8, but make some bonehead rules mistake, what should the response be? Should i hang myself, or just sleep with one eye open, waiting for the community to carry out the sentence?
I mean the harshest penalty you can receive in an event is disqualification.
It's a fair question. Anyone with enough money can go to a tournament. If I had wanted to go to Adepticon I could have - it's not like you have to be rich. I just didn't care to go. I could also go to the BAO, but i'm on the fence about it - i've had quite a few bad experiences lately in tournament games. Am i a "pro" player? Nope. I've won some tournaments this year, but nothing with more than 20 entrants.
Just to really drive the above point home: In 2014 it cost me $152.50 to go to Adepticon. In 2013, it cost $150.44. I don't have previous years because I didn't keep such good records before then, but that's when we started staying at the actual hotel the event occurred in. Previous years it would have been even cheaper. And that was hotel, TT entry fee, and my badge cost. Sure, doesn't include travel, but so what? I spent half that on an oil change today.
Literally anyone can go to Adepticon. One of the guys I went with was still an unemployed student, and he still scrounged enough cash to go and have fun. You don't have to be the best and the brightest, a tactical genius or even that coherient. You could do it flipping burgers. Far as doing well enough to get into the top 16? The cheesiest list you can build and luck is what you need as much as you need any sort of talent.
Marmatag wrote: I think the real question is, should the tournament community be held to a higher standard than the casual community?
Yes, I think so, but we have to take into account people don't have four months between releases to learn new books. We're in a period of high flux right now.
And like you said - slip up big and get DQ'd. Do it often and your reputation will suffer, which is a death sentence of it's own in a social game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: You don't have to be the best and the brightest, a tactical genius or even that coherient. You could do it flipping burgers. Far as doing well enough to get into the top 16? The cheesiest list you can build and luck is what you need as much as you need any sort of talent.
Some of my most fun games have been in the mid tables.
Farseer_V2 wrote: If you've played for lunch stakes you've played for tournament stakes since they're both about the same level.
Also are you saying that any game that includes chasing a meta is competitively nonviable?
I guess that's a simplistic way of saying it, sure. I'd argue more that the point I'm trying to get across is that "metachasing" means that FAQs released immediately after tournaments are effectively pointless since once the event has happened, future events will rule against/ban that issue and the metachasers move on.
Farseer_V2 wrote: If you've played for lunch stakes you've played for tournament stakes since they're both about the same level.
Also are you saying that any game that includes chasing a meta is competitively nonviable?
I guess that's a simplistic way of saying it, sure. I'd argue more that the point I'm trying to get across is that "metachasing" means that FAQs released immediately after tournaments are effectively pointless since once the event has happened, future events will rule against/ban that issue and the metachasers move on.
This is nuts, even professional sports have a meta.
Not that long ago over half the defenses in in the NFL ran the 3-4, now people are shifting back to the 4-3. Ever heard the saying "styles make fights"? If you're more inclined on the e-sports side of thing, show me an e-sport game without a meta.
And are you seriously arguing that if GW recognizes a problem and fixes it, that somehow makes playing the game competitively a fruitless endeavor? What is your definition of a competitive game?
Farseer_V2 wrote: If you've played for lunch stakes you've played for tournament stakes since they're both about the same level.
Also are you saying that any game that includes chasing a meta is competitively nonviable?
I guess that's a simplistic way of saying it, sure. I'd argue more that the point I'm trying to get across is that "metachasing" means that FAQs released immediately after tournaments are effectively pointless since once the event has happened, future events will rule against/ban that issue and the metachasers move on.
How's that any different from say MtG adding cards to a banned or restricted list (I'm hoping we can both agree that MtG fits the definition of a 'competitive' game)? Also the FAQ isn't built just on Adepticon results to be clear - it is a data point but not the only one. This is really no different than the way 40k has worked for years - a list does exceptionally well, it propagates, people build to counter it and thus the new 'best' list is born.
Farseer_V2 wrote: If you've played for lunch stakes you've played for tournament stakes since they're both about the same level.
Also are you saying that any game that includes chasing a meta is competitively nonviable?
I guess that's a simplistic way of saying it, sure. I'd argue more that the point I'm trying to get across is that "metachasing" means that FAQs released immediately after tournaments are effectively pointless since once the event has happened, future events will rule against/ban that issue and the metachasers move on.
We're in for a lengthy period of whackamole, sure, but that doesn't mean there are an infinite number of undercosted units. Once all the books are out we have three touch points a year, which is more than enough to settle in the books.
Did he use Battlescribe to write his list, by chance?
This is a thing that never fails to amuse.
Last year we had the same damn thing happen at another, relatively smaller event with Guard and someone running a Primaris Psyker with the Cadian Relic.
You'd think that flipping Adepticon would have better standards.
Warzone Atlanta isn't that much smaller - its another ITC major. That said people need to actively check their opponent's list, especially relics. Its become a known issue at this point.
I think we need to ask GW to publish a step by step instructional video about "How to Write An Army List" at this point...
It's becoming ridiculous.
Battlescribe is fething awful. I legit feel it's a cancer to the game.
So many people seem to screw up writing lists with it and so many people seem to think Battlescribe = Codex so no need to buy the book - and then end up asking stupid questions, easily answered by reading the god damn codex. 'But battlescribe lets me do X' is way too common an excuse...
Thats what happens when a free army builder is available. People don't want to buy codex, so they use free army builder. And then have no idea how their army works. And then any errors in app buildier carry over to their games since they don't know better.
Even the people that have the codex are lazy if they can build with free builder.
auticus wrote: Thats what happens when a free army builder is available. People don't want to buy codex, so they use free army builder. And then have no idea how their army works. And then any errors in app buildier carry over to their games since they don't know better.
auticus wrote: Thats what happens when a free army builder is available. People don't want to buy codex, so they use free army builder. And then have no idea how their army works. And then any errors in app buildier carry over to their games since they don't know better.
Very salient point right there.
In defensive of Battlescribe, it's free. It's done by hobbists in their own time, to make things easier for the rest of us. It has errors, but I mean... So do the Codex's their basing it off. It saves time, and I'd be sad to see it go.
I don't think we can hold BS responsible for the laziness of some people using it, their refusal to buy or read the rules, or their inability to use the software properly.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: In defensive of Battlescribe, it's free. It's done by hobbists in their own time, to make things easier for the rest of us. It has errors, but I mean... So do the Codex's their basing it off. It saves time, and I'd be sad to see it go.
I don't think we can hold BS responsible for the laziness of some people using it, their refusal to buy or read the rules, or their inability to use the software properly.
I'm curious - we can hold tournaments responsible for the laziness of some people and their refusal to buy or read rules but not BS?
Crimson Devil wrote: How many of you are willing to volunteer your time to check army lists? Or Judge?
Judge? No - I still haven't played a game of 8th, so obviously don't know the rules well enough.
Check army lists? If before the event, and for armies I have the Codex/Index for? Sure, I could be convinced to spend some time before an event reviewing lists.
How many people played in the main competitive 40k event at Adepticon or LVO, out of interest?
Primark G wrote: Battle roster will be the standard. GW can link it directly to codices. The potential is amazing.
Potential? Sure. But after seeing their last attempt at a 40k army builder, excuse me for being a little sceptical of how well it will be executed.
DarkStarSabre wrote: Battlescribe is fething awful. I legit feel it's a cancer to the game.
Can we ease of the cancer comparisons, please? Just call it a blight.
NB - I've not used Battlescribe, so I'm not advocating for it; I just dislike the trivialisation of a major health issue by comparing it to gaming software.
COLD CASH wrote: I thought he dqed himself after the mistake was pointed out.
That's what the guy said earlier int he thread - the TO was going to let him continue without the relic (I think), but he DQ'd himself instead.
Which doesn't really say much for the TO - what was in the tournament pack re list validity, out of interest?
Crimson Devil wrote: How many of you are willing to volunteer your time to check army lists? Or Judge?
Judge? No - I still haven't played a game of 8th, so obviously don't know the rules well enough.
Check army lists? If before the event, and for armies I have the Codex/Index for? Sure, I could be convinced to spend some time before an event reviewing lists.
How many people played in the main competitive 40k event at Adepticon or LVO, out of interest?
AdmiralHalsey wrote: In defensive of Battlescribe, it's free. It's done by hobbists in their own time, to make things easier for the rest of us. It has errors, but I mean... So do the Codex's their basing it off. It saves time, and I'd be sad to see it go.
I don't think we can hold BS responsible for the laziness of some people using it, their refusal to buy or read the rules, or their inability to use the software properly.
I'm curious - we can hold tournaments responsible for the laziness of some people and their refusal to buy or read rules but not BS?
Yeah, I'd say that's fair.
Battlescribe is an unoffical free mod, no-one is compelled to use for anything that has no concequences on anything. [Unless you argue it's responsible for people neglecting to read their Codex's, but I'm fairly sure if you deleted Battlescribe people would still fail to read their Codex's.]
Tournaments, [And I assume here we are talking about GT type events, not you and 7 mates in a garage.] are -
Not Free.
Representative of the hobby to a wider community, including being streamed.
Judged.
Direct Datapoints for GW to make actual rules changes to the actual game.
It feels perfectly reasonable to me that we hold them responsible.
If Battlescribe was an offical app, that I paid to use, and mandatory at events then I'd hold them more accountable, too.
Battlescribe is an unoffical free mod, no-one is compelled to use for anything that has no concequences on anything. [Unless you argue it's responsible for people neglecting to read their Codex's, but I'm fairly sure if you deleted Battlescribe people would still fail to read their Codex's.]
Tournaments, [And I assume here we are talking about GT type events, not you and 7 mates in a garage.] are -
Not Free.
Representative of the hobby to a wider community, including being streamed.
Judged.
Direct Datapoints for GW to make actual rules changes to the actual game.
It feels perfectly reasonable to me that we hold them responsible.
If Battlescribe was an offical app, that I paid to use, and mandatory at events then I'd hold them more accountable, too.
Interesting still - so BattleScribe (which is often recommended to new players and generally held out as the list builder currently) is not representative of anything but a tournament is. Also while it may not be free to play in a tournament it is certainly 'free' to judge one (i.e. judges are all volunteers). I think instead of trying to hold the tournament accountable we should probably hold the players accountable. If it isn't BattleScribe's fault that people don't proof read or double check then it isn't a tournament organizers - its just that person.
Interesting still - so BattleScribe (which is often recommended to new players and generally held out as the list builder currently) is not representative of anything but a tournament is. Also while it may not be free to play in a tournament it is certainly 'free' to judge one (i.e. judges are all volunteers). I think instead of trying to hold the tournament accountable we should probably hold the players accountable.
Battlescribe is a symptom, not the disease itself--at least in my opinion. Daedalus81 and Auticus both posted about how people don't want to buy the codex--and Daedalus further had a point earlier on regarding that "people don't have four months between releases to learn new books"(I'm kind of coopting this point to discuss people not wanting to buy the books rather than just them not having time to learn the books but both have merit as arguments) and others have commented on the rapid pace of book releases this edition.
There are people who genuinely, for whatever reason, feel that they're entitled to owning all of the rules for every single army and they shouldn't have to pay for it or it should all be made cheaper/"more streamlined" so as they don't get inconvenienced. So Battlescribe and torrents/leaked stuff ends up being their 'solution' to the issue.
If it isn't BattleScribe's fault that people don't proof read or double check then it isn't a tournament organizers - its just that person.
I can't agree with you on this point. The tournament organizers are supposed to be the ones organizing the event and, ideally, ensuring that everyone follows the same rules. Would you agree or disagree with that statement?
Ideally that would mean that the TO would ensure that measures are taken to prevent these kinds of things from happening. How we've had at least 2 notable instances of people writing lists with invalid Relic setups and no measures being put into place to avoid them raises some serious questions regarding organizers for myself.
I can't agree with you on this point. The tournament organizers are supposed to be the ones organizing the event and, ideally, ensuring that everyone follows the same rules.
Would you agree or disagree with that statement?
Ideally that would mean that the TO would ensure that measures are taken to prevent these kinds of things from happening. How we've had at least 2 notable instances of people writing lists with invalid Relic setups and no measures being put into place to avoid them raises some serious questions regarding organizers for myself.
Ideally? Sure, practically it is incredibly difficult and the players and community at the event have to take a role in it (they did, they're the ones who caught the Adepticon list issue). There is simply not enough man power and time to validate over 250 lists while also taking care of the huge myriad of other things that have to be taken care of to run an event smoothly. I think that's the biggest divergence I have with some of you in this thread is that I, through personal experience, understand how hard it is to validate lists (especially against non overt rules issues such an improper relic) for a major event. There is this expectation that since these people are putting on a tournament that they should be able to make sure that this never happens and it honestly just isn't possible given the manpower and time available.
Would it be great if an organizer could go through and validate every list prior to play and ensure with 100% accuracy they're all legal? Yes - that would be fantastic. Is it practical - no. And ultimately I'd rather folks keep putting on Adepticon and NOVA and the LVO as opposed to effectively telling them if they can't handle that then don't run an event. The players have a responsibility to both put together a legal list and to check their opponents. That's why you open list submission early so that you can crowd source the verification.