Warmaster wrote:@Centurian99

None of those other combo's showed up to the tournament. But there is a fine line most definitely. Because does taking 6 dreds count, what about 6 ironclads, or if not that, what about 6 ironclads all in pods. Cheese is almost always in the eye of the beholder.

Yep. Or heck, what about 180 Boyz, in a 1250 point game?

Warmaster wrote:
And don't get me started on theme . I don't see how you can't say that theme is subjective as well.

Oh, theme is ridiculously subjective as well. So are any soft scores. But it's at least openly so. Comp has the veneer of objectivity that makes people think its fair. Give me any comp scoring guideline, and I will create an army list that follows its rules and gains maximum points, while making opponents whine and omplain.

Warmaster wrote:
I don't see how you can call a tournament organizer as being lazy or biased when the players themselves are the ones that want the comp scoring.

Because what you're trying to do with Comp scoring is prevent "abusive" combos. Any comp guidelines you come up with to try and deal with those units/combos are going to screw some other army, while allowing other abusive combinations. If you really want to prevent that, you have to come up with a list of disallowed or penalized combinations specific to each codex...you simply can't make a blanket "one-size-fits-all" guideline that's fair or can't be broken.

And if you do that...now who's changing the and making "AdeptiCon 40K" or "Ghengis Con 40K" since you're essentially re-writing each codex?

Screw comp.

From my viewpoint as a non-competition, UK based player, the comp, theme and paint scores in the US are complicated, hard work for players and judges, and often introduce other problems like a metagame about optimising comp vs power, or collusion/threats between players (especially sports.)

A number of very detailed comp scoring schemes have been posted on Dakka. In every case, someone breaks them very quickly and demonstrates how one army or another is unfairly penalised or benefitted.

I don’t really understand what theme is, to be honest.

That goes back to the players not wanting to vote someone "down" for whateve reason. Because you know them, or you just don't want to be that person, etc.

Or because you'll get voted down out of spite by your opponent.

I'm also not sure about the WC hating. There are several members in Colorado and I always have good games when playing against them. I have met a few others that I didn't like as much, but you can't knock a whole group for 1 or two people.

I don't know who they are really, but I've seen them accused of modeling for an advantage, pressuring opponents into giving them good scores and threatening to wreck theirs if they don't, outright cheating, etc.

The most controversial case is the 'Ard Boyz winner who apparently forgot how to play daemons in the last match, and purposely used smaller bases on units that scatter.

I don't think they really encourage this kind of thing, so yeah, it's stupid to label the entire club based on a few members. Especially considering the size of it, if there are really members all across the nation then it's kinda hard to root out the bad ones, if there are any.

And to be honest I really do not think that a nob biker list is themed or fluffy at all. Don't get me wrong it was a VERY nicely painted army, everything was converted and it looked good on the table. But it in no way shape or form fits into the fluff for orks. That's my personal viewpoint not anyone elses.

...uh, why? Are you one of those people who think the only "fluffy" or themed Ork list is a list that's full of boyz and a warboss/mekboy (which also happens to be one of the "powerlists" at tournaments)?

I want to know why exactly you think an all biker army isn't fluffy, especially when you consider that there's a named character in the codex that allows you to specifically field an entire army of them. Just for gaks and giggles I'd like someone to also explain why all bikes/speeders Marine armies are "fluffy" and all bikers/coptas Ork armies aren't.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don’t really understand what theme is, to be honest.

What theme is, or what it's supposed to be?

Theme is supposed to interpret how well a given army list "fits" into the structure of the 40k universe, as presented by GW. You instantly run into problems, of course, because a) it's a FREAKIN' HUGE universe; b) the rules don't follow the fluff (Space Marines would be a hell of a lot more expensive, and nigh-invulnerable); and c) it's a moving target (Khorne and Slaanesh hate each other!/Khorne and Slaanesh get together for tea and scones).

That said, there are at least some gross constants, which make sense to apply in a team-style setting, as far as which armies would work together.

Largely, theme is ACTUALLY judged by someone looking at the army, and subjectively deciding whether that army "makes sense" on the tabletop, based on what they know of the fluff.

Sidstyler wrote:

And to be honest I really do not think that a nob biker list is themed or fluffy at all. Don't get me wrong it was a VERY nicely painted army, everything was converted and it looked good on the table. But it in no way shape or form fits into the fluff for orks. That's my personal viewpoint not anyone elses.

...uh, why? Are you one of those people who think the only "fluffy" or themed Ork list is a list that's full of boyz and a warboss/mekboy (which also happens to be one of the "powerlists" at tournaments)?

I want to know why exactly you think an all biker army isn't fluffy, especially when you consider that there's a named character in the codex that allows you to specifically field an entire army of them. Just for gaks and giggles I'd like someone to also explain why all bikes/speeders Marine armies are "fluffy" and all bikers/coptas Ork armies aren't.

My subjective interpretation of the fluff: ork all-biker armies are fine. Ork all-Nob biker armies are a bit less so, as dem Nobs done forgot to bring all o' der boyz, and wut gud izit to be da Nob, iffin you don't got sum boyz to bring to da crumpin?

Janthkin wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don’t really understand what theme is, to be honest.

What theme is, or what it's supposed to be?

Theme is supposed to interpret how well a given army list "fits" into the structure of the 40k universe, as presented by GW. You instantly run into problems, of course, because a) it's a FREAKIN' HUGE universe; b) the rules don't follow the fluff (Space Marines would be a hell of a lot more expensive, and nigh-invulnerable); and c) it's a moving target (Khorne and Slaanesh hate each other!/Khorne and Slaanesh get together for tea and scones).

That said, there are at least some gross constants, which make sense to apply in a team-style setting, as far as which armies would work together.

Largely, theme is ACTUALLY judged by someone looking at the army, and subjectively deciding whether that army "makes sense" on the tabletop, based on what they know of the fluff.

It's a bit of a surprise that it's possible to create a legal list out of a current codex and it not automatically fit into the 40K universe.

Janthkin wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

And to be honest I really do not think that a nob biker list is themed or fluffy at all. Don't get me wrong it was a VERY nicely painted army, everything was converted and it looked good on the table. But it in no way shape or form fits into the fluff for orks. That's my personal viewpoint not anyone elses.

...uh, why? Are you one of those people who think the only "fluffy" or themed Ork list is a list that's full of boyz and a warboss/mekboy (which also happens to be one of the "powerlists" at tournaments)?

I want to know why exactly you think an all biker army isn't fluffy, especially when you consider that there's a named character in the codex that allows you to specifically field an entire army of them. Just for gaks and giggles I'd like someone to also explain why all bikes/speeders Marine armies are "fluffy" and all bikers/coptas Ork armies aren't.

My subjective interpretation of the fluff: ork all-biker armies are fine. Ork all-Nob biker armies are a bit less so, as dem Nobs done forgot to bring all o' der boyz, and wut gud izit to be da Nob, iffin you don't got sum boyz to bring to da crumpin?

Well then it would seem to be another case of GW ignoring their own fluff, since entire squads of nobs apparently don't make sense. You shouldn't be able to take them at all then if they aren't leading boyz mobs.

And like any list you can always think of a way to justify it. Like it was said, if Khorne, Slaanesh, and Tzeentch can all work together in the same damn army then two biker bosses can lead two squads of biker nobs.

JD21290 wrote:tell me about it frazz.
this is what i have been trying to say all along, but the second i say that kenny may have done something to deserve it, the idea is dismissed.

im sure something must have been done to cause such drastic actions to be taken.

JD do you know Kenny? If you have anything factual to add great, but please do all of us a favor and zip your lip if you have nothing to add but innuendo and speculation.

G

Bunker wrote:

JD21290 wrote:you mean something along the lines of the starting of it all?

I'm not sure what I mean, to be honest.

What doesn't make sense to me is that there seems like a rather large jump from the "I don't like this particular army because I believe it is overpowered" line of thinking to "I'm going to do everything I can to make this player's tournament as difficult as possible". Something must have happened to go from one to the other. It might have even been the fact that the WC have a reputation amongst the community, who knows. But it didn't go from one to the other without there being a step in the middle.

I also, as stated above by other posters, don't understand why the player in question didn't just request his entry back and bow out of the tournament. If it is bad enough to post about and try to muster a public lynching of the TO, was it not bad enough to just bow out in the first place? I understand the mentality of "Well eff you, if you're going to try and stack the deck against me I'm going to win your tournament just to throw it back in your face" because that is exactly what I would have done, but there has to be a certain point where you call it a day in the interest of not making the tournament all about you.

All I'm saying is that there is something missing to this story, on both sides. Something had to have set the TO off, and it wasn't just army selection/player reputation.

Great job Bunker. I see that speculation is all you have to offer. Very helpful.

G

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

LMAO, that's great. Never saw that one before.

Sidstyler wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

And to be honest I really do not think that a nob biker list is themed or fluffy at all. Don't get me wrong it was a VERY nicely painted army, everything was converted and it looked good on the table. But it in no way shape or form fits into the fluff for orks. That's my personal viewpoint not anyone elses.

...uh, why? Are you one of those people who think the only "fluffy" or themed Ork list is a list that's full of boyz and a warboss/mekboy (which also happens to be one of the "powerlists" at tournaments)?

I want to know why exactly you think an all biker army isn't fluffy, especially when you consider that there's a named character in the codex that allows you to specifically field an entire army of them. Just for gaks and giggles I'd like someone to also explain why all bikes/speeders Marine armies are "fluffy" and all bikers/coptas Ork armies aren't.

My subjective interpretation of the fluff: ork all-biker armies are fine. Ork all-Nob biker armies are a bit less so, as dem Nobs done forgot to bring all o' der boyz, and wut gud izit to be da Nob, iffin you don't got sum boyz to bring to da crumpin?

Well then it would seem to be another case of GW ignoring their own fluff, since entire squads of nobs apparently don't make sense. You shouldn't be able to take them at all then if they aren't leading boyz mobs.

And like any list you can always think of a way to justify it. Like it was said, if Khorne, Slaanesh, and Tzeentch can all work together in the same damn army then two biker bosses can lead two squads of biker nobs.

Yup, pretty much. Which is why "theme" isn't really any better than "comp."

I used to run a Lustwing-pattern army, composed solely of Emperor's Children Terminators and Daemonettes. Had to jump through a ton of hoops to do it (Chaos Lord + Chosen retinue, Chaos Lt. + Chosen Retinue, plus the 1 allowed squad of Elite chosen). Thematically, it was great: 6 squads of 6 models each, in what was obviously a teleport raiding configuration. Still didn't stop people from complaining.

Wyche cult can shred the old EC teleport army.

G

Not knowing someone personally in no way disbars a person from making inferences about reasons for their behaviour.

Sidstyler wrote:
...uh, why? Are you one of those people who think the only "fluffy" or themed Ork list is a list that's full of boyz and a warboss/mekboy (which also happens to be one of the "powerlists" at tournaments)?

I want to know why exactly you think an all biker army isn't fluffy, especially when you consider that there's a named character in the codex that allows you to specifically field an entire army of them. Just for gaks and giggles I'd like someone to also explain why all bikes/speeders Marine armies are "fluffy" and all bikers/coptas Ork armies aren't.

Okay here is why exactly:
I have no issues with an all biker army. I have an issue with 2 warbosses. The biggest baddest meanest ork is in charge, there shouldn't be two of them. So from a pure theme standpoint I don't think your standard sized games should have 2 warbosses, at higher points when you can simulate two different bands of orks, sure go for it but not at the scale we are playing. I could take having something like wazdakka, and then maybe another warboss with his unit of boyz on bikes. Since wazdakka is "bigger", but not two generic warbosses.

Or even say take the army I played against, 2 warbosses on bikes, 2 bike nob squads as troops, 1 unit of shoota boyz, 1 unit of gretchin. If he had really been sticking to a theme then he should have put in deff kopta's or a squad of bikes or something. I don't see how putting those 2 infantry TROOPS choices is fluffy. Maybe if he had modelled all of the grots as mechanics and all of the boyz as mechanics and done a huge mech bay or something.

I have the same opinion on Dual lash daemon princes, 2 canoness in sisters list, etc. I don't think they are fluffy. Take one dp with lash and a sorcerer with lash and I have no issues from a theme perspective. Take one canoness and one palatine.

Again, this is my personal viewpoint and I'm not respresenting anybody else here. I'm by no means a push over with the lists I build but I usually won't go that extra step. I'll admit to taking 2 great unclean ones to the baltimore gt , and I expected to get docked comp points for doing it, because I felt that the list I was bringing was a little on the cheesy side.

I noticed the overall winner had a loss so this might show your event puts more emphasis on theme and composition. If you were to show the breakdown that might be helful.

G

Oh, so you mostly take issue with the two bosses? Yeah, that isn't really too fluffy.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Wyche cult can shred the old EC teleport army.

A LOT of things shredded the Lustwing, unless all of the reserves & scattering rolls went just perfectly. But it was a lot of fun to play.

What annoyed people was that it played differently from everything else (at the time). People weren't used to playing against armies which started completely off the board, and didn't know how to maneuver to account for that much concentrated death falling from above. And because it was "different," it was obviously badly themed/constructed solely to abuse the rules/etc.

If the two warbosses are twins that would explain why they both ride big hogs.

G

I get what you're saying.

But what if two equally powerful warbosses are competing to gain control of a Waaagh, and this battle is the place they are going to settle their rivalry according to who can kill the most enemies. Neither of them brought any boyz because this is crunch time and they need their very best fighters to ensure victory.

Bingo! List rationalised.

I don't know why GW didn't make it like the Tau list in which you can't take two Ethereals, or two Shas'Os, but you must take at least one unit of Fire Warriors.

I love the concept of trading soft scores for battle points. Let's introduce handicaps into the game while we are at it.


From now on if someone has an idea about why simple good old fashioned competitive play is wrong I'd like a 500 word background story about it.

Yo Brian this year at Adepticon I am bringing my fly girl to roll my dice. She is there for the soft scores.

G

PS (Khorne ponies rock!)

Bunker wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I know there is fairly wide-spread anti-WC feeling.

This is not a matter of giving special favour to the WC. The same would apply to any group whose members joined Dakka.

This I'm calling BS on, or at least partial-BS. The way some of your mods jumped on anyone posting in the WC cheating thread and your quickness to lock it even though there was confirmation from multiple sources that one of them did in fact cheat, coupled with how you allowed them to come here and gloat about it afterwards definitely shows a bias in their favor.

I'm in general agreement with Bunker.

When did Dakka become the WC forum for the WC can post their personal business?

Why shouldn't the WC keep their off-topic business on their personal site?

Why should the WC be allowed to come here to virtually tar-and-feather a non-Dakkite TO?

IOW, if Dakka generally doesn't allow people to talk trash about current members (Rule 1: Politeness), and we don't allow people to talk trash about ex-members (e.g. Ste- Beetlejuice), why the exception for the WC?

Kilkrazy wrote:I get what you're saying.

But what if two equally powerful warbosses are competing to gain control of a Waaagh, and this battle is the place they are going to settle their rivalry according to who can kill the most enemies. Neither of them brought any boyz because this is crunch time and they need their very best fighters to ensure victory.

Bingo! List rationalised.

I don't know why GW didn't make it like the Tau list in which you can't take two Ethereals, or two Shas'Os, but you must take at least one unit of Fire Warriors.

Okay. I like the example. But in that previous list there was one squad of shoota boys and one squad of grots. I've seen nob biker lists with snikrot, or with 2 units of grots, what have you. If someone had done up a thematic base and had the two huge nob biker squads pummleing into each other and that was it. Especially showing you the two of them battling it out. I would give you theme points for it. But this was thought out, you modelled a base for it, you didn't squeeze in extra troop scoring units to do it.

Whateva, they will hate you for her flyness.


Here is an example story to illustrate why other people should change the way they think and behave in a fashion someone else approves of.


There were 2 Warbosses, Warboss Slamshpolk and Warboss Gerjamblax. Warboss #1 looks at #2 and is like that is ridiculous. He realizes it is an intruder into the network. So he changes into a Smith class agent and turns the only remaining Warbo 2 into a Smith class agent. Now there are no Warbosses at all, they are extinct(how tragic). This is ok since it is fluffy. Then they kill Neo. Then that cool asian program kills all the smiths. : )

THE END

The moral of my story is there should be no HQs at all besides...

Generic HQ Person
Stats - all pretty generic.
Special Rules - those could turn out to be "cheesey", so no thank you.

You must take two of these in 500 point games.

I really am having some problems following that line of logic... there is nothing logical about it in my opinion.

Do you have something against Kenny?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Bunker wrote:

JD21290 wrote:you mean something along the lines of the starting of it all?

I'm not sure what I mean, to be honest.

What doesn't make sense to me is that there seems like a rather large jump from the "I don't like this particular army because I believe it is overpowered" line of thinking to "I'm going to do everything I can to make this player's tournament as difficult as possible". Something must have happened to go from one to the other. It might have even been the fact that the WC have a reputation amongst the community, who knows. But it didn't go from one to the other without there being a step in the middle.

I also, as stated above by other posters, don't understand why the player in question didn't just request his entry back and bow out of the tournament. If it is bad enough to post about and try to muster a public lynching of the TO, was it not bad enough to just bow out in the first place? I understand the mentality of "Well eff you, if you're going to try and stack the deck against me I'm going to win your tournament just to throw it back in your face" because that is exactly what I would have done, but there has to be a certain point where you call it a day in the interest of not making the tournament all about you.

All I'm saying is that there is something missing to this story, on both sides. Something had to have set the TO off, and it wasn't just army selection/player reputation.

Great job Bunker. I see that speculation is all you have to offer. Very helpful.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

JD21290 wrote:tell me about it frazz.
this is what i have been trying to say all along, but the second i say that kenny may have done something to deserve it, the idea is dismissed.

im sure something must have been done to cause such drastic actions to be taken.

JD do you know Kenny? If you have anything factual to add great, but please do all of us a favor and zip your lip if you have nothing to add but innuendo and speculation.

G

Yes.. this is exactly what I was waiting for. You guys run this as a script or what?

Inquiring minds want to know the rest of the story. You coming over to this thread and posting this is exactly the standard of why we are getting skeptical about this WC thing.

All we have at this point is your side of the story and some of the details.

WHERE is the TFG TO that is the subject of this conversation, and why exactly is it that you run gimp lists, get called on it, and then post that your being treated unfairly?

All you guys did was to have one of your buddies run an entirly biased list and then got some heat over it. We all know it is a gimp list, heck its as gimp as the dual demon prince whip one.


Its a fluff list in the same scheme as taking the Nidzilla list. You maxed out the troops on a loophole, and then try to justify a win on that merit alone.

The double sided question in addition to this is- DO you think that using maxed out loophole lists is a good way to play in tournament play? WHY should it be an issue if someone calls the list fluff if it truly maxes out a troop choice and then you get some heat about it?

This is basicly the point of the contention.

Of course, your already well known tactic of coming in with the other posters from the same organization doesn't help your argument, we already saw that coming.
What I don't seriously get is that they thought they were honestly playing in a tourney with a list that is a well known loophole, and then you have an issue with someone giving you static about it?

Then green blow fly comes over and starts in with the interference?

Just because you can do something doesn't make it cool.

Hey I hope you are feeling better now that you got that off yer chest.

G

Warmaster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I get what you're saying.

But what if two equally powerful warbosses are competing to gain control of a Waaagh, and this battle is the place they are going to settle their rivalry according to who can kill the most enemies. Neither of them brought any boyz because this is crunch time and they need their very best fighters to ensure victory.

Bingo! List rationalised.

I don't know why GW didn't make it like the Tau list in which you can't take two Ethereals, or two Shas'Os, but you must take at least one unit of Fire Warriors.

Okay. I like the example. But in that previous list there was one squad of shoota boys and one squad of grots. I've seen nob biker lists with snikrot, or with 2 units of grots, what have you. If someone had done up a thematic base and had the two huge nob biker squads pummleing into each other and that was it. Especially showing you the two of them battling it out. I would give you theme points for it. But this was thought out, you modelled a base for it, you didn't squeeze in extra troop scoring units to do it.

I don't have the Orks codex so I don't know much about their list or what was in the competition list or anything. I just wanted to show how players can rationalise things.

Bunker wrote:
The way some of your mods jumped on anyone posting in the WC cheating thread and your quickness to lock it even though there was confirmation from multiple sources that one of them did in fact cheat, coupled with how you allowed them to come here and gloat about it afterwards definitely shows a bias in their favor.

Come here and gloat about what?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm in general agreement with Bunker.

When did Dakka become the WC forum for the WC can post their personal business?

Why shouldn't the WC keep their off-topic business on their personal site?

Isn't the behaviour of people at tournaments the business of the wargame community generally? It was when the complaints were against WC members because of Ard Boyz.

Us mods have been accused of bias for shutting down that discussion despite the fact that pages and pages of stuff was written. Now we are at fault for not shutting down this other discussion?

Why should the WC be allowed to come here to virtually tar-and-feather a non-Dakkite TO?

IOW, if Dakka generally doesn't allow people to talk trash about current members (Rule 1: Politeness), and we don't allow people to talk trash about ex-members (e.g. Ste- Beetlejuice), why the exception for the WC?

You have missed the point that I warned people about running a witch-hunt against the TO, and shut down the thread because it continued.

The topic was re-opened in a much more civilised way and more facts emerged which cast a completely different light on the matter, as a result of which the persecution of the TO ceased.

Grot 6:

There is a contingent on Dakka that believes that if it's a legal army by a codex, it's by definition a-ok. The end. there are no loopholes, there is no cheese, there is just hard lists. You're not going to convince them otherwise.

This argument, then, comes up every once in a while here - when someone defines army list X as cheesy, then people ask about other lists, or jump in and say nothing is cheesy, etc.

Then you'll have people change gears - instead of saying an army is inherently cheesy, they'll go with comp arguments - it's not fluffy! it makes no sense! We're there now. Soft scores in general just lead to abuse. I can make up good fluff for pretty much any army, it's all personal preference. Just because you don't like my fluff for my also super-strong army doesn't make it bad fluff...

Personally, I think it's a losing argument for the "It's cheesy, it shouldn't be allowed! crowd". If you don't like the lists, don't play in the tournament, or organize your own tourney with your own (hopefully well-publicized ahead of time) rules.

I will admit that I don't like how condescending the "play better" crowd can be. It'd be great if the codexes and armies were even vaguely balanced, but oh well, they're not. I don't know what GW does to make these things but I've always suspected that it was The writer of the codex playing games with Jervis's son using studio armies to determine if something was overpowered, and then, well it worked fine for them, publish! They don't make this game for tournaments. it's not designed to be fair. Some people don't like that, but well it's true, they do the best they can with their methods and time and level of interest in anything other than selling models. In the end...just play what you own/have modeled, or go buy a hard army and try to win. Sometimes that overlaps, other times you go to the store and take a picture of yourself with your 12 new Bloodcrushers. Both methods are fine, but this game is not fair, so don't try to pretend it is or that some armies are especially unfair or abusive. I hate some of those armies, and I can choose not to play against them outside of tournaments...but why in the world would someone NOT try to maximize their chances of winning/winning prizes if they could? I don't get it.

If you are really into fluffy(fun) games you shouldn't go to tournaments. They are a place for people who like to compete. If you want to compete about your fluff... well I think they have short story contests somewhere for that sort of thing. I hope if you win you can feel good enough about yourself that you won't project your values onto others any longer.

People who like fluff should read the BL novels more... they typically feature some beardy armies.

G

I remember the old days when mauleed had many similar comments, both from him and directed at him. This arguement will never end.

The only requirement needs to be 'bring a legal army list'. Theme and comp and fluff is too much in the eye of the beholder and is also too subject to change.

However, if you know that you're going to a tourney with a lot of points in sportsmanship, comp, and/or theme, you have no ability to complain after the fact that your 'power build' won a lot of games but you didn't win overall because you received low marks on the soft scores. (Note, I'm not saying if this is fair or not, just what is likely to happen).

That's the key, to me. Knowing the tourney scenarios and scoring beforehand. And personally, I think it's best to stay away from the 'grading' soft scores (the 1-10 variety), because some people will give a '10' as the default and some will give a '5'.

Docking a guy's soft scores at the tourney, to me, is very poor form by the TO.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Now we are at fault for not shutting down this other discussion?

To a degree, when the WC backup train comes roaring into the station (right on time, just like in the 'Ard Boyz thread) and the GBF/Brian gloat/excuse fest starts, yes, you are.

...to a degree.


Edit: It is, however, a double edged sword for the mods. Either they lock all the threads and make Dakka look like some sort of police state, or they leave them open and have to deal with butthurt users who don't like what is being said.

Bunker wrote:To a degree, when the WC backup train comes roaring into the station (right on time, just like in the 'Ard Boyz thread) and the GBF/Brian gloat/excuse fest starts, yes, you are.
...to a degree.

Don't forget the 'condescending comment' fest that accompanies it. And the 'then don't play in any tournies if you don't like it' attitude.

I wonder if someday, only the WC will be left to play in touries. What will they do then? Start kicking people out, since, as I understand it, you need to be a tourney winnah to be in the Club anyway.

Does the WC hold it's own tourney to see who is the "The best of the best of the best. Sir. With honors." ?

lambadomy wrote:Grot 6:

There is a contingent on Dakka that believes that if it's a legal army by a codex, it's by definition a-ok. The end. there are no loopholes, there is no cheese, there is just hard lists. You're not going to convince them otherwise.

This argument, then, comes up every once in a while here - when someone defines army list X as cheesy, then people ask about other lists, or jump in and say nothing is cheesy, etc.

Then you'll have people change gears - instead of saying an army is inherently cheesy, they'll go with comp arguments - it's not fluffy! it makes no sense! We're there now. Soft scores in general just lead to abuse. I can make up good fluff for pretty much any army, it's all personal preference. Just because you don't like my fluff for my also super-strong army doesn't make it bad fluff...

Personally, I think it's a losing argument for the "It's cheesy, it shouldn't be allowed! crowd". If you don't like the lists, don't play in the tournament, or organize your own tourney with your own (hopefully well-publicized ahead of time) rules.

I will admit that I don't like how condescending the "play better" crowd can be. It'd be great if the codexes and armies were even vaguely balanced, but oh well, they're not. I don't know what GW does to make these things but I've always suspected that it was The writer of the codex playing games with Jervis's son using studio armies to determine if something was overpowered, and then, well it worked fine for them, publish! They don't make this game for tournaments. it's not designed to be fair. Some people don't like that, but well it's true, they do the best they can with their methods and time and level of interest in anything other than selling models. In the end...just play what you own/have modeled, or go buy a hard army and try to win. Sometimes that overlaps, other times you go to the store and take a picture of yourself with your 12 new Bloodcrushers. Both methods are fine, but this game is not fair, so don't try to pretend it is or that some armies are especially unfair or abusive. I hate some of those armies, and I can choose not to play against them outside of tournaments...but why in the world would someone NOT try to maximize their chances of winning/winning prizes if they could? I don't get it.

It's not even a point on making a list to win with. It's making a list that’s so obviously over the top.

Then to plead ignorance after getting called on it, and then acting like your feelings are hurt. It isn't then on the merit of "Playing better" when you come with an obvious solidly overachieving list.

MOST tourneys even, heaven forbid, give you guidelines on what they will allow. The idea is about the competition, not on how many Fire Prisms I can get away with this week, or how many NOBS I can pull out and add within the confines of the tourney.

As for going to said tourneys,
Competition is one thing, being blatantly CHAV about it is quite a different. You know well and well that you make an army list for the win. BUT, and the emphasis on BUT, You know well and good that people are going to give you gak about it and you know that you are going to be taken to task if it is obvious.
It’s a competition, expect it.

If you were told before hand, and you do it anyway? Such as what seems in this case, then you get what you get. It isn’t about how good you are, or how solid your list is, or who you hang out with.

Then on top of that, to come and blow your horn that you were dealt with wrongly? No. You got what was expected.

WC_Brian wrote: If you are really into fluffy(fun) games you shouldn't go to tournaments. They are a place for people who like to compete. If you want to compete about your fluff... well I think they have short story contests somewhere for that sort of thing. I hope if you win you can feel good enough about yourself that you won't project your values onto others any longer.

Then I think the reverse needs to be said. If you are going to something billed as a comp friendly tournament and you are a WAAC, then don't show up. Don't project your values onto others (note I am not referring to anyone that went to Genghis as a WAAC, this is for general discussion only).

Kilkrazy wrote:Isn't the behaviour of people at tournaments the business of the wargame community generally? It was when the complaints were against WC members because of Ard Boyz.

Us mods have been accused of bias for shutting down that discussion despite the fact that pages and pages of stuff was written. Now we are at fault for not shutting down this other discussion?

You have missed the point that I warned people about running a witch-hunt against the TO, and shut down the thread because it continued.

The topic was re-opened in a much more civilised way and more facts emerged which cast a completely different light on the matter, as a result of which the persecution of the TO ceased.

@KK: I completely sympathize that being a good mod is a difficult job, and that you're often caught in the middle without good options. That said:

Behavior in general? Sure. Behavior specifically? Not particularly. Remember that tournament play, while more prevalent than normal on Dakka, is still a minority of play overall. As a casual / ex-tournament ("retired" gamer I don't see tournament-related drama as beneficial to Dakka.

In the case of Ard Boyz, this was a high-profile national GW tournament, *and* the WC player admitted to cheating his opponent (i.e. not playing by the rules as written or intended).

Very different from some small local tournament, where the TO admitted to making an error and trying to make things right, but then getting vilified by the WC.

Again, I fail to see why a large, visible site like Dakka should be allowed to be used as a forum to air grudges by a small group comprising <1%.

What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

Grot 6:

Yes, I understand and agree with you. In the situation presented, without the TOs side, the only thing I can say is the TO should have made the rules ahead of time. If you're running a tournament, you should know what armies you consider over the top beforehand, and you should explicitly ban them. Or you should just live with them being in your tournament. As far as I know we have no evidence that the player was told before driving to the tournament that his army list was not ok. Obviously if the rules said "hey no Nob Bikers" and you bring it...well it's not the TOs fault. But if he doesn't say anything until (as reported) the middle of game one, after taking the players money and letting him drive 3 hours thinking his army was fine...that is bad.

Centurian99 wrote:What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

One would take this to mean that you bring something that your opponent would enjoy playing against.

Not necessarily winning or losing against, but *playing* against.

I freely admit my bias and hate all you wussy tournament winners...real men lose gloriously to small children and legally blind opponents...

dietrich wrote:The only requirement needs to be 'bring a legal army list'.

However, if you know that you're going to a tourney with a lot of points in sportsmanship, comp, and/or theme, you have no ability to complain after the fact

Docking a guy's soft scores at the tourney, to me, is very poor form by the TO.

Actually, it *is* the TO's perogative, because not all comp systems are complete. If you have an army that is so egregiously badly-designed, it is prefectly reasonable for the TO to exercise his discretion and judgement and make corrections.

Remember, GW doesn't design their armies for Tournaments, so of course they won't automatically score properly in a tournament system.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

One would take this to mean that you bring something that your opponent would enjoy playing against.

Not necessarily winning or losing against, but *playing* against.

Thank christ I play Necrons then.

Everyone enjoys playing them, because generally everyone beats them.

Great comp scores, here I come!!

Centurian99 wrote:What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

Tie a bullseye to the back of a dog. Let it go. What do you have? A moving target, same as good comp.

Personally, for me, it comes down to whether or not I think a player took an army list just because it's the current power build. For example, it's apparent that someone is trying to 'game' the rules by taking Nob w/ Powerklaw, Nob w/ Powerklaw and Ammo Runt, etc. just to make them all unique. It's legal. But I wouldn't think twice about giving it low marks on comp or theme.

Grot 6 wrote:
It's not even a point on making a list to win with. It's making a list that’s so obviously over the top.

Then to plead ignorance after getting called on it, and then acting like your feelings are hurt. It isn't then on the merit of "Playing better" when you come with an obvious solidly overachieving list.

MOST tourneys even, heaven forbid, give you guidelines on what they will allow. The idea is about the competition, not on how many Fire Prisms I can get away with this week, or how many NOBS I can pull out and add within the confines of the tourney.

As for going to said tourneys,
Competition is one thing, being blatantly CHAV about it is quite a different. You know well and well that you make an army list for the win. BUT, and the emphasis on BUT, You know well and good that people are going to give you gak about it and you know that you are going to be taken to task if it is obvious.
It’s a competition, expect it.

If you were told before hand, and you do it anyway? Such as what seems in this case, then you get what you get. It isn’t about how good you are, or how solid your list is, or who you hang out with.

Then on top of that, to come and blow your horn that you were dealt with wrongly? No. You got what was expected.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I love you, have my children.

Warmaster wrote:

WC_Brian wrote: If you are really into fluffy(fun) games you shouldn't go to tournaments. They are a place for people who like to compete. If you want to compete about your fluff... well I think they have short story contests somewhere for that sort of thing. I hope if you win you can feel good enough about yourself that you won't project your values onto others any longer.

Then I think the reverse needs to be said. If you are going to something billed as a comp friendly tournament and you are a WAAC, then don't show up. Don't project your values onto others (note I am not referring to anyone that went to Genghis as a WAAC, this is for general discussion only).

Good point for both sides of the argument there Warmaster.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

One would take this to mean that you bring something that your opponent would enjoy playing against.

Not necessarily winning or losing against, but *playing* against.

Somehow, I think you and I would have very different ideas about what army would be fun to play against.

dietrich wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

Tie a bullseye to the back of a dog. Let it go. What do you have? A moving target, same as good comp.

Personally, for me, it comes down to whether or not I think a player took an army list just because it's the current power build. For example, it's apparent that someone is trying to 'game' the rules by taking Nob w/ Powerklaw, Nob w/ Powerklaw and Ammo Runt, etc. just to make them all unique. It's legal. But I wouldn't think twice about giving it low marks on comp or theme.

Bingo. And the current, so called rational of the WC begs the question that they knew it was, and did it anyway.

Being as self proclamed Torney champs as these doesn't give the" Babe in the Woods" argument much room.

THEN they come over here to basicly villify the TO in question, that was already stated to have been the guy behind BOTH of Colorado's Tourney scene.

Inquiring minds want to know...

JohnHwangDD wrote:Actually, it *is* the TO's perogative, because not all comp systems are complete. If you have an army that is so egregiously badly-designed, it is prefectly reasonable for the TO to exercise his discretion and judgement and make corrections.

It's not fair to players to change scoring systems mid-tourney. If the TO made it clear that certain lists/builds would get an auto zero on comp, or not even be legal, that is a different matter. I haven't read the tourney pack. But, it's clearly not fair to change a scoring system in the middle of a tourney. The scoring system should be posted well in advance, along with the scenarios (or something close to the final scenarios).

If the TO wants to just 'disbar' certain lists because he thinks they're too powerful, he might as well just randomly give out the award. And start rewriting the 40k rules, which as we've seen with the INIT FAQ, sets you for even more scorn (which isn't even a rewrite).

To JohnHwangDD:

The tournament scene is a very small percentage of players. It is a larger percentage of Dakka posters, at least the vocal ones, and it is news interesting to us (heh, I say "us", but haven't ever played in a large tournament). Much of it has to do with the nature of the posts discussing a topic. Here on Dakka people tend to brandish the torches and wierd square rake-things from old Frankenstein movies, which gets threads locked (and gets us mods yelled at). A calm, rational discussion will keep a topic open, even if you're accusing someone of wrongdoing (there are some older threads from a year or three back that were left open even though they mentioned specific incidents of cheating).

To everyone:
I guess it all boils down to the fact that people keep breaking Rule #1. There's been a lot more of that going on lately, and I usually only get an hour, maybe two, per day to visit Dakka, and most of that time involves "Being a Mod", which is much less fun than being a poster. This means that when I run across a nasty thread, I don't have many options other than a general warning of "keep it polite and respectful" (which, to steal a phrase, has all the impact of a kitten parachuting into a bowl of flowers) or just locking the thread. I try to deal with posters individually when I can, but untangling the mess of who provoked who and people feeling unfairly targeted is time consuming and a broad-spectrum approach is usually more practical.

So I'm saying this to both sides of each argument (and not just this thread): Keep it polite and respectful. Even if the other side mouths off, or says something you hate hate hate, don't fire back. I know that there are quite a few of you who are good at skirting the line of being polite while still throwing needling remarks (I've done it myself), so double-check what you write. Yakface is one of the nicest, most tolerant people I've met on the internet, and this is his forum. Don't abuse his hospitality and hard work.

-=Edit=- Damn! Eleven new posts since I started writing this.

This tournament shows the whole problem with comp. This dude's OPPPONENTS for whatever reason seemed to score his army fine for comp. Maybe they're lazy, maybe they don't understand the intricacies of comp the way that JohnHwangDD does, maybe they actually didn't mind the army. I have no idea. But as the story is told, they were giving full comp scores, and the TO wanted to take them away.

Why in the world is it ok to make a comp system in which the players rate each other, and then get mad and change the scores the players give? I don't get it. Assuming it happened that way of course. At this point the thread is really not about the original player/TO and more hypothetical.

Two aspects to that.

1. The judge's decision is final.
2. People in positions of power should not abuse their position.

Still, the point of a game is that the players agree in advance to play by the rules. It seems useless to change the rules during the game.

Purely hypothetically speaking.

Some people might think the funniest army to play against is the hardest to beat.

Some might think it is one that seems to really match the fluff of the army as written in novels or codexes.

Others might think it's the ones that they can beat.

I like both of the top 2 and think the third is for wimps.

The key is for the tournament to clearly spell it out ahead of time for people. If a Nobz biker list is "illegal" for a tournament - let people know that before they bring it. That is only common courtesy.

Everything I know and have had interaction with in regards to Kenny is that he's a stand up guy. I say that despite the fact that he beat me out for best sportsmanship in the Atlanta GT a few years back making me settle for second best sportsman. If there was more to it - then the TO should let his thoughts be known here. Or if he made a mistake (due to personal prejudice or whatever) and manned up about it - then it should be put to bed.

I would encourage posters to put themselves in the shoes of having something like this happen to them and see how they would react. Or how they would have responded if it wasn't a member of the WC who was impacted.

In fact - the WC bashing seems pretty ignorant to me personally. Wah! A bunch of cheaters....wah! Wah! Get me a passy! SHEESH! If you don't like WC winning all the tournaments - cowboy up and get good enough to beat them on the table - and don't hide behind some lame excuse about how they are all cheaters! That sorry tailed excuse has gotten as much mileage out of it as it can get. Lame excuse, used by lame players, who's ego can't handle getting beaten.....

my two cents....

JD do you know Kenny? If you have anything factual to add great, but please do all of us a favor and zip your lip if you have nothing to add but innuendo and speculation.

as i remember GBF, this was simply a discussion.
look back at what you have said now, and please point out the facts in all of your posts.
pot calling the kettle black?
also, just need to add this, check back on most of your posts on all threads, about 1/4 of them help, 1/4 make no sense atall, and 1/2 is just annoying banter.

Centurian99 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

One would take this to mean that you bring something that your opponent would enjoy playing against.

Not necessarily winning or losing against, but *playing* against.

Somehow, I think you and I would have very different ideas about what army would be fun to play against.

That's entirely possible, especially as it seems you're tournament-focused while I'm Apoc-focused.

Aldonis wrote:I would encourage posters to put themselves in the shoes of having something like this happen to them and see how they would react. Or how they would have responded if it wasn't a member of the WC who was impacted.

In fact - the WC bashing seems pretty ignorant to me personally. Wah! A bunch of cheaters....wah! Wah!

If you don't like WC winning all the tournaments - cowboy up and get good enough to beat them on the table -

First off, you presume that the other posters lives revolve around winning tournaments, when many of us prefer casual play. If you're playing for the experience, rather than the win and the prize, then you probably could care less if you didn't win a prize.

If it was a WC guy screwing a non-WC guy out of a prize that he actually earned, then yeah, I suppose there might be more outrage. Kind of like 'Ard Boyz? Yeah, like that. The difference is that the TO was able to publicly man up and take actual steps make things right. The WC has never shown the cojones to do that kind of thing.

Most importantly, I don't have the time for tournament prep and play anymore. But from when I *did* have this kind of time, I was good enough to win my fair share of things. The "Best General" award gathering dust somewhere in my gaming pile says that I shouldn't have any problem beating any of you on the tabletop if I set my mind to it. Of course, if we're ever did play, I'm going to demand that we both use a common set of ruler and dice (and dice tower), along with mutual agreement on results before anything is touched...

But really, the thing starts to become a question of whether Generalship or Army List selection is more important. If we did this, to make it interesting, I think we'd have Dakka create two "balanced" army lists, and then flip a coin to see who played what. After all, if you bring a WAAC list against balanced lists, and win, where's the Generalship in that?

Centurian99 wrote:What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

If I can beat you then you have good comp.

In fact - the WC bashing seems pretty ignorant to me personally. Wah! A bunch of cheaters....wah! Wah!

If you don't like WC winning all the tournaments - cowboy up and get good enough to beat them on the table -

now, this may by why you get all the hate comments, fair enough, a member got caught cheating, doesent make the whole WC a bunch of cheaters, just that 1 person.

but, when you try to hype your self up and "look down your nose at people" then yes, people will have a problem with that.

im sure there are alot of better players out there, just because someone wont enter or cant enter a tournament does not mean they are not good.

so, its pretty simple, if you were to ease up on that ego people would be fine, its nice to have tourney winners about on dakka for advice, but its nowhere near nice when such people use dakka as a way to stroke thier ever growing ego.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
First off, you presume that the other posters lives revolve around winning tournaments, when many of us prefer casual play. If you're playing for the experience, rather than the win and the prize, then you probably could care less if you didn't win a prize.

If it was a WC guy screwing a non-WC guy out of a prize that he actually earned, then yeah, I suppose there might be more outrage. Kind of like 'Ard Boyz? Yeah, like that. The difference is that the TO was able to publicly man up and take actual steps make things right. The WC has never shown the cojones to do that kind of thing.

Most importantly, I don't have the time for tournament prep and play anymore. But from when I *did* have this kind of time, I was good enough to win my fair share of things. The "Best General" award gathering dust somewhere in my gaming pile says that I shouldn't have any problem beating any of you on the tabletop if I set my mind to it. Of course, if we're ever did play, I'm going to demand that we both use a common set of ruler and dice (and dice tower), along with mutual agreement on results before anything is touched...

But really, the thing starts to become a question of whether Generalship or Army List selection is more important. If we did this, to make it interesting, I think we'd have Dakka create two "balanced" army lists, and then flip a coin to see who played what. After all, if you bring a WAAC list against balanced lists, and win, where's the Generalship in that?

For people that don't care about the tournament circuit - there sure seems to be a lot of discussion about it. If people didn't care - I wouldn't think they would take the time to comment about it.

The 'ard boyz controversy is a dead horse - beaten to death - finalized, ruled on, and given the GW seal of approval. Only the haters seem to keep bringing it up. I also think Deadshane DID publicly respond on DAKKA about it. How many of the haters have ANY first hand experience vs WC members? And if so....what was the result? So far - with one exception that I know of - pretty much everyone who's played against WC members seem positive about playing them? (Centurion99, blackmoor, etc...)

Good players should settle things on the battlefield. As to beating people on the battlefield - until you've done it - it's just talk and theory. Actions - not words. The WC guys seem to do a pretty good job at winning games based on the 2008 tourney circuit results. That is a undeniable fact. I think in a game if there are concerns about cheating dice, etc - that each person should use the others dice/rulers then.

I've always thought it would make for a great tournament if everyone had to play the exact same list. Wouldn't work for all tourney's - but would at least put the armies on a par.

JD21290 wrote:
now, this may by why you get all the hate comments, fair enough, a member got caught cheating, doesent make the whole WC a bunch of cheaters, just that 1 person.

but, when you try to hype your self up and "look down your nose at people" then yes, people will have a problem with that.

im sure there are alot of better players out there, just because someone wont enter or cant enter a tournament does not mean they are not good.

so, its pretty simple, if you were to ease up on that ego people would be fine, its nice to have tourney winners about on dakka for advice, but its nowhere near nice when such people use dakka as a way to stroke thier ever growing ego.

Other than rebuttals of comments directed at them - when have WC members posted negative comments about others? I'm not aware of any - but I could be wrong. The only example might be the guy who got banned from dakka - but that is a story unto itself.

I'm sure that there are many competent and capable players - all across the world. But from the view of the tournament circuit - which - like it or not is the measuring stick of player quality - WC did well in 2008. As it stands now - it's primarily around game play - with some aspects of modeling/painting and sportsmanship included. There are other areas of the hobby that I don't think WC has done so well at - i.e. Golden Demons, Best Painted, Best Army's, etc.

The GW sponsored events were all won by WC members. As a club and as a gaming community - that is (or should be) considered a pretty impressive accomplishment. Did WC get a little over zealous in complimenting themselves about it - maybe - but I don't think any of that was at the expense of others? Did anyone ever say "WC won and all those other clubs are just a bunch of baby seals that we clubbed"? I don't think so....

it has been known for more than a few members to say these kinds of comments.

yes, but not every gamer in the world will enter a tourney.
we have no way of knowing about the ability of other players abound the globe.
so at tourneys, yes, they WC do tear them up, but in no way does it make them the best there is.

as the saying goes: "no matter how good you are at something, there is allways someone who is better"


at what point did i say it wasnt?
i would say its very impressive indeed.
just a maybe? i would beg to differ.

but since i cannot provide any posts to back that one up, i will leave that where it is.

Aldonis wrote:
Other than rebuttals of comments directed at them - when have WC members posted negative comments about others?

You're either not paying much attention or have never been to their private forums. Especially the hidden boards.

I can undertand the comp vs. no comp sides. On one hand why is anything in the rules considered anti-comp? It's in the rules, you should be able to play it. GW own English tournaments have no comp. GW employee events have no comp. You can't get more close to the source than that.

The comp field has a point, but I haven't heard it said. The no commp faction eventually cries that the rules only allow a few army archtypes to succeed at the top level. Ironically it is the no comp camps that both want no comp to maximize lists and complain that the weak rules restrict the type of armies they can bring to a tournament. If they wouldn't bring so many extreme lists, there would be more variety of potential winning lists. It's a catch-22.

No one can trust everyone else to not bring just 1 more broken unit then normal to give them an advantage so everyone brings the strongest lists and we end up with just a few lists that are viable to win all your games.

Comp rules are designed to try and expand the viable army lists that can run through a tournament, however a universal comp system hasn't been made that can accomplish this because there are always exceptions to any universal comp system. 40% troops favors strong troop armies, etc... The comp systems just seem to switch the small faction of viable armies from one area to another, not increase their numbers which is what comp is supposed to do.

Interestingly enough the best way I have seen to increase the viable army types is to increase the points level of games. A 3000pt game might take longer, but it gives more army types a chance to beat any other list. The Ard Boyz have begun to show signs of this in its 2 short years of excistence.

Link please.

G

Bunker wrote:

Aldonis wrote:
Other than rebuttals of comments directed at them - when have WC members posted negative comments about others?

You're either not paying much attention or have never been to their private forums. Especially the hidden boards.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Link please.

G

Bunker wrote:

Aldonis wrote:
Other than rebuttals of comments directed at them - when have WC members posted negative comments about others?

You're either not paying much attention or have never been to their private forums. Especially the hidden boards.

Yeah, not posting a link to your malware infested forums. You and I both know what boards I'm talking about.

Aldonis wrote:Some people might think the funniest army to play against is the hardest to beat.

Some might think it is one that seems to really match the fluff of the army as written in novels or codexes.

Others might think it's the ones that they can beat.

I like both of the top 2 and think the third is for wimps.

The key is for the tournament to clearly spell it out ahead of time for people. If a Nobz biker list is "illegal" for a tournament - let people know that before they bring it. That is only common courtesy.

Everything I know and have had interaction with in regards to Kenny is that he's a stand up guy. I say that despite the fact that he beat me out for best sportsmanship in the Atlanta GT a few years back making me settle for second best sportsman. If there was more to it - then the TO should let his thoughts be known here. Or if he made a mistake (due to personal prejudice or whatever) and manned up about it - then it should be put to bed.

I would encourage posters to put themselves in the shoes of having something like this happen to them and see how they would react. Or how they would have responded if it wasn't a member of the WC who was impacted.

In fact - the WC bashing seems pretty ignorant to me personally. Wah! A bunch of cheaters....wah! Wah! Get me a passy! SHEESH! If you don't like WC winning all the tournaments - cowboy up and get good enough to beat them on the table - and don't hide behind some lame excuse about how they are all cheaters! That sorry tailed excuse has gotten as much mileage out of it as it can get. Lame excuse, used by lame players, who's ego can't handle getting beaten.....

my two cents....

And yet STILL...

We get more of the same from the WC back up singers. IF the list in question wasn't WAAC, and based specificly to be a PITA, you might have room to speak.
But from the track record, it seems that WAAC in these tourneys is more important then playing. So basicly, you have nothing to add other then more of the same, "Oh these guys are just misunderstood.." When it has already been clearly posted by these members of the club that they play to win, and will win at all costs, regardless of how they do it.

AND for the record, I've never heard of your WC bashing that you speak. We, as in other posters on this forum are getting tired of the chest thumping, the rather obtuse postings of the so called "Champions" crying like schoolgirls because, "They got a raw deal..." Regardless of the TO.
That is pretty much a dead horse. NOW we get to hear more of the same, "Hey if you cant beat us... leave" crap that was funny in highschool, but now going on a few years later, is pretty lame.

No one in this thread said anything about cheating. That came out of your hole, after the rest of us are already having a pretty good conversation about the intricacy of tourny scoring. I am the one that says if you bring a WAAC, blaitently overloaded list to a tourney, and you catch static, then you brought that on yourself. ESPECIALLY since you can easily contact the tourney organizer and get the seriously importaint information, like what lists are viable, or what is and isn't allowed.

Seriously dude, if you have something to contribute, stay. If not, we are all already well into 6+ pages into this conversation before we start bringing out the pitchforks and torches. The discussion is about the comp issue, now. Your rallying to the defense of your poor crucified pals isn't needed, nor wanted.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/356393



*This Thread*

No need to be coy Roy. You don't have to get off the bus Gus. Anyways I see why you are enraged now... nothing but conjecture. You bring a whole new meaning to the term fist bump.... Oooooooooooh!

G

Bunker wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Link please.

G

Bunker wrote:

Aldonis wrote:
Other than rebuttals of comments directed at them - when have WC members posted negative comments about others?

You're either not paying much attention or have never been to their private forums. Especially the hidden boards.

Yeah, not posting a link to your malware infested forums. You and I both know what boards I'm talking about.

Let's keep it on topic, folks.

How much of a score is Comp relevent to? Half of your points? 25% of your points? IS it enough to squeek a win, or to overpower someone completely?

Who has played a tourney that had an incident where comp was the deciding factor?

When did the Comp become such an issue in the American tournies if they don't use it in England?

Green Blow Fly wrote:
No need to be coy Roy. You don't have to get off the bus Gus. Anyways I see why you are enraged now... nothing but conjecture. You bring a whole new meaning to the term fist bump.... Oooooooooooh!

G

Bunker wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Link please.

G

Bunker wrote:

Aldonis wrote:
Other than rebuttals of comments directed at them - when have WC members posted negative comments about others?

You're either not paying much attention or have never been to their private forums. Especially the hidden boards.

Yeah, not posting a link to your malware infested forums. You and I both know what boards I'm talking about.

For a self-proclaimed troll, you really have no idea what you're doing.

Here, let me help
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Troll (NSFW, don't click if you're overly sensitive, etc)

Now run along, sugarplum

frazz mate, if your lurking here is a new pic for you to use
puppy one is good, but this is better:

Grot 6 wrote:How much of a score is Comp relevent to? Half of your points? 25% of your points? IS it enough to squeek a win, or to overpower someone completely?

Who has played a tourney that had an incident where comp was the deciding factor?

When did the Comp become such an issue in the American tournies if they don't use it in England?

Comp was "officially" introduced in the old RTT scoring they came out with. 40% troops, etc.

This particular tournament was very high on comp and theme about 10 points per round. 30 points overall for the tournament. So it was a fair chunck of points. I would say it was around 1/3 to 25 %, don't know exactly.

Oh for feth's sake can someone just send up flare if/when the TFGTO wades in? It's really the only thing this controversy is missing, and I am getting really bored wading thru all this WC nerdrage. I don't know them, never played them, don't think I eeven have any in my state. Don't have anything against the WC, or even the anti-WC; it's a forum and people are free to post whatever within the rules. I'm not disputing that. I'm just sick of having to scaaaaaaaan thru all the rage.

Let's get crazy.

* hums *

G

This clip was absolutely beautiful.

GBF, all of us spend a stupid ammount on small plastic and metal men, i think to some extent we are all somewhat crazy as it is.

Grot 6 wrote:How much of a score is Comp relevent to? Half of your points? 25% of your points? IS it enough to squeek a win, or to overpower someone completely?

Who has played a tourney that had an incident where comp was the deciding factor?

When did the Comp become such an issue in the American tournies if they don't use it in England?

Could be significant. It depends on the idiosyncrasies of the tournament. At a local (well, tri-states) tournament I saw a player who was 3-1-1 take first place over three 4-1 players solely because of comp.

Grot 6 wrote:

And yet STILL...

We get more of the same from the WC back up singers. IF the list in question wasn't WAAC, and based specificly to be a PITA, you might have room to speak.
But from the track record, it seems that WAAC in these tourneys is more important then playing. So basicly, you have nothing to add other then more of the same, "Oh these guys are just misunderstood.." When it has already been clearly posted by these members of the club that they play to win, and will win at all costs, regardless of how they do it.

AND for the record, I've never heard of your WC bashing that you speak. We, as in other posters on this forum are getting tired of the chest thumping, the rather obtuse postings of the so called "Champions" crying like schoolgirls because, "They got a raw deal..." Regardless of the TO.
That is pretty much a dead horse. NOW we get to hear more of the same, "Hey if you cant beat us... leave" crap that was funny in highschool, but now going on a few years later, is pretty lame.

No one in this thread said anything about cheating. That came out of your hole, after the rest of us are already having a pretty good conversation about the intricacy of tourny scoring. I am the one that says if you bring a WAAC, blaitently overloaded list to a tourney, and you catch static, then you brought that on yourself. ESPECIALLY since you can easily contact the tourney organizer and get the seriously importaint information, like what lists are viable, or what is and isn't allowed.

Seriously dude, if you have something to contribute, stay. If not, we are all already well into 6+ pages into this conversation before we start bringing out the pitchforks and torches. The discussion is about the comp issue, now. Your rallying to the defense of your poor crucified pals isn't needed, nor wanted.

I guess I'm a lead "PIP"....

Think I was responding DIRECTLY to comments on THIS thread....

Where is their complaining about not winning - it was concerns about a tournament that if anyone but a WC member had posted about, would be considered a blatant case of TO EPIC FAIL. But - because it was a WC member, then it was ok because they DESERVED it and got what was coming??? The TO had the rules posted before that said nothing about the army being illegal or subject to penalty. Where is the fairness there? Static - that's subjective, but discrimination against without prior warning - that isn't right. Sounded like most of his opponents had no issue with the lists - only the TO. Read the entire posts....

As I said before - if you don't like the "chest thumping" that you think the WC guys are doing - then beat them on the table top. It's simple and effective - maybe not easy though.

And I think I post here what I wish...until the thread gets locked. Sorry - if you don't like it - just ignore it....or whine about - whichever you like most.

Warmaster wrote:

Grot 6 wrote:How much of a score is Comp relevent to? Half of your points? 25% of your points? IS it enough to squeek a win, or to overpower someone completely?

Who has played a tourney that had an incident where comp was the deciding factor?

When did the Comp become such an issue in the American tournies if they don't use it in England?

Comp was "officially" introduced in the old RTT scoring they came out with. 40% troops, etc.

This particular tournament was very high on comp and theme about 10 points per round. 30 points overall for the tournament. So it was a fair chunck of points. I would say it was around 1/3 to 25 %, don't know exactly.

In the late 90's when I first went to a GT - COMP (as well as painting and sportsmanship) could EASILY take you from top 25 to middle of the road or lower - as I found out the first time I attended one. I think about 50% of your overall total was there.

It was still a part of the GT's up until 2004 or 2005 - the complaint was the subjectivity of it. I personally kinda liked it and had no problems making armies that fit well into it, but I think it got a lot of complaints.

I have always thought that they needed two tourneys - one a 'ard boyz style of no comp/paining, and a second group that had those things included.

But for both - as much subjectivity as possible needs to be removed. Easier actually for comp than painting. GW has tried to improve by painting guidelines etc - but nothing universally accepted has been put out.

My 2 cents - post the rules as they are for the tourney, stick to them - and people can decide to play or not as they like.

Go back and read the posts. The TO pull some rules out of his pocket that were not posted to the public beforehand. That's just not cool however you slice it fella. I guess he just really hates on the nob bikers. The funny thing is another WC member won best overall at Genghis Con so obviously the hate was not directed specifically at WC but rather it was directed at a particular army list. Oh well please try again.

G

I couldn't give a crap about WC either way. Having never played them or indeed, in tournaments of any nature.

Having said that it seems apparent that the TO was up to some shenanigans. Since he isn't here to post his side of the story and everything else seems hashed out in that regards, could we just drop the general Genghis Con information/collusion/accusations etc. and continue the interesting topic of how the soft scores work in different tourney/judging environment?

--chaplaingrabthar

So I have heard from a friend in the comunity that I have started a firestorm on the forums. After reading through the threads I thought I would reply.

I screwed Kenny..... I did....... It was unfair and unkind...... Once I realized my mistake I spoke to Kenny privately and apologized and I publicly apologized.

I have no problems with Kenny but I do consider the nob biker list unfair and unbalanced.

For the record:

1. Kenny did not even come close to winning players choice. Jason's ork army recieved the most votes. It was the "bull's eye" orks and was a truly amazing force, well painted with nice conversions. After realizing my mistake I would have loved to have given Kenny an award for the day. I truly felt crappy about ruining his day and if he would have won I would have gladly given him the award. Instead I made up an award and gave him a prize as an apology for my mistake.
2. The scores in question where bonus scores. I had intended them to be given to people that exceeded the standard in theme and composition. The text for the scores was as follows:
--The player’s army was clearly built around fluff or storyline with no or very little regard to tournament competitiveness. It is wonderfully painted and modeled.
--The player’s army is a clear representation of a balanced army without emphasizing the hard hitting units of their army.
If anyone actually believes that a nob biker army deserves bonus points for these two, well, we will just have to agree to disagree. Kenny spoke to me and indicated that his "crew" invented this list specificaly to beat down the tournamenet scene so by his own admission he did not deserve any of these points. That said, after the second round of the tournament was finished I was reviewing the scores and I found that everyone was giving max theme and composition scores regardless of their opponents forces. Unpainted armies, double lash, nearly all of them with almost no exceptions. I realized that instead of enforcing bonus criteria by requireing his opponents to convince me of its fluffiness I was just punishing Kenny. At that point I went over to Kenny in his third game, I indicated that I wanted to talk to him after the game and that I was going to reverse my decision to not allow the original votes by his opposing players.
3. None of Kenny's opponents gave him the composition bonus points. All of them ended up giving him the theme bonus points. I spoke with all of his opponents and none of them gave me a valid reason for giving him the theme points other than it is a beautifully painted and converted army (which it is). I asked each of them if they thought the list was built clearly around fluff or storyline and all of them indicated that no they thought the list was built to win. This is why I originally witheld the points. Not becuase I had a Jones to screw Kenny but becuase his opponents were just giving him the bonus points to give him the bonus points. I thought I was enforcing the published rules of the tournament by requiring that a player truly think his opponent deserved the bonus points. None of his opponents did, they were just giving him the points. I did not ask this of every player becuase of the people that had a chance to win the tournament only Kenny's list was truly abusive in my oppinion. I do not like Rich's, Ron's, or Tulio's deamon armies but niether Ron nor Tulio did the double wound trick on their blood crushers that Kenny did and Rich ran an all tzeetch list. Damien's army was balanced, and Brook's army was drop podding marines. The kid with the 3 monolyth army had no shot at winning and no one was running double lash 9 oblits. Tony's army was sisters force but it wasn't too abusive either.
4. Kenny's match ups all followed the rules that everyone else played by. I had indicated to all of the national quality players that I would be doing preferred pairing for these individuals. I actually didn't realize that Kenny was playing until he was already in the midst of destroying his first opponent. I toyed around the idea of looking for a volunteer for him in the second round since that list is just too brutal but in the end I went with just pairing him up against the other national quality player with the same battle points. He was able to achieve a minor victory against that opponent. A bit surprised that he didn't table this oppponent (which I later learned he thought he would have if given another turn) I set up matches for the final round. While the minor victory had taken him out of the top tier he was still within striking distance of first place. I matched all of the national quality players that had a shot at the win against each other for the final round. Rich was paired up against Kenny for that reason. Kenny was actually slightly ahead of Rich in the standings at that point but not by much.
5. I did NOT specifically allocate them to a board with a level two building. I did remark when I was looking at the game that they ended up on one of the 5-7 boards we had with a building but that was it. Perhaps Kenny or Darkness heard this incorrectly or perhaps they were jsut upset.
6. No other players protested his scores. The only people aware of Kenny's situation were Kenny and his opponents. I made a decision to give the points back while Kenny still had a shot at overall and I let him know that.
7. Darkness I do not know who you are but you obviously know me. Before you slander my name anonomously on the internet perhaps you should speak to me first. Or at least get your facts straight. I screwed Kenny, in the end I realized that and it was no court of public oppinion that got his scores released but a decision by me. He did not win nor did he come close to winning players choice. If you want to dispute it you should have caught me that night since I was there until 1 am pulling the terain down and getting ready for Fantasy the next day. I would have gladly have shown you or anyone else the actual voting sheets.

In the end I truly felt bad about ruining Kenny's day. I privately apologized to him and I publicly apoligized to him. If he and his friends want to consider it insincere there is nothing I can do about it. I have been screwed at tournaments before and by my lack of attendance at Adepticon shows what I think is the proper course of action. If Kenny does not come to one of the tournaments again I would not blame him. If he does, he will of course be welcome.

With all of this I would like to say that I have been organizing and running the two big tournaments for nearly 10 years now. While I can often get someone else to run the event for me in the end it is my responsibility to get it run. I am human and I make mistakes, this was one of them. I still think his list is unbalanced and crappy but I let my judgement interfere with the tournament. I would be more than willing to let someone else take this torch for a while in Denver. The only reason I run and organize this event is becuase no one else will. For all of the people that flamed me in the other thread I am taking volunteers to run the next event. If anyone wants to volunteer they can email me at BrPrometheus@comcast.net. I can get you a free entrance into the con, and I can set you up with a game on another day. I will provide you all of the terrain and I will even help you set it up and break it down. That said I doubt any of you will. Most of you like to sit on the sidelines and complain and not do anything about it. I fully expect to be running this tournament 10 years from now becuase no one else will. I don't really enjoy it, its largely a pain in the ass and if you think my wife likes me missing every Valentines Day you are kidding yourself. So please someone who really thinks I screwed up and should be disbarred from every running the tournamenet again step forward. I will gladly turn over the reigns to you. And when you dock me all of my sportsmanship scores, lower all of my composition scores, remove my theme points, and automatically have me loose every game I will still be in a better place than I am as I will be playing and not running.

-golf clap-

And *that* is a stand up guy responds.

Bravo!

BrP: Thanks a lot for clearing this up. There's been a lot of crap flyin about as you can see. And I will echo JHDD in saying good job on taking your lumps at the tourney.

Nice to finally get the other side of the story.

Aye, very nice to see and not really that surprising.

On the topic of softscores and the problem they obviously encountered here it has been said in many threads before. WC have been known to bump up their own scores, always giving top scores to each other (wich isnt much to do about, alot of people do that if they know each other etc.) BUT they have also been known to manhandle people into giving them top points with the"if you dont give me/us good scores we will mark you down and we know who looses most on that". And when a TO sees that happenes he has to step in, if he got any backbone that is. (Like I said, this isnt exclusive for WC but there have been posts about them doing it before)

Other then that I can only say this is the mayor reason softscores are junk at wherever you play, they add so many ways you can abuse the system.

So here comes Kalbrand immediately with more speculation. How trite, overdone and pathetic all at the same time.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:How trite, overdone and pathetic all at the same time.

Pot, meet kettle.

Thanks BR Prometheus. Good to hear both sides.

There is the additional theme of pro-WC and anti-WC players/posters in this and other threads. Its very exciting. I'm just saddened I don't have popcorn.

BrPrometheus wrote:So I have heard from a friend in the comunity that I have started a firestorm on the forums. After reading through the threads I thought I would reply.

Thanks for the reply with the other side of the story, which clears up a lot. I think you encountered a common problem with player judged soft scores.

Kallbrand wrote: BUT they have also been known to manhandle people into giving them top points with the"if you dont give me/us good scores we will mark you down and we know who looses most on that".

Really?....REALLY?....you SURE about that Kallbrand? Or is this just some BS rumour that you HEARD or MADE UP? I'd like to see your proof on that. What player that you know claims this?

Or are you just smearing us some more with BS. Basically, what you've said is pretty much an outright lie. Yes, I'll call you a liar after that slander, the burden of proof is on the accuser so....WHERE'S YOUR PROOF ON THIS?

Dont be a jerk. What player claims this? Where is he and who did he play? Or are you simply trying to make us look bad by adding to the "WC hate Bandwagon" that is being perpetuated primarily by non-tournement players posting in a tournement thread and tournement goers that have never played any of us in the first place?

Members of the WC as a rule, DO NOT strong arm soft scores. What we do during a game is attempt to be pleasant enough DURING a game in order to make a new friend at a given tournement. Does this give us good sportsmanship scores....yes it stacks the deck in our favor concerning this, but it also swells the ranks of drinking pals that we have at Tournement. THIS is our common practice. If I offer you a beer after the game and am sincere, you accept, and we go hang in our (WC meeting) hotel room with 3 other WC gamers and THEIR last round opponents all talking tournement and good times....I'm an ass? THIS is the FULL extent of our soft score manipulation, if you think that making friends at a tournement is unruly behavior, having good times with fellow hobbyists is dishonest, I wonder what kind of tournement experiance YOU would give YOUR opponent.

THIS is what we do at tournement.

If you have something REALLY contrary to say concerning this, please put up some proof to the fact...or shut up.

I'm not going to post any more on this because being accused without justification pretty much pisses me off. Those that are hating on the WC have pretty much unfounded complaints concerning the club as a whole. We've had some of dakka's longest running posters and most competetive tournement players give us a resounding stamp of approval, THOSE are our credentials here here at dakka. The rest of you are 1. not tournement players anyway, or 2. talking out of your collective butts.

Game on boys.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Those that are hating on the WC have pretty much unfounded complaints concerning the club as a whole.

Last time I checked you guys had a confirmed and self-admitted cheater amongst you and the "club as a whole" was pretty unapologetic about it.

Bunker there has been plenty of allegations that you yourself cheat on a common basis at tournaments... having been ejected at least once.

G

Bunker wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

Those that are hating on the WC have pretty much unfounded complaints concerning the club as a whole.

Last time I checked you guys had a confirmed and self-admitted cheater amongst you and the "club as a whole" was pretty unapologetic about it.

Thats right folks, Bunker is one of those who doesnt know what he's talking about.

Thank you drive thru.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/223114.page#452400

Specifically THIS part:

"Representing WC, I'll go ahead and say to the community that we're sorry for any confusion on this subject. Wrecking Crews mission as stated on our website, is to form an elite group of competetive gamers that consider sportsmanship always as a major factor in placing highly in any tournement. Any of you out there that have met with us KNOW that we're all about the GAME. As an entire group, we're all about honest gaming. We don't use tricks as a rule and any deviation from that policy will be addressed within our own community. If there were any shenanigans going on during the 'Ard Boys, rest assured, its's being looked into. Wrecking Crew wants nothing other than an Extremely pleasant, honorable and enjoyable a$$whooping for our opponents, one that you'll come back for again and again with a smile on your face."

Bunker, know what you're talking about before you open your hole.

Is the guy still a member of WC Deadshane1?

Mod Mode on:
Clearly there are pro and anti WC posters here. Dakka rules still apply to this thread as any other. Argue the arguments and maintain courtesy or discplinary proceedings will be invoked as needed.

Rule 1: Be Polite
This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other readers' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments. When you read something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to the post than you initially thought. Re-read it keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in written form. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.

If after clarification you still disagree with the person then politely outline your points. Try to avoid name-calling or even implying insults wherever possible. These tactics generally only inflame a situation and lead to what are known as "Flame Wars." Whenever a flame war starts it usually ruins a perfectly good discussion. Others will lose interest in the thread and the discussion board in general if this kind of interchange is found here.

It also should go without saying that swearing, profanity, sexual references, etc. are strictly forbidden. Remember that we have readers of all ages.

Mod Mode off:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Bunker there has been plenty of allegations that you yourself cheat on a common basis at tournaments... having been ejected at least once.

G

Considering that my first will be on Feb 28th I see that as being a little difficult.

Also, allegations =/= proof. There's proof that your boy cheated

try again sweetie

Deadshane1 wrote:

Bunker wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

Those that are hating on the WC have pretty much unfounded complaints concerning the club as a whole.

Last time I checked you guys had a confirmed and self-admitted cheater amongst you and the "club as a whole" was pretty unapologetic about it.

Thats right folks, Bunker is one of those who doesnt know what he's talking about.

Thank you drive thru.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/223114.page#452400

Specifically THIS part:

"Representing WC, I'll go ahead and say to the community that we're sorry for any confusion on this subject. Wrecking Crews mission as stated on our website, is to form an elite group of competetive gamers that consider sportsmanship always as a major factor in placing highly in any tournement. Any of you out there that have met with us KNOW that we're all about the GAME. As an entire group, we're all about honest gaming. We don't use tricks as a rule and any deviation from that policy will be addressed within our own community. If there were any shenanigans going on during the 'Ard Boys, rest assured, its's being looked into. Wrecking Crew wants nothing other than an Extremely pleasant, honorable and enjoyable a$$whooping for our opponents, one that you'll come back for again and again with a smile on your face."

Bunker, know what you're talking about before you open your hole.

And yet the guy is still a member? Sounds like you all support his conduct to me.

2/10. Try again

Frazzled wrote:Is the guy still a member of WC Deadshane1?

So much as I know...he is.

Thing is this, WC isnt so much a specific organisation that perpetuates a practice of "screw up and you're fired", we're not organised enough to have "hard-line" rules.

Basically, the WC could just as easily be called "the Friends of Kenny and Marc". Friends involved in recreational activities handle issues different that actual 'business' organisations.

When a friend of yours screws up, you talk to him. You get his side of the story, generally, if he's a good friend you don't throw him out with the trash as certain blog-sites and posters here have condemned us for not doing. We're all playing a game here, its a game, when it gets right down to it, one of OUR (the WC's) buddies screwed up, we've talked to him, and hope that these series of incidents dont happen in the future. If they do?...well, we'll have to deal with that if it ever comes to that....I personally dont think it will.

The whole thing has been discussed an mulled over amongst us all in the WC and actually the entire 'Ard Boyz debacle was a learning experience for 1 of our members, and an example of "What not to do" for the rest of us. The member in question IS a close friend of several of our members however, and you dont throw friends to the dogs when inexperience or foolishness gets the better of them. You talk to your friend and try to help him avoid those occurances in the future. That is what being a friend is, and that's what we've done. At least that is MY understanding, Gareth is more an aquaintance than a personal friend of MINE...so I wasnt privy to the exact details, but from what I've learned off of the phone and thru e-mails with our other members, this is how we've handled the issue. I'm satisfied that we've handled it sufficiently within our club.

Bunker wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

Bunker wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

Those that are hating on the WC have pretty much unfounded complaints concerning the club as a whole.

Last time I checked you guys had a confirmed and self-admitted cheater amongst you and the "club as a whole" was pretty unapologetic about it.

Thats right folks, Bunker is one of those who doesnt know what he's talking about.

Thank you drive thru.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/223114.page#452400

Specifically THIS part:

"Representing WC, I'll go ahead and say to the community that we're sorry for any confusion on this subject. Wrecking Crews mission as stated on our website, is to form an elite group of competetive gamers that consider sportsmanship always as a major factor in placing highly in any tournement. Any of you out there that have met with us KNOW that we're all about the GAME. As an entire group, we're all about honest gaming. We don't use tricks as a rule and any deviation from that policy will be addressed within our own community. If there were any shenanigans going on during the 'Ard Boys, rest assured, its's being looked into. Wrecking Crew wants nothing other than an Extremely pleasant, honorable and enjoyable a$$whooping for our opponents, one that you'll come back for again and again with a smile on your face."

Bunker, know what you're talking about before you open your hole.

And yet the guy is still a member? Sounds like you all support his conduct to me.

2/10. Try again

I make you look like a fool and this is your comeback?

You neednt have posted any more on this matter. If you disappear from this thread people will forget you screwed up. Trust me, its the better way to concede defeat that perpetuate a losing position in an arguement.

as to your comments about Gareth still being a member....see my post above.

I'm not picking a side here, but WC is representing themselves as a team. You get the good and bad with that. When the bad happens, your team is going to get slammed because of it. Inversely, you can claim the good as well, winning records, helping old grandmothers across the street even if they didn't want to cross the street, the usual.

Deadshane1 wrote:

I make you look like a fool and this is your comeback?

You neednt have posted any more on this matter. If you disappear from this thread people will forget you screwed up. Trust me, its the better way to concede defeat that perpetuate a losing position in an arguement.

as to your comments about Gareth still being a member....see my post above.

Where'd that happen?

Weren't you the one who said you weren't going to post here anymore?

Typical poorly equipped troll is both typical and poorly equipped.

Edit: As Frazzled said, you guys rep yourselves as a team, and your image becomes one of a group rather than individuals, at least to the community.

I get the friends first blah blah blah toy men game blah blah argument, but it is a very poor one, and one that you would not have had to fall back on had you any real rebuttals to make about the WCs acceptance of cheaters in their ranks.

I can't put my finger on it, but I'm sensing Bunker and Deadshane disagree slightly...

Frazzled wrote:I'm not picking a side here, but WC is representing themselves as a team. You get the good and bad with that. When the bad happens, your team is going to get slammed because of it.

So we're going back to rehashing the 'Ard Boyz issues? ....and here I thought that issue was dead.

When the BAD happens, I would expect at least for people to post facts and not simple uninformed HATE addressed to WC such like Bunker here is spouting. He doenst know anything about anything concerning us and continues to troll.

Gareth may have screwed up, but that issue is long gone and should have died by now....people keep bringing it up thinking that its sufficient reason to slam our club as a whole. Slamming our club regardless of the vast majority of our opponents that give us 5 stars after games.

As an individual, 'I' don't have to take that. I'm a member of the WC AND an individual that plays at tournement. I dont care for allegations of ME being a cheater/poor player, especially when it comes from those who have no idea what they're talking about. Case in point...Bunker/Kallbrand/JohnDD.

I personally dont have to take that sort of slander...as I personally have nothing but the intention of having a good time when playing at tournement.

Frazzled wrote:I can't put my finger on it, but I'm sensing Bunker and Deadshane disagree slightly...

Good call.

Your reward? I get to motivate you

Frazzled wrote:I can't put my finger on it, but I'm sensing Bunker and Deadshane disagree slightly...

You're enjoying your new pictures a bit too much methinks ;-)

Though have another one btw.



Apply as needed =)

Deadshane1 wrote: Bunker here is spouting. He doenst know anything about anything concerning us and continues to troll.

Again, explain to me how the following is untrue

1) Gareth cheated at a tournament, and then tried to blame it on everyone but himself (First the judge who supposedly made the ruling, then the other player for allowing it)
2) It was posted here and the obvious crapstorm ensued
3) The WC acknowledged that it happened, said "we're looking into it" and then expected everyone to be okay with that explanation

Where have I made an error?

And since this thread is apparently now about motivational posters

Deadshane1 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'm not picking a side here, but WC is representing themselves as a team. You get the good and bad with that. When the bad happens, your team is going to get slammed because of it.

So we're going back to rehashing the 'Ard Boyz issues? ....and here I thought that issue was dead.

When the BAD happens, I would expect at least for people to post facts and not simple uninformed HATE addressed to WC such like Bunker here is spouting. He doenst know anything about anything concerning us and continues to troll.

Gareth may have screwed up, but that issue is long gone and should have died by now....people keep bringing it up thinking that its sufficient reason to slam our club as a whole. Slamming our club regardless of the vast majority of our opponents that give us 5 stars after games.

As an individual, 'I' don't have to take that. I'm a member of the WC AND an individual that plays at tournement. I dont care for allegations of ME being a cheater/poor player, especially when it comes from those who have no idea what they're talking about. Case in point...Bunker/Kallbrand/JohnDD.

I personally dont have to take that sort of slander...as I personally have nothing but the intention of having a good time when playing at tournement.

Come on Deadshane1
1. You know no issue on the swirling emostorm of the intranets is ever dead. Like something you do to tick off your wife, everntually, maybe years from now, it will pop up when you least expect it to bite you on the rear.

2. I'm not saying you yourself is a cheater, or anyone for that matter. Groups however will get painted with the same brush in all ways by non-members. Members of that group have to take the bad as well as the good.

Again, I've no dog in this hunt, and have nothing against anyone on this thread, except for Malf of course. I hate that guy, that dirty sock stealer.

Bunker-I'm stealing that pic. It will come in handy for important posts...
EDIT: I met my wife and my first scorpion within an hour of each other. Coincidence?

So I guess we're done with the conversation?

In before the lock.

Deadshane1 wrote:
Gareth cheated

fixed it for you.

Bunker wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote: Bunker here is spouting. He doenst know anything about anything concerning us and continues to troll.

Again, explain to me how the following is untrue

1) Gareth cheated at a tournament, and then tried to blame it on everyone but himself (First the judge who supposedly made the ruling, then the other player for allowing it)
2) It was posted here and the obvious crapstorm ensued
3) The WC acknowledged that it happened, said "we're looking into it" and then expected everyone to be okay with that explanation

Where have I made an error?

And exactly HOW were YOU effected by this? Exactly how many WC players have you played over the years? What interest do YOU have in how we manage OUR club?

What exactly is YOUR stake in this? Or are you simply another internet troll that finds it fun to perpetuate an arguement.

Perpetuating arguement is exactly what your last 5-6 threads have done. You dont offer anything constructive to this discussion.

You sir, are the troll. Count yourself lucky that I'm even trying to get thru your thick head when you should simply be on 'ignore' as is truly deserved.

If you want to really discuss this because you have some real reason to be concerned with WC practice...why not e-mail me, I'd be happy to set you straight....I have no reason to lie to you, since our Club is actually a fun, exiting, and contrary to popular beleif, honest group to associate with.

Frazzled wrote:

Bunker-I'm stealing that pic. It will come in handy for important posts...

Which one? Gadget Legs or Earthquake?

I had 2 gigs of them before my old hard drive crapped out on me 3 weeks ago.

Those and a picture I took of my grandmother 2 days before she died are the only things I regret losing.

olympia wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
Gareth cheated

fixed it for you....because I'm a loser troll

fixed it for you.

Le Grognard wrote:Been following this one from the last thread. You say the TO over-reacted and then apologized. Fine. But, somewhere it said that the Player and the TO were friends to begin with so my whole take goes something like this:

Player: Dude, I'm gonna bring my Nob Biker list to your tourney and totally wreck it.

TO: Dude, if you do I'm totally going to wreck your tournament experience.

Player: Dude, no way, my list ain't against the rules.

TO: Dude, totally way, It's my tourney, and I don't want it wrecked.

Player: Dude, step off, I am so going to wreck the tournament with my list.

And so on and so on and it all came to a head on tournament day.

(this is all tounge and cheek, don't take it personally, boyos!)

Man-o-man has this been an entertaining thread. Now that I've heard both sides of the story, I still stand behind my take on it back on Page 3. Can't we all just get along? It's fraking toy soldiers.

hey ! Don't start on wives, they have their uses.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Bunker wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote: Bunker here is spouting. He doenst know anything about anything concerning us and continues to troll.

Again, explain to me how the following is untrue

1) Gareth cheated at a tournament, and then tried to blame it on everyone but himself (First the judge who supposedly made the ruling, then the other player for allowing it)
2) It was posted here and the obvious crapstorm ensued
3) The WC acknowledged that it happened, said "we're looking into it" and then expected everyone to be okay with that explanation

Where have I made an error?

And exactly HOW were YOU effected by this? Exactly how many WC players have you played over the years? What interest do YOU have in how we manage OUR club?

What exactly is YOUR stake in this? Or are you simply another internet troll that finds it fun to perpetuate an arguement.

Perpetuating arguement is exactly what your last 5-6 threads have done. You dont offer anything constructive to this discussion.

You sir, are the troll. Count yourself lucky that I'm even trying to get thru your thick head when you should simply be on 'ignore' as is truly deserved.

If you want to really discuss this because you have some real reason to be concerned with WC practice...why not e-mail me, I'd be happy to set you straight....I have no reason to lie to you, since our Club is actually a fun, exiting, and contrary to popular beleif, honest group to associate with.

Okay, so just to clarify, I actually DO know what I'm talking about. You just wish that I would stop talking about it because it makes your group look bad?

You go from "Bunker doesn't know what he's talking about and is a liar" to "Bunker doesn't add anything" coupled with "Bunker must have some sort of personal stake in this"? Really? Like, really really? You have run out of valid points and are now grasping at straws.

I, good sir, may be the troll (in your mind). But you, sir, dress funny and wear pink army boots.

Grot 6 wrote:So I guess we're done with the conversation?

In before the lock.

that thing has no thing... reminds me of Bunker (cheater).

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Grot 6 wrote:So I guess we're done with the conversation?

In before the lock.

that thing has no thing... reminds me of Bunker (cheater).

G

The fact that you think about my "thing" frightens me.

Here, have a motivational poster

Thanks Green Blow Fly, whatever your trying to say.

Bunker wrote:
I, good sir, may be the troll (in your mind). But you, sir, dress funny and wear pink army boots.

...and since it must be ok to insult organisations and people in this thread even with moderators patrolling it.

Go F*** yourself Troll.

...and you're right, this thread has run its course so I'll stop posting here.

This thread keeps giving.

Grot you stole my ending.

Closing as the flaming has started. Time to move on, nothing to see here.

I think we've learned something today. Sidetrack a thread with humorous pics and you will get more in return, sort of an internet Christmas.

I leave you with these words