One question that I'd like to see answered that I didn't find in the FAQ is whether the +3 to Leadership while manifesting psychic powers applies to making any tests for Perils.
whigwam wrote: I don't know why they ruled Unyielding Anvil like they did (iBook vs actualBook seems likely), but you can also look at it as a 'conflict' between an outdated codex/new edition.
Using the wording Blackmoor quoted, it seems clear: units elected to be Troops are Troops, and Troops have ObjSec. Pure and simple RAW...just like with the Phase Shifter/CCB. But strangely, I don't hear anyone here (or anywhere) championing the CCB getting a permanent 3++ save. That might be because it is A) obviously overpowered and B) flies in the face of the original RAI. An update in editions made a previously unremarkable piece of wargear into something amazing. Oops! Then everyone agreed to fix it. OK, all better now.
So with Unyielding Anvil: ObjSec on your entire army is incredibly powerful. Maybe too powerful. And, either way, definitely not in line with the RAI when the book was written way back in 5th. By not making Unyielding Anvil units ObjSec, sure, one of your many rules is now useless. But that's what happens when you're playing a book that's 2 editions old. S**t breaks, and if it breaks in your favor, prepare to get ruled against.
In short, to me it's a fair ruling. It's not RAW, and that's OK, because (as we've all seemed to agree on the CCB) sometimes RAW is stupid.
The problem is that not ALL Troops are Obj Sec. I think that what everyone trying to point out to Blackmoor. That can happen if someone takes GK as an desperate allies or apoc allies so none of GK has Obj Sec. The ruling is correct. Unyielding Anvi don't automatic grant you Obj Sec that does not mean you can't gain Obj Sec by being a troop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackmoor wrote: From the ETCFAQ: 20. A unit benefiting from Unyielding Anvil will also benefit from the Objective Secured rule.
From that wording, If GK was my desperate allies or apoc allies i will gain Objective Secured? Codex > BRB.
whigwam wrote: I don't know why they ruled Unyielding Anvil like they did (iBook vs actualBook seems likely), but you can also look at it as a 'conflict' between an outdated codex/new edition.
Using the wording Blackmoor quoted, it seems clear: units elected to be Troops are Troops, and Troops have ObjSec. Pure and simple RAW...just like with the Phase Shifter/CCB. But strangely, I don't hear anyone here (or anywhere) championing the CCB getting a permanent 3++ save. That might be because it is A) obviously overpowered and B) flies in the face of the original RAI. An update in editions made a previously unremarkable piece of wargear into something amazing. Oops! Then everyone agreed to fix it. OK, all better now.
So with Unyielding Anvil: ObjSec on your entire army is incredibly powerful. Maybe too powerful. And, either way, definitely not in line with the RAI when the book was written way back in 5th. By not making Unyielding Anvil units ObjSec, sure, one of your many rules is now useless. But that's what happens when you're playing a book that's 2 editions old. S**t breaks, and if it breaks in your favor, prepare to get ruled against.
In short, to me it's a fair ruling. It's not RAW, and that's OK, because (as we've all seemed to agree on the CCB) sometimes RAW is stupid.
The problem is that not ALL Troops are Obj Sec. I think that what everyone trying to point out to Blackmoor. That can happen if someone takes GK as an desperate allies or apoc allies so none of GK has Obj Sec. The ruling is correct. Unyielding Anvi don't automatic grant you Obj Sec that does not mean you can't gain Obj Sec by being a troop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackmoor wrote: From the ETCFAQ: 20. A unit benefiting from Unyielding Anvil will also benefit from the Objective Secured rule.
From that wording, If GK was my desperate allies or apoc allies i will gain Objective Secured? Codex > BRB.
You need to look at the Grey Knight FAQ to see that they cleared that up. (3rd page, right column errata for page 22).
whigwam wrote: I don't know why they ruled Unyielding Anvil like they did (iBook vs actualBook seems likely), but you can also look at it as a 'conflict' between an outdated codex/new edition.
Using the wording Blackmoor quoted, it seems clear: units elected to be Troops are Troops, and Troops have ObjSec. Pure and simple RAW...just like with the Phase Shifter/CCB. But strangely, I don't hear anyone here (or anywhere) championing the CCB getting a permanent 3++ save. That might be because it is A) obviously overpowered and B) flies in the face of the original RAI. An update in editions made a previously unremarkable piece of wargear into something amazing. Oops! Then everyone agreed to fix it. OK, all better now.
So with Unyielding Anvil: ObjSec on your entire army is incredibly powerful. Maybe too powerful. And, either way, definitely not in line with the RAI when the book was written way back in 5th. By not making Unyielding Anvil units ObjSec, sure, one of your many rules is now useless. But that's what happens when you're playing a book that's 2 editions old. S**t breaks, and if it breaks in your favor, prepare to get ruled against.
In short, to me it's a fair ruling. It's not RAW, and that's OK, because (as we've all seemed to agree on the CCB) sometimes RAW is stupid.
The problem is that not ALL Troops are Obj Sec. I think that what everyone trying to point out to Blackmoor. That can happen if someone takes GK as an desperate allies or apoc allies so none of GK has Obj Sec. The ruling is correct. Unyielding Anvi don't automatic grant you Obj Sec that does not mean you can't gain Obj Sec by being a troop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackmoor wrote: From the ETCFAQ: 20. A unit benefiting from Unyielding Anvil will also benefit from the Objective Secured rule.
From that wording, If GK was my desperate allies or apoc allies i will gain Objective Secured? Codex > BRB.
You need to look at the Grey Knight FAQ to see that they cleared that up. (3rd page, right column errata for page 22).
no really. only thing that clear up is that Unyielding Anvil can't be use but if somehow unyielding anvil came into play then from that wording i will gain Objective Secured.
BAO ruling just trying to cover everything since they do run stupid stuff like beerhammer and might need to use that faq for some crazy stuff. only gods know what they are trying to pull. i think your first read you thought GK can't gain Obj Sec, which is not the case here.
Come on let's cut the Grey Knights some slack. You can argue endlessly like YMDC... It's totally pointless and trolling. The truth is the old grey mare ain't what she used to be.
This is both a little bit funny and a little bit over complex.
A unit benefiting from Unyielding Anvil will also benefit from Objective Secured. That does not mean every unit given Unyielding Anvil also gains Objective Secured, since not all Detachments gain Objective Secured on their Troops.
Keep in mind that not all Troops get Objective Secured (i.e., the Ork Horde), so a GK detachment without the Objective Secured rule [for its troops] would not confer Objective Secured to units within the detachment given the Unyielding Anvil rule.
A GK Detachment *with* the Objective Secured rule [for its Troops], on the other hand, would confer Objective Secured to units within the detachment given the Unyielding Anvil rule.
Hollismason wrote: Wish I could make this but can't looks great!! Can't wait to see the pictures, battle reports , and to see how things shake out.
Prediction :
Chaos Daemons
Eldar
Tyranid
I would say that you are really missing the bar by not including Tau, and I hope to prove that, or that someone else will. IMO Nids wouldn't make the cut.
Hollismason wrote: Wish I could make this but can't looks great!! Can't wait to see the pictures, battle reports , and to see how things shake out.
Prediction :
Chaos Daemons
Eldar
Tyranid
I would say that you are really missing the bar by not including Tau, and I hope to prove that, or that someone else will. IMO Nids wouldn't make the cut.
Hollismason wrote: Wish I could make this but can't looks great!! Can't wait to see the pictures, battle reports , and to see how things shake out.
Prediction :
Chaos Daemons
Eldar
Tyranid
I would say that you are really missing the bar by not including Tau, and I hope to prove that, or that someone else will. IMO Nids wouldn't make the cut.
Drop Pod Marines
Eldar
Knights/AM
Eldar
Daemons
Tau
If jy2 was playing Crons I would strongly consider putting them over Tau, but since he isn't, I'm not convinced.
How prevalent are Imperial Knights at tournaments? 1-2 as allies or 4-5 entire army?
IMO IKs are overrated. Now that is biased a little by the fact that I play a full melta Farsight Bomb so I chew one up and spit it out every turn. Seriously though. If you avoid close combat, there is not that good of an armor ment on it. It's not worth taking 3 to me just to overkill infantry and not be able to touch most tanks. (Unless you take the Melta Knight but most people don't take it if you field 1 or 2
IMO IKs are overrated. Now that is biased a little by the fact that I play a full melta Farsight Bomb so I chew one up and spit it out every turn. Seriously though. If you avoid close combat, there is not that good of an armor ment on it. It's not worth taking 3 to me just to overkill infantry and not be able to touch most tanks. (Unless you take the Melta Knight but most people don't take it if you field 1 or 2
As I recall, you just barely finished the last HP off my Imperial Knight using 12 Fusion Blasters + Shadowsun's 2 w/ buff suit. Now imagine going up against 5 Knight Errants (melta blast) in 1850pts, 3 of them having the Adamantine Lance formation for re-roll invulns, re-roll charge range, and D3 Hammer of Wrath hits. There very few army lists out there than can counter or take out that many Imperial Knights.
IMO IKs are overrated. Now that is biased a little by the fact that I play a full melta Farsight Bomb so I chew one up and spit it out every turn. Seriously though. If you avoid close combat, there is not that good of an armor ment on it. It's not worth taking 3 to me just to overkill infantry and not be able to touch most tanks. (Unless you take the Melta Knight but most people don't take it if you field 1 or 2
As I recall, you just barely finished the last HP off my Imperial Knight using 12 Fusion Blasters + Shadowsun's 2 w/ buff suit. Now imagine going up against 5 Knight Errants (melta blast) in 1850pts, 3 of them having the Adamantine Lance formation for re-roll invulns, re-roll charge range, and D3 Hammer of Wrath hits. There very few army lists out there than can counter or take out that many Imperial Knights.
I agree with what you are saying. My point more so is that maybe such a broad statement was a little bit out of line, but if there was any list that had a good shot of having a chance I would say Farsight Bomb and full Melta Drop Pods would be some of the lists that would stand a better chance than your normal TAC army. In general I would say take out 2-3 if you can and then try to play around them as best as possible. If you have 3 Riptides and your getting your 3+ Invuln off and if you dont you still have a 5+, they are very good against the blast as its only one hit. if you want to shoot every blast at one riptide then i would say that overkilling a riptide is fine because you get a face full of melta. My point here is that i would think Tau have one of the better shots against them, and the way to beat them is to make them less devastating every turn, but play the objective game. If you have to play kill points against them, you army has my condolences, and so do you.
I can say from experience that a pure IK army is a nightmare to play against. I had a hard enough time playing against 3 IK's run by an inexperienced general. I'm not sure how to beat a 5 IK list run by an experienced general.
BTW, at the ATC just recently, I believe 3 of the top 10 armies there were IK armies.
Hollismason wrote: The Barbed Hierodule has some weird gak as well but I always get it confused with other models.
It only has 12 S10 shots. Otherwise, it isn't anything special really.
You'll probably see InControl run it at the BAO. He's (the BH) not that scary.
Well, 2 Biocannons so it could do 6 shots to two targets if it wanted to. It's BS3 though, so half the time it hits. It's also T8 with 6 wounds, so think of it as trying to kill a Wraith Knight with a much nastier gun.
jy2 wrote: I can say from experience that a pure IK army is a nightmare to play against. I had a hard enough time playing against 3 IK's run by an inexperienced general. I'm not sure how to beat a 5 IK list run by an experienced general.
BTW, at the ATC just recently, I believe 3 of the top 10 armies there were IK armies.
Yea I played against a 4 IK army in 6th and it was insane. Now in 7th I would just pray I don't draw that type of army list early lol. 7's to explode and 6 HP's is just too brutal to face with almost any TAC list.
Knights have some serious weaknesses, especially all-knight armies. Not only can many armies kill a couple early on, their firepower is relatively mundane for the points invested, and they are very, very easily movement blocked (especially if playing at a tournament that hasn't made up rules allowing them further transit through difficult terrain). Better players simply kill one or two as able, and then focus on mission while preventing them from going anywhere with throwaways. Giant bases that can't tank shock or jump struggle with life in the world of warhammer.
More well-rounded armies with paired knight support are a much bigger pain to deal with.
MVBrandt wrote: Knights have some serious weaknesses, especially all-knight armies. Not only can many armies kill a couple early on, their firepower is relatively mundane for the points invested, and they are very, very easily movement blocked (especially if playing at a tournament that hasn't made up rules allowing them further transit through difficult terrain). Better players simply kill one or two as able, and then focus on mission while preventing them from going anywhere with throwaways. Giant bases that can't tank shock or jump struggle with life in the world of warhammer.
More well-rounded armies with paired knight support are a much bigger pain to deal with.
Perfect. I was going to ask you about the clear rAW3d6 take the highest, as I didn't see it in the FAQ.
Should also mention, as nigh invulnerable as Adamantine Lance makes three Knights, it also makes them move together, whit his extraordinarily cumbersome.
Wish I could have been able to throw down with you gentlemen this weekend but the 2nd Founding of my army isn’t up tournament table top standards just yet. Will definitely make my way over there on Saturday in hopes of grabbing some swag and saying hi.
Yeah I just saw or at least I think it's correct in saying he won versus Seerstar in the last round, I think round 3 is over with. I'm mainly paying attention as I want my prediction to come true for the Top 3 Being Chaos Daemons, Eldar , Tyranids , with Tyranids taking the tournament overall. I think top 2 players w/ be Tyranids coming out of the 3rd round.
Hollismason wrote: Yeah I just saw or at least I think it's correct in saying he won versus Seerstar in the last round, I think round 3 is over with. I'm mainly paying attention as I want my prediction to come true for the Top 3 Being Chaos Daemons, Eldar , Tyranids , with Tyranids taking the tournament overall. I think top 2 players w/ be Tyranids coming out of the 3rd round.
Yes sir! Tyranids appear to be leading after round 3 and in a tie with Space Marines/Knights for second place! Wow! Now, please don't make the bugs play eachother...
I dunno what Vince is running now but in 6ed he had BA allied with 3 knights. Mephy and some other stuff I can't remember. He did very well with it at an event I ran in May.
I apologize for not putting up my Dimachaeron report, but I've been busy with BAOGT. Anyways, here's a little update about the BAO. It is a 2-day 6-game GT and Day #1 is already done (3 games each day). It is about 128 players.
After Day #1, there are 3 Tyranid players in the Top 13!
At 13th is yours truly and his Hive Fleet Pandora, or should I say Sky Fleet Pandora. I am bringing Skyblight and so far, I am 2-0-1 (W-L-D).
At 2nd place is a Tyranid player who so far is a perfect 3-0. Guess what he brought? A converted Dimarchaeron!
And at 1st is Team Zero Comp's very own....Jeff "InControl" Robinson! He is running a Barbed Hierodule and he has been crushing his opponents. Part of the reason was because his Hierodule was on fire ! He had 5-6 stomp attacks where he rolled 's on the Stomp table!
My goal isn't really to win the tournament. It is to try to win Best Tyranids. But I really have my work cut out for me, since they are now at 1st and 2nd place overall. Heck, if I can get Best Tyranid player, perhaps I can even potentially win it all! But I dare not dream that far....
My goal isn't really to win the tournament. It is to try to win Best Tyranids. But I really have my work cut out for me, since they are now at 1st and 2nd place overall. Heck, if I can get Best Tyranid player, perhaps I can even potentially win it all! But I dare not dream that far....
I am sorry Jim, but I am not going to let that happen.
Frankly, kids, the bigger story might be that *I* am 2 and 1 at half time. Brush up on your apocalypse preparations, and binge watch that show where people prep for the end of the world.
And I got here while drinking throughout the day.
For those there , is that Imperial Knight player doing straight up Imperial knights all five or does he have a LOW or that special character? ( who I think has been released?)
Someone mentioned to me in person that the Imperial Knight FAQ makes it so Imperial Knight CAD doesn't have to be minimum 3 Knights. Hence the Adamantine Lance formation is allowed in BAO.
These results look quite cool. Unfortunately, I didn't attend the BAO this year. Too much going on and my army isn't even halfway painted yet.
I am currently working on my PhD in research psychology / cognitive neuroscience. When I see data I have unreasonable urges to do analyses. The Torrent of Fire database is too cool. I'd like to share a few analyses I ran on the games played today for fun. For my first pass, I decided to address the question of whether particular armies achieved more or less Battle-Points than each other. This is really an age old question in the gaming community. Are certain armies stronger than others? More likely to win games? To achieve more Battle-Points?
Methods
First, a bit about the methods I decided on. You are allowed to skip this part if you want. I included in my analyses every game (344 games) that was played today (3 games per individual). The structure of the data is nested and is therefore dependent. That is, one individual played three games and it is important that we maintain that information in our analyses and not collapse across individuals, or even avg. within an individual. This will allow us to account for some of the 'noise' between individuals. That is, some players might just be better than other players. The second consideration. was that my variable of interest was 'Battle-Points'. Battle points as a variable ranges from 0 to 10 (per game) and is therefore discrete (there are no values of 5.4 or 1.3 for example) and possibly non-normal. I thought it would be good to correct for the properties of this 'count-data' (that is, counts of battle points '1, 2, 3.. 5.. etc') using a Poisson distribution. In order to respect the structure of the data (mutli-level / nested) and the nature of the dependent variable (discrete values), I used a multi-level Poisson regression model estimated using maximum likelihood (estimated in SAS using PROC Glimmix).
Results
The first thing of note is that the random intercept was significant. σ02 = .06860, SE= 0.02021. What this means is that we can say that it is probably the case (in this data) that some individuals score more Battle-Points than others. This seems obvious on the one hand, but it could have been the case that something like player skill didn't matter - what mattered was the army you brought.
Now what is important is the estimates for each Army.
There was also a significant effect of 'Army'. That is, some armies did significantly better than others.
Here you can see the estimated Mean Battle Points a person is expected to achieve with a particular army on an average game during the BAO. The estimates are all significant, which is to say they are different than zero.
So, for example, if you played Grey Knights in the BAO, you are expected to achieve 5.923 Battle Points per game. If you played Orks, you are expected to only achieve 2.38 BP's per game.
Here are the plotted estimates. Unsurprisingly, the data is very similar to what chipstar1 posted.
Next, I ran mean comparisons between each of the armies to see whether some armies are expected to score more BP's than other armies. Given that is 120 different comparisons, I thought it was important to correct for multiple-comparisons because we are likely to have some significant differences between armies purely by chance. With the data 'thresholded' in this way, there are only a few significant differences between armies.
What this tells us is that Tyranids, Space Marines, Eldar, Necrons, and Grey Knights, did better than Orks and Guard. What this also tells us, just as importantly, is that there is no statistical difference between the top 14 armies. This is good news and suggests that some semblance of balance exists between armies (poor Guard and Orks :( What happened to you guys today?). Now, with more data, there may actually exist differences between a wider range of armies, but at least in the BAO, there was no statistical difference. So what this tells us is that it is unreasonable to say that Grey Knights are the best, or Tyranids, or that Blood Angels suck, or whatever, even though they scored the highest amount of Battle-Points.
Anyway, for next steps, I want to see if there are differences between using Battle-Points versus Win-Loss-Draw. Some armies might be favored by the Battle-Points format.
My fantasy is to get information about the lists used in tournaments such as these. That would allow us to see whether taking lots of Obj. Sec. troops helps you win games, or spending lots of points in Heavy Support is good, for example.
Hope you enjoyed the minor breakdown. I really should be working on my dissertation proposal instead, but it's too easy to procrastinate.
You can no longer take 5 knights in one detachment. It's 1-3. If you take 3 then you can make one your warlord it's all in the FAQ on black library. BAO requires a CAD so there's no way to have more then 3 at their event.
Not surprising he's running adamantine lance. IKs that stay within 3" of each other get rerolls on their shield save and Reroll on charges. Huge bonus. Especially for the 3++ warlord.
winterman wrote: You can no longer take 5 knights in one detachment. It's 1-3. If you take 3 then you can make one your warlord it's all in the FAQ on black library. BAO requires a CAD so there's no way to have more then 3 at their event.
Not surprising he's running adamantine lance. IKs that stay within 3" of each other get rerolls on their shield save and Reroll on charges. Huge bonus. Especially for the 3++ warlord.
winterman wrote: You can no longer take 5 knights in one detachment. It's 1-3. If you take 3 then you can make one your warlord it's all in the FAQ on black library. BAO requires a CAD so there's no way to have more then 3 at their event.
Not surprising he's running adamantine lance. IKs that stay within 3" of each other get rerolls on their shield save and Reroll on charges. Huge bonus. Especially for the 3++ warlord.
At the BAO, you can self-ally. Thus primary of 3 and allies of 2. However you cannot take both primary and the Adamntine Lance formation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: The performance of those 2 DA players is interesting, what lists are they playing?
My guess is they all involve the Power Field Generator. Top DA player is taking PFG libbie in LR Crusader with 2 scout troops and I believe the Adamantium Lance formation with 3 Imperial Knights. The other one, I'm not quite sure.
winterman wrote: You can no longer take 5 knights in one detachment. It's 1-3. If you take 3 then you can make one your warlord it's all in the FAQ on black library. BAO requires a CAD so there's no way to have more then 3 at their event.
Not surprising he's running adamantine lance. IKs that stay within 3" of each other get rerolls on their shield save and Reroll on charges. Huge bonus. Especially for the 3++ warlord.
At the BAO, you can self-ally. Thus primary of 3 and allies of 2. However you cannot take both primary and the Adamntine Lance formation.
Was this specific to the BAO rules (i.e. they faq'd it this way)? I'm curious. A primary doesn't have to be 3 Knights. Hence you could take 2 as the "primary" if they are requiring a primary detachment and 3 in the Lance Formation. The warlord might have to be chosen be on of the two knights but that's depends on RAW that I don't really care to dive into
winterman wrote: You can no longer take 5 knights in one detachment. It's 1-3. If you take 3 then you can make one your warlord it's all in the FAQ on black library. BAO requires a CAD so there's no way to have more then 3 at their event.
Not surprising he's running adamantine lance. IKs that stay within 3" of each other get rerolls on their shield save and Reroll on charges. Huge bonus. Especially for the 3++ warlord.
At the BAO, you can self-ally. Thus primary of 3 and allies of 2. However you cannot take both primary and the Adamntine Lance formation.
Was this specific to the BAO rules (i.e. they faq'd it this way)? I'm curious. A primary doesn't have to be 3 Knights. Hence you could take 2 as the "primary" if they are requiring a primary detachment and 3 in the Lance Formation. The warlord might have to be chosen be on of the two knights but that's depends on RAW that I don't really care to dive into
BAO may have slightly varied from NOVA in requiring a CAD instead of simply limiting the # of CAD to 1?
winterman wrote: You can no longer take 5 knights in one detachment. It's 1-3. If you take 3 then you can make one your warlord it's all in the FAQ on black library. BAO requires a CAD so there's no way to have more then 3 at their event.
Not surprising he's running adamantine lance. IKs that stay within 3" of each other get rerolls on their shield save and Reroll on charges. Huge bonus. Especially for the 3++ warlord.
At the BAO, you can self-ally. Thus primary of 3 and allies of 2. However you cannot take both primary and the Adamntine Lance formation.
Was this specific to the BAO rules (i.e. they faq'd it this way)? I'm curious. A primary doesn't have to be 3 Knights. Hence you could take 2 as the "primary" if they are requiring a primary detachment and 3 in the Lance Formation. The warlord might have to be chosen be on of the two knights but that's depends on RAW that I don't really care to dive into
BAO may have slightly varied from NOVA in requiring a CAD instead of simply limiting the # of CAD to 1?
I asked reeciuse about this here, he said you could have a complete knight army and i think the primary knight detachment substitutes for the CAD ?
Round 5 it's:
Space marines vs space marines (table 1)
Imperial knights vs necrons (table 2)
They're the only ones left on 4 wins and one other, but does not have enough battle points to have a chance by the looks of things. so it's out of those to win I guess. I don't know the lists.
On the jim (jy2) thing, yeah I noticed that, but on the bottom table of that round an eldar player on 3 wins played the stand in and is now on 4 wins, but only on table 9 for round 5. Might of been a mistake on the system.
Hollismason wrote: How in the world did JY2 get paired against someone with a 4 Loss record.
That's weird. Unless I am reading it wrong or the rankings messed up.
Go Tyranids Go!!
No i noticed the same. How did 2W 1 D guy matched up with a 3L guy? Weird
I've run back through the pairings, and talked to Jy2 to see what's up. His opponent didn't show until the round was half over, so he was paired against someone else without an opponent.
Wow, Space Marrines Primary took 7 of the top 12 spots including 1,2, and 5.
1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 10th, 11th, and 12th. And they had 13th for 8 out of 13.
Necrons did well, as did Eldar. Only two good Tau showings, 4th and 23rd otherwise looks like predicted Tau hit was right on.
I can't wait for some more detailed analysis of the data, but looking at the army distributions it looks better than 6th Edition, at least without any real analysis.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zagman wrote: Wow, Space Marrines Primary took 7 of the top 12 spots including 1,2, and 5.
1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 10th, 11th, and 12th. And they had 13th for 8 out of 13.
Necrons did well, as did Eldar. Only two good Tau showings, 4th and 23rd otherwise looks like predicted Tau hit was right on.
I can't wait for some more detailed analysis of the data, but looking at the army distributions it looks better than 6th Edition, at least without any real analysis.
Blackmoor wrote: The top Grey Knight player is running a Gravstar.
Steve Sisk is running a white stars bike army with on Knight.
Most top marine armies are drop pod armies.
Great to know. Objective Secured Drop Pods really had a strong showing then.
How did you do Blackmoor, I don't recall your IRL name?
White Scars + Knight wins the BAO. Cool.
Blackmoor is Allan Hernandez.
Despite his record, he actually did quite well. After 4 games, he was still undefeated (2 wins and 2 draws). He even managed to draw against a seer council deldar player running the same list as Alex Fennell's despite the deathstar getting both Invisibility and Fortune....and he did it with Draigowing!
But then on Game 5, he got tabled (or nearly tabled) by Spam Adam's Triptide Tau. Yes, that's the same Spam Adam who has never beaten my Necrons before.
He may even do a batrep on his experiences at the BAO, though he didn't really take many pictures. Then again, with a summoning army, he probably won't have time to.
Blackmoor wrote: The top Grey Knight player is running a Gravstar.
Steve Sisk is running a white stars bike army with on Knight.
Most top marine armies are drop pod armies.
Great to know. Objective Secured Drop Pods really had a strong showing then.
How did you do Blackmoor, I don't recall your IRL name?
White Scars + Knight wins the BAO. Cool.
Blackmoor is Allan Hernandez.
Despite his record, he actually did quite well. After 4 games, he was still undefeated (2 wins and 2 draws). He even managed to draw against a seer council deldar player running the same list as Alex Fennell's despite the deathstar getting both Invisibility and Fortune....and he did it with Draigowing!
But then on Game 5, he got tabled (or nearly tabled) by Spam Adam's Triptide Tau. Yes, that's the same Spam Adam who has never beaten my Necrons before.
The old Draigowing still had some life left. Most of my problems came with my unfamiliarity with a lot of the new 7th edition armies, or I would have done better.
Spam Adams gave me the worst beating that I have ever had with my Draigowing with a 2 turn tabling. I lost the dice roll to go first, and he hit me with everything he had before I could get my defensive buffs up and that was all she wrote, There was no LOS blocking terrain in my deployment zone and there was nowhere to hide from his alpha strike.
Uriels_Flame wrote: How did the Ravenwing player do and is there a list available/
First off the BAO was awesome. Reece and his guys did a great job. The venue was very nice, a/c, carpet, easy parking. Plus a ton of places to eat right in close walking distance. All in all a really fun and well ran tournament.
I was running Dark Angels, Raven Wing with White Scars Allies and ended up in 20th place. I was the top placing Dark Angels player. The other Dark Angels players got 40th and 42nd. One of them was running 2 DA land raiders with 3 knights. Ryan was my first game Sunday as we were tied at that time. I lost that game 9 to 0, almost getting tabled. We were joking that us getting paired up showed that Reece didn't like Dark Angels. I bounced back from that winning my last two games, to finish the tournament with 4 and 2 record
.
Once again, in a tournament with enough resin from Nottingham (Forgeworld) to feed a 3rd world country, a list with NO Forgeworld humbled them all. Steve Sisk, of the Mercy Killers, in Sacramento, was the only undefeated player and won it all!
Agreed, the venue was really nice. While we were tightly packed, there was plenty of movement space and the location was central to a nice part of downtown San Jose.
Congrats to another Sacramento local, Trevor van Cleave, who took 13th, and one of the newest members to the Mercy Killers, Ben Vaughan, with a 15th place win for Chaos Space Marines!
Blackmoor wrote: The top Grey Knight player is running a Gravstar.
Steve Sisk is running a white stars bike army with on Knight.
Most top marine armies are drop pod armies.
Great to know. Objective Secured Drop Pods really had a strong showing then.
How did you do Blackmoor, I don't recall your IRL name?
White Scars + Knight wins the BAO. Cool.
Blackmoor is Allan Hernandez.
Despite his record, he actually did quite well. After 4 games, he was still undefeated (2 wins and 2 draws). He even managed to draw against a seer council deldar player running the same list as Alex Fennell's despite the deathstar getting both Invisibility and Fortune....and he did it with Draigowing!
But then on Game 5, he got tabled (or nearly tabled) by Spam Adam's Triptide Tau. Yes, that's the same Spam Adam who has never beaten my Necrons before.
Which is obviously match up related considering his only loss this weekend was against Necrons. He came in 4th BTW.
I'm gonna guess at S.Sisk's army based on the picture I saw in "inthenameofsanguinius" blog. Let's see how close I get ;p
Spoiler:
Khan - bike
Chapter master - bike, hammer, shield eternal, artificer
Comman squad - Bikes, apothecary, 4xgrav, 4xmelta bombs (edit:actually it looks like a close combat command squad with storm shields and some power fists. Can't figure out an exact load out here)
4xBike squad - 4 bikes, mm attk bike, 2grav, combi grav serg
Storm talon - skyhammer
Knight paladin
1846
1 W-W-W-W-W-W Sisk Steve 62=White Scar bikes. (See above)
2 D-W-W-W-W-W Kaiser Carlos 57=Drop pod Space Marines
3 W-W-L-W-W-W Gati Adam 59=Wraithblades+2 Wraithknights+4 Wave Serpents
4 W-W-L-W-W-W Merlic Adam 52=Tau Fire Cadre 2 Broadside Units+3 Riptides
5 L-W-W-W-W-W Rodriguez Julio 51= ?
6 W-W-W-W-W-L Gonzalez Alex 50=Necrons with Pylons
Hulksmash wrote: So the Tau player brough 15ish Broadsides and 4 Riptides.....haha!!!!! I love it!
No, that is SpamAdams, I believe Jim said he was running his Triptide, one is part of the FBSC. He is the one jy2 is playing against in many of his Batreps.
Whew, we are exhausted, but what a great tournament!
116 of the 128 signed up, showed up, which is consistent with our previous experience.
It was a great event, ran smoothly, was fun, the new venue was awesome. We started 10 minutes late due to a data entry error, but otherwise, it ran like silk. By dice down on round 6 we had awards done and everyone out the door within an hour. Not bad!
I want to give a huge thanks to the staff and volunteers that made it possible, our sponsors and everyone that came!
So much work to make one of those silly things run smoothly, but it went great.
Congratz to Steve who went undefeated, and to Alex G. who went into the finals with his Crons but fell a bit short.
Steve played against Lords of War and Forge World and had no issues with. Lords of War in general were no big deal. They were a lot of fun. I think the best moment was a Stompa getting blown up on the top of turn 1 against a Salamanders Drop Pod army!
Congratz to Israel who, yet again, won best appearance although this time it was by a single vote!
Congratz to Carlos Kaiser who won Renaissance Man and got second best general!
ITC scroe update will be coming later today!
So many good moments and memories, it was awesome and we're happy to have the 4th annual BAO under our belts. We will post pics and give a detailed wrap up later, we are still handling logistics of getting terrain back into storage, returning rental vans, etc.
Chancetragedy wrote: I'm gonna guess at S.Sisk's army based on the picture I saw in "inthenameofsanguinius" blog. Let's see how close I get ;p
Spoiler:
Khan - bike
Chapter master - bike, hammer, shield eternal, artificer
Comman squad - Bikes, apothecary, 4xgrav, 4xmelta bombs (edit:actually it looks like a close combat command squad with storm shields and some power fists. Can't figure out an exact load out here)
4xBike squad - 4 bikes, mm attk bike, 2grav, combi grav serg
Storm talon - skyhammer
Knight paladin
1846
I'm always a bit surprised that grav spam bikes do as well as they have been doing in GT's. I'm a big believer in white scar bikes (I run them my self) but I always mix in more plasma guns than Grav, as IMO plasma is a more flexible weapon. Further, While bikes are really good against lots of armies (including some of the higher tier meta builds like serpent spam) they have some absolutely awful match ups (Ork or daemon hoards, Heldrake spam) which in my experience I can't avoid through the course of an entire GT (maybe I'm just unlucky). If orks become really popular in the meta I think this list would struggle.
I had fund despite loosing. It is great seeing friends I dont get to see that often. Seeing great armies and some of the gimmicks people pull(like the three Knight list where the guy had the sheilds to place infront of it.
I wish I could have hung out during the after party and drank. But I was driving home on the freeway by myself at night(lie the third time I ever driven on the freeway. Still had a blast even if I did get solicited by a hooker
Yes I did. Right next to the Mexican grill(Great Burritos BTW) But even if I left by 10, I would be tired driving at night so it was the best. I weighed my options f what is safe
It was my first time at a BAO event or a West Coast event for that matter. I didn't do that great, but I had fun and even bought a gaming mat and some green stuff products!
I look forward to next year. I will try to make the LVO and BAO!
PS though. I came across this today.
I do not know the players involved so I can not vouch for the validity of this article but it is still sad to read.
40k-noob wrote: It was my first time at a BAO event or a West Coast event for that matter. I didn't do that great, but I had fun and even bought a gaming mat and some green stuff products!
I look forward to next year. I will try to make the LVO and BAO!
PS though. I came across this today.
I do not know the players involved so I can not vouch for the validity of this article but it is still sad to read.
I don't want to start a circle jerk or anything, and what's done is done, he definitely played well if he made it to the top table and won, but I'd have to assume that someone who brings an army to a tournament has enough experience to know his main character's WS and invuln save. I mean come on, even people who have only played SM a few times know that an Iron Halo gives a 4+ invuln save. I'd assume someone with enough experience with an army that they bring it to a tournament and make it to the top knows the invuln save of an Iron Halo... so that's kinda shady. Shame. Maybe a slight case of someone who really wanted to win. Then again, it's on his opponent to have checked for himself and know the rules too. And hey, if it's late at night or something, mistakes can be made.
Dozer Blades wrote: How could a competitive player not know an iron halo is 4++ and Khan's WS ?
That statement applies to both layers in the game. The owning player *failing* to adhere to his unit's rule is not on the-up-and-up.
Dozer Blades wrote: Kind of hard to believe and sounds like a sore loser to me.
Naw, DB, a sore loser is a guy who whines and complains about forgetting to move a unit here, secure an objective there, failed to shoot this or that. Or whining about a Rock-Paper-Scissors match up. No rules broken, just sloppy play. And then the sore loser complains & gripes.
Letting the community know that a player did this in a high stakes setting is a citizen-like responsibility.
In my local meta, pretty much the exact situation (as discussed) happened last year, the shady player was outted, and that guy seems to be on the mend to being better about it.
@ Reece and the FLG crew:
You've hit your stride. Set up, pairing notification, timing, the terrain.
Best pick of venues so far, Reece. I highly recommend it for next year.
Support staff:
Tailor - Thanks for being patient *and* diligent with my Gaming Mat order
Brian - Thanks for enabling! Keno - Returning a Lost&Found item to my table. As minor as it was (template).
Stephanie - I dunno if you're staff per se, but having you and your massage service available ... The vendors in the lobby - not pushy. Friendly. Informative. Un-named staff: I'm sure you worked hard to set up and break down tables and all that.
- - - - - - - - -
Caveat (there's always that one, huh? ) - The venue needed to provide custodial maintenance more frequently, Recycle bin outside and the paper towels in the Men's restroom.
My one regret was not getting a picture of myself and Round 1 opponent, Grant VDB of the ITC crew. For those that know Grant *and* me, it'd be a funny pic. Grant, thanks again for a great Round 1 whoopin' that sent me to the kiddie pool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackmoor wrote: Not to defend him, but I have used Draigo a whole lot and I could not tell you his WS. (I think it is 7 but it might be 8)
Draigo is the Chuck Norris of the 40k universe so he doesn't have a WS, he actually doesn't even fight. Draigo just mentally projects his awesome towards lessor beings who then burst into flames.
Because the bike army was actually painted and modeled Ultramarine, which doesn't matter except it is easy for his opponents to forget that bike captain is Khan. Marines can and often do have other invulns. Owning player should be more diligent in cases like these.
You're honestly saying everyone who plays 40k should know an Iron Halo is a 4+? What if they haven't been playing since 4th edition or they never play Space Marines? I can easily see someone not knowing what an Iron Halo does. Now, the controlling player maybe not, but everyone makes mistakes and has mental lapses. Not to mention we are going off a single source who should have called for a judge or reported the incident rather than airing their dirty laundry all over the net. When we had a problem with a local and it went into full blown idiocy in a Dakka thread I sent a PM directly to a Mod who was online at the time with a link to the thread and an explanation. It got handled and locked, unfortunately this is on a personal blog.
We should all lay off attacking a player just because someone said x, y, or z. Why does this happen after every event? Can't we just accept that people aren't perfect nor will they ever be and move on? Can anyone prove he maliciously misrepresented his army? Not from what I read.
Red Corsair wrote: On a different note I am curious what the data is like in regard to average game length. How long the average turn took etc.
Torrent of fire can provide that data i think. They might have an average time from the update of the round matchups and result entry of every matchup. Although i don't think it will be automated.
You're honestly saying everyone who plays 40k should know an Iron Halo is a 4+? What if they haven't been playing since 4th edition or they never play Space Marines? I can easily see someone not knowing what an Iron Halo does. Now, the controlling player maybe not, but everyone makes mistakes and has mental lapses. Not to mention we are going off a single source who should have called for a judge or reported the incident rather than airing their dirty laundry all over the net. When we had a problem with a local and it went into full blown idiocy in a Dakka thread I sent a PM directly to a Mod who was online at the time with a link to the thread and an explanation. It got handled and locked, unfortunately this is on a personal blog.
We should all lay off attacking a player just because someone said x, y, or z. Why does this happen after every event? Can't we just accept that people aren't perfect nor will they ever be and move on? Can anyone prove he maliciously misrepresented his army? Not from what I read.
Not sure how BAO handles sportsmanship, but apparently they use thumbs? The Blog author mentioned the possibility of being ejected for this which sounds strange. At any rate, if a player is consistently getting negative feedback then it isn't just the same old from "another tournament."
So we are to accept the accuser's claim as 100 percent exactly what actually happened? And yes anyone playing in a big competitive event should know an iron halo is 4++.
Red Corsair wrote: On a different note I am curious what the data is like in regard to average game length. How long the average turn took etc.
Torrent of fire can provide that data i think. They might have an average time from the update of the round matchups and result entry of every matchup. Although i don't think it will be automated.
I wasn't under the impression that TOF did this. I actually suggested it to Reece before the BAO and he said they were going to add it to the score card.
Although it would be an awesome feature for TOF to add if it doesn't track this already
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dozer Blades wrote: So we are to accept the accuser's claim as 100 percent exactly what actually happened? And yes anyone playing in a big competitive event should know an iron halo is 4++.
Why would he necessarily know it was an iron halo? I agree both players are responsible but their should be higher expectations from the controlling players. Especially when proxies are involved.
Here is what I faced and my take on how I played the Tau and what I will change up, along with all the match ups I had. There were moments of heartbreak and glory, but in the end I had a great time! Enjoy!
I didn't do too bad for my first GT I went 3-3 and finished 49th. I would let you know at this point that I am a kid. That in mind, I feel like although I would have really liked to go 4-2 at least, I should have a good future ahead and it was a great experience. I ran a Farsight Bomb that was all Fusion with 5 Suits with 2x Fusion. 2 of them had Target Locks and I had a buffsuit for the 6th man. I took Farsight and Shadowsun so it was a Shadowsight Bomb. I took minimum Kroot Troops, and its something that I would change a little. I only bit me in the ass once, but that was one time too many. I then ran 3 Riptides, 2 With Skyfire and interceptor, one with Skyfire, all of which were sporting the HBC and Fusion Blaster. I then had 2 Squads of 8 Sniper Drones for MC hunting. And and Aegis with a Comms relay. All and all it wasnt too bad. With the 2 markerlights from each of the firesight marksmen, it wasnt nearly enough. I will be moving away from a full farsight bomb and go more with what you run. I have seen the batreps on youtube of what you play. Markerlights are Key. I like taking Skyrays for the Markerlights and AA, because then I feel more free to take IA riptides. Here is how each of my match ups went.
Game 1: vs MSU Orks
This was a game I should have won, by a lot. The Farsight bomb didnt come in on turn 2, even after the comms relay re roll. If it had, I would have had the primary and secondary. All 3 Riptides got tar pitted by deffkoptas in large numbers, and the sniper drones were widely ineffective. All and all, I still blew up 5/6 Trukks with the Farsight Bomb alone, so that turn 2 was crucial. I was a better player than him, but I learned and important lesson, always consider the 4D6 jump move to get out of charge range, and take some Flamer Suits. just 4 flamers on 2 Suits would have been a huge help.
Game 2: vs MSU Space Marines
I actually had a practice match against this guy the night before, so I knew what to expect. It was basically 5-6 outflanking Rhinos with special weapons inside. I lost the game 6-5 due to failing a 4 inch charge with farsight into an OS rhino that would have gotten me a leg up on the secondary, therefore winning me the game. That was just bad dice, what can I say? I really nutered him and if it had gone onto turn 6, I would have had the game for sure, and would have had a great chance to table him. Julio went on to get 5th place, although he really should have been undefeated as in his first game he had bad dice like I did on the charge.
Game 3: vs Astra Militarum piloted Team0comp's own Raw Dogger
Despite his notorious bad dice, he did really well. I came out with a win on the Relic because my Farsight bomb did a number on all of his tanks. I had him concentrating on that which gave me the game to get the relic back behind the ADL so my Kroot could take it for the game. Overall, I lost more than I should have in means of models due to getting tar pitted by blob squads. I finish day 1 with a 1-2 record, time to turn it up!
Game 4: Living Artillery Tyranids
This was a scary game, at first Turn 1 I took out a Mawlock and his Flyrant Warlord, and got a Mawlock to burrow. I then used the Farsight bomb to annihilate his blob of 2+ cover, and then proceeded to table him in 30 min on turn 3. His turns were quite fast. He was a good player, no doubt, but he did underestimate the Farsight bomb, dispite me telling him all about it. A great start to day 2!
Game 5: Drop Pod Space Marines
This was a hard game. I ended up losing 10-1 but the scoreline is not a proper reflection of how close it was. I really tried my best but I had to pick where I wanted the Farsight bomb to go, and so I decided to go for the Primary and have a shot at winning instead of keeping in my backfield and taking stuff out. He had 2 Flamer dreadnaughts and really hurt my riptides with plas and melta. It was a hard fought game, but there was nothing I could really do in the end due to the fact that I couldnt book it across the board in time. Unfortunate, but what can I say? Drop pods are pretty brutal, no matter how much interceptor you have.
Game 6: Drop Pod Space Wolves
I walked up to the table and saw more pods, gak! I was wrecked on turn 2, Farsight Bomb got swept. I was literally about to concede and play another game, but I stuck with it. My sniper Drones went to work on the Marines and he was only able to tie up one riptide on turn 3. I had to play smart and play the objectives. This guy was an donkey-cave too. Trying to cheat and exploit everything he could. Like calling my list illegal even though he had, "extensive knowledge on the tau codex" Due to playing smart, one of the best comebacks I have ever made, I pulled out a win 9-2. This was also the first time i got into a shouting argument over something to the point where judges had to settle it, so I felt good holding my ground against someone much older and bigger than me.
So for my first GT I cant complain too much going 3-3. I need markerlights and already have a new list. I will be talking the FBSC so I can also try 2 Hammerheads or 2 Skyrays like Spam Adams. It will be interesting how things play out, but if there is any army to be afraid of I would say its Tau, especially if its going to be a Marine Heavy format like it is turning out to be. I really appreciate you checking in and if you want to check out my full list that I took and my new one, let me know, this is just already really long. Luckilly I finised 3rd or 4th for Tau, but it was a great experience overall.
I would like to thank Reece and all of the staff from Frontline Gaming for such a good event, and I will be in the shop sometime this week!
Edit: If I have made any standings mistakes that I have mentioned in my post, please pardon me, I'm going off of memory from what ToF. I would also like to give a big thanks to Jim (jy2), and Tim (SabrX), for helping me out, and getting stuff together for the BAO, couldn't have done it without you guys! Thanks!
Oh, and although I didn't get to play her, I thought it was cool to finish above former BAO winner Lyzz. I would definitely like to play against her Daemons some time! If there is time for a match, that would be sweet.
As someone who was at the tournament and spoke to the player in question after the game, I'm pretty sure both of them came away unhappy with how the game went. The story I heard was definitely different than the one his opponent posted on the blog, so I'm going to give them both the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was a close game, tensions were high, and miscommunication probably led each one to assume that the other was playing in an unsportsmanlike manner.
That said, as people are asking for lists, here's the list I played (best Chaos Space Marines, 15th overall):
Ahriman
9x Thousand Sons, Force Sword Sorcerer w/ Melta Bombs
9x Thousand Sons, Force Axe Sorcerer w/ Melta Bombs
9x Chaos Terminators, Mark of Tzeentch, Veterans of the Long War, 9x Combi-Plasma, 3x Power Axe, 3x Powerfist, 3x Chainfist
3x Obliterators, Mark of Tzeentch, Veterans of the Long War
3x Obliterators, Mark of Tzeentch, Veterans of the Long War
Crimson Slaughter Allies:
Sorcerer, Force Staff, Mastery Level 3, Balestar of Mannon, Melta Bombs
10x Cultists, Shotgun, Flamer, 8x Autoguns
Sounds like a really well run event, and glad it showed that superheavies weren't the end of 40k. More evidence I can point to to convince my friends to let me use mine!
However despite being very tempted that blog by Adam B is the reason I would never enter a competitive event. From my limited experience whoever argues more wins, and the player who doesn't want to create a fuss and doesn't play as if it's life and death invariably ends up on the losing side.
There's a big difference between saying "I have an Iron halo" and "I have a 3+ invulnerable save", and also between stating your character's weapon skill and telling your opponent what he needed to roll to hit. Why would the guy call over a TO, or even question, if he was trusting his opponent to know his own list and not give him misinformation?
That said, as people are asking for lists, here's the list I played (best Chaos Space Marines, 15th overall):
Ahriman
9x Thousand Sons, Force Sword Sorcerer w/ Melta Bombs
9x Thousand Sons, Force Axe Sorcerer w/ Melta Bombs
9x Chaos Terminators, Mark of Tzeentch, Veterans of the Long War, 9x Combi-Plasma, 3x Power Axe, 3x Powerfist, 3x Chainfist
3x Obliterators, Mark of Tzeentch, Veterans of the Long War
3x Obliterators, Mark of Tzeentch, Veterans of the Long War
Crimson Slaughter Allies:
Sorcerer, Force Staff, Mastery Level 3, Balestar of Mannon, Melta Bombs
10x Cultists, Shotgun, Flamer, 8x Autoguns
Red Corsair wrote: On a different note I am curious what the data is like in regard to average game length. How long the average turn took etc.
Torrent of fire can provide that data i think. They might have an average time from the update of the round matchups and result entry of every matchup. Although i don't think it will be automated.
I wasn't under the impression that TOF did this. I actually suggested it to Reece before the BAO and he said they were going to add it to the score card.
Although it would be an awesome feature for TOF to add if it doesn't track this already
I can confess at some moment ı was refreshing the matchups page every minute. They were coming in one by one, so it is somewhat possible but as i said some adming probably has to ho through the logs for every match.
I'd be interested to see Alex Gonzalez's list. I've had decent success with the Death Ray Pylons (often beating Annihilation Barges in sheer devastation), and I'd be interested to see what he did with FW Necrons.
Dozer Blades wrote: So now he was using proxies... See how it works on the Internet. : (
To clear things up: Khan doesn't actually have an official model, so you don't ever really "proxy" him (he's just a bike captain with a sword and some special rules).
Dozer Blades wrote: So now he was using proxies... See how it works on the Internet. : (
To clear things up: Khan doesn't actually have an official model, so you don't ever really "proxy" him (he's just a bike captain with a sword and some special rules).
Dozer Blades wrote: So now he was using proxies... See how it works on the Internet. : (
To clear things up: Khan doesn't actually have an official model, so you don't ever really "proxy" him (he's just a bike captain with a sword and some special rules).
tyrannosaurus wrote: Sounds like a really well run event, and glad it showed that superheavies weren't the end of 40k. More evidence I can point to to convince my friends to let me use mine!
However despite being very tempted that blog by Adam B is the reason I would never enter a competitive event. From my limited experience whoever argues more wins, and the player who doesn't want to create a fuss and doesn't play as if it's life and death invariably ends up on the losing side.
There's a big difference between saying "I have an Iron halo" and "I have a 3+ invulnerable save", and also between stating your character's weapon skill and telling your opponent what he needed to roll to hit. Why would the guy call over a TO, or even question, if he was trusting his opponent to know his own list and not give him misinformation?
For every one story like that, there are literally thousands (I do mean thousands) of awesome game stories and yet more thousands of individual memories of great times over sodas/brews/shots/handshakes/dice/etc. had by the many, many people who do attend these events locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally all year long.
You should give a shot at attending. You might as well not fly for fear of tales of fallen aircraft as not attend a tournament for fear of overly competitive moments.
@somerandomidiot: Very nice showing with Thousand Sons, your army was awesome! I was the guy that chatted with you about our demon prince conversions and how Ahriman can cast Psychic Shriek multiple times =). I think if I ran Thousand Sons I would have that Land Raider with 25 capacity and stick the Rubric terminators in there and take Demon allies for Be'Lakor and some horrors. Despite their short comings, Thousand Sons are still a very cool army.
@all: I was the Eldar player who placed in top 3 and won 2nd best general. My list was as follows:
Was a solid event and I definitely look forward to attending next year!
Regarding the drama, bummer that there was any drama at all but in an event that big and with the chance to win the event/game on the line, things can get tense.
All I will say is that if the poster on Dice Abide had a legitimate reason to give the opponent a "thumbs down" and actually did so, the person who won the event may not have won due to having already been given a "thumbs down" by a previous opponent (so he would have had 2). It would be interesting to hear what that other opponent who actually gave the guy a "thumbs down" has to say.
Regardless, this thread is about celebrating how awesome BAO was/is so lets try to keep it to such a discussion? =D
If one player gave him a thumbs down and another probably should have gave him a thumbs down that seems like a pretty good indication that he might by TFG which is unfortunate. If what Adam from the dice abide is telling the truth that is some pretty shady behavior. I don't put any blame on someone trusting what their opponent tells them if they have no reason to be doubtful. Of course I usually make it a point to ask for my opponents codex at the beginning of the game to give it a quick skim through so I have a base of knowledge to prevent things like this.
I had a great time! I only played three games, since my 0-2-1 record on day 1 made other options more enticing for Sunday. However, the terrain was great, those mats are awesome, my opponents were great...and yet, I read this story from Dice Abide and I am reminded why 40K is still a bad tournament game. 40K has enough problems just based on lousy rules; the issue of cheating is what will really keep it as a marginal at best tourney system. I know Frontline had judges available and on the floor (more would be better, but I understand how difficult it is to get competent people to work essentially for free), so the fault isn't exactly with them here.
The problem, as I see it, is that 40K players allow cheating to continue and refuse to make an example of the cheaters. Tell them that it is not allowed. So, if 40K as a whole wants to be taken seriously, this should be investigated and, if they think it was probably a cheat, the offender should be banned from Frontline events for some defined period. You lose more players by allowing this to happen than you keep by refusing to take a stand.
mortetvie wrote: @somerandomidiot: Very nice showing with Thousand Sons, your army was awesome! I was the guy that chatted with you about our demon prince conversions and how Ahriman can cast Psychic Shriek multiple times =). I think if I ran Thousand Sons I would have that Land Raider with 25 capacity and stick the Rubric terminators in there and take Demon allies for Be'Lakor and some horrors. Despite their short comings, Thousand Sons are still a very cool army.
Seriously, next time I should remember all my rules! Grats on the placing man.
Dozer Blades wrote: So now he was using proxies... See how it works on the Internet. : (
To clear things up: Khan doesn't actually have an official model, so you don't ever really "proxy" him (he's just a bike captain with a sword and some special rules).
Neither of them is a model of Kor'sarro Khan on his bike (the first is a generic "white scars commander", though he's certainly meant to be a bone to throw to white scar players who might complain about him not having a unique model).
Dozer Blades wrote: So we are to accept the accuser's claim as 100 percent exactly what actually happened? And yes anyone playing in a big competitive event should know an iron halo is 4++.
Well, the first mistake was accusing me of being a competitive player.
I know that an Iron Halo isn't a 3++, but I also know that special characters often times have rules, stats or equipment that aren't standard. Also at that point, I simply dismissed it as either being human error (which I might not do again in the future), or my lack of knowledge of the rules that Khan has (as this was literally the first time I've ever hit Khan directly with an attack, he's not too common in my neighborhood). It's also not in my character to sit there and moan over something that wont impact the game, I was just expecting my scorpion to punch him in the face in combat, or squash him with a stomp (had I gotten a 6 on one of my D3+2 stomps this wouldn't have even been an issue, haha), and the number of wounds he had remaining would have been completely irrelevant. Really it was the WS7 that was the bigger issue, as I had a couple rolls of a 4 to hit that could have really made the impact. It wasn't until a while after the game that I found out that Khan didn't have a 3++ from anything (which again, I didn't really make a stink about because it was inconsequential and could have easily been a mistake), and wasn't until the next day that I found out he had no reason for me to require a 5 to hit him in combat, but by then it was far too late. Really, it was the car ride back to the tournament, reading the Space Marine codex, when I really started to question anyone's motivations. The 3++ save, requiring 5's to hit, rolling to end the game behind my back, combined with the bad attitude all really simmered together, which got me to write the article.
PS - If any of you know me, you should know how difficult it was to decide to publish the article. I've created a reputation on not speaking ill of anyone, and intend to keep it, I tried to write the article as respectfully as possible, while still expressing my frustration. I'm far more disappointed in the whole experience than the results of the game, as a Chaos Marine player, I'm quite accustomed to losing, haha.
Not one of my games ran out of time. 2 ended with a concede, so they're not relevant to this.
3 games went to turn 5, with 30 minutes or more to spare on the 2.5 hour clock. Each ended on the die roll.
1 game went to 6.5 turns, and we ended that with 30 minutes plus.
---------
I am slow. My army is slow. I ran MSU eldar with most of the time consuming elements, blade focus, ScatterLaser spam on 4 WaveS and 3 War Walkers, WarpSpider multiple movement. Only thing missing was a long Psychic phase, but I had no psycher.
Many of my 40k buds thought that 1850 was too high a number to play in 2.5 hours. Two opponents seemed 'rookie-ish', but never-the-less played fast enough. Izzit that players "step up their game" at a GT?
I saw a few games where the time ran out, but it seemed to be like ... Less than 5 or so per round.
Not one of my games ran out of time. 2 ended with a concede, so they're not relevant to this.
3 games went to turn 5, with 30 minutes or more to spare on the 2.5 hour clock. Each ended on the die roll.
1 game went to 6.5 turns, and we ended that with 30 minutes plus.
---------
I am slow. My army is slow. I ran MSU eldar; blade focus, scarLas spam on 4 WaveS and 3 War Walkers, WarpSpider multiple movement. Only thing missing was a long Psychic phase, but I had no psycher.
Many of my 40k buds thought that 1850 was too high a number to play in 2.5 hours. Two opponents seemed 'rookie-ish', but never-the-less played fast enough. Izzit that players "step up their game" at a GT?
I saw a few games where the time ran out, but it seemed to be like ... Less than 5 or so per round.
Comments?
I didn't get to go this year but in all the GTs I have played I think the section I highlighted in red has a lot to do with the difference in games finishing from the RT to GT level.
Not one of my games ran out of time. 2 ended with a concede, so they're not relevant to this.
3 games went to turn 5, with 30 minutes or more to spare on the 2.5 hour clock. Each ended on the die roll.
1 game went to 6.5 turns, and we ended that with 30 minutes plus.
---------
I am slow. My army is slow. I ran MSU eldar with most of the time consuming elements, blade focus, ScatterLaser spam on 4 WaveS and 3 War Walkers, WarpSpider multiple movement. Only thing missing was a long Psychic phase, but I had no psycher.
Many of my 40k buds thought that 1850 was too high a number to play in 2.5 hours. Two opponents seemed 'rookie-ish', but never-the-less played fast enough. Izzit that players "step up their game" at a GT?
I saw a few games where the time ran out, but it seemed to be like ... Less than 5 or so per round.
Comments?
I finished all of my games with 40 minutes to an hour to spare. Bringing a 700 point super heavy in a mechanized army really speeds things up, I have a whopping 6 models to move and until my transports pop, it doesn't change much.
To me this was one of the best GTs I've been to. It was great time. Awesome six games. Got to meet new people and hanging out with my friends in another city was a blast. I ended going 5-1 for 3rd Best General and 5th Overall with my White Scars/ Iron Hands Rhino Rush Army. I'd like to thank Frontline Gaming for all there effort into running a solid, well ran tournament.
I played
White Scars Bikes losing 4-2.
Farsight Bomb Tau winning 6-5.
Drop Pod Wolves winning 6-2.
Seer Council Eldar winning 8-2.
AV13 Blood Angels winning 9-2.
5 Imperial Knights winning 10-1.
Chapter Master
Bike, Artificer Armour, Thunder Hammer, Shield Eternal
Scout Squad
Bolter, Melta Bombs, CCWs Land Speeder Storm
Heavy Flamer
Sternguard Squad
5 Combi-meltas,
Drop Pod
Thunderfire Cannon
Automatically Appended Next Post: I had 2 games not finish due to time. In Round 2 I could finish the assault phase where Khan, Chapter Master and 5 tacts were in combat with Farsight, 2 suits and a Riptide.
The other game was in Round 3 vs Drop Pod Wolves where he got 4 full turns and I only got 3 full turns.
Every other game I played finished on time and with time to spare.
It was a great event and the frontline gaming guys did a great job.
I liked the new place a lot. It was easy to get to, and $5 for parking was not bad.
I have to make a couple of suggestions...
#1. Casey already said it, but attention to the restrooms might be in order. They ran out of TP pretty quickly.
#2. Ties gave 0 points. You can lose and get 5 points, or if you get a tie and have either the primary or secondary you are still going to get 4-5 points. The problem is when you tie the primary and the secondary you end up with 0 points? That does not seem right.
#3. Collect a copy of everyone's army list. This will have 2 outcomes:
a) People will think they are being checked and it might keep some players honest.
b) In case there is an "issue" (like an illegal list or points), you will have a resource to check.
Dozer Blades wrote: So we are to accept the accuser's claim as 100 percent exactly what actually happened? And yes anyone playing in a big competitive event should know an iron halo is 4++.
Well, the first mistake was accusing me of being a competitive player.
I know that an Iron Halo isn't a 3++, but I also know that special characters often times have rules, stats or equipment that aren't standard. Also at that point, I simply dismissed it as either being human error (which I might not do again in the future), or my lack of knowledge of the rules that Khan has (as this was literally the first time I've ever hit Khan directly with an attack, he's not too common in my neighborhood). It's also not in my character to sit there and moan over something that wont impact the game, I was just expecting my scorpion to punch him in the face in combat, or squash him with a stomp (had I gotten a 6 on one of my D3+2 stomps this wouldn't have even been an issue, haha), and the number of wounds he had remaining would have been completely irrelevant. Really it was the WS7 that was the bigger issue, as I had a couple rolls of a 4 to hit that could have really made the impact. It wasn't until a while after the game that I found out that Khan didn't have a 3++ from anything (which again, I didn't really make a stink about because it was inconsequential and could have easily been a mistake), and wasn't until the next day that I found out he had no reason for me to require a 5 to hit him in combat, but by then it was far too late. Really, it was the car ride back to the tournament, reading the Space Marine codex, when I really started to question anyone's motivations. The 3++ save, requiring 5's to hit, rolling to end the game behind my back, combined with the bad attitude all really simmered together, which got me to write the article.
PS - If any of you know me, you should know how difficult it was to decide to publish the article. I've created a reputation on not speaking ill of anyone, and intend to keep it, I tried to write the article as respectfully as possible, while still expressing my frustration. I'm far more disappointed in the whole experience than the results of the game, as a Chaos Marine player, I'm quite accustomed to losing, haha.
Rough game, but hopefully the rest of the event was better for you. Sorry to hear about that experience... I've had similar but I think dwelling on it can overshadow / ruin the rest of a great event. In the future I guess you'll just have to double check the rolls needed in that critical situation.
Anyway, hopefully this does not burn you out, as MVBrandt said there are thousands of great experiences for every one like this.
I have never so thoroughly agreed with Blackmore. Cool.
As for times, I was 100% sure this would be a.negative issue and I thought bumping armies up to 1850 would work out so poorly. None of my games went to time though, and only in one round was it particularly close. I'd still vote for a lower point limit next year, to be honest, but 1850 was not a problem in my games.
This was the best tourny I have been to! The lists were super tough, and the competition was fierce. But Everyone I played was pretty damn cool. I had 6 good games and for the first time didn't play TFG once at at tournament! Frontline crew knows how to throw a party and I will attend any other events they do. It was great to see friends kick it in San Jose. I went 3-3-0 with my DE and every game was close (except for when Ben Cromwell kicked my teeth in with his Necrons).
tyrannosaurus wrote: Sounds like a really well run event, and glad it showed that superheavies weren't the end of 40k. More evidence I can point to to convince my friends to let me use mine!
However despite being very tempted that blog by Adam B is the reason I would never enter a competitive event. From my limited experience whoever argues more wins, and the player who doesn't want to create a fuss and doesn't play as if it's life and death invariably ends up on the losing side.
There's a big difference between saying "I have an Iron halo" and "I have a 3+ invulnerable save", and also between stating your character's weapon skill and telling your opponent what he needed to roll to hit. Why would the guy call over a TO, or even question, if he was trusting his opponent to know his own list and not give him misinformation?
For every one story like that, there are literally thousands (I do mean thousands) of awesome game stories and yet more thousands of individual memories of great times over sodas/brews/shots/handshakes/dice/etc. had by the many, many people who do attend these events locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally all year long.
You should give a shot at attending. You might as well not fly for fear of tales of fallen aircraft as not attend a tournament for fear of overly competitive moments.
Amen.
I had a great first day, but eat sometimes (probably a medium-rare burger at a Star Wars themed bar), and couldn't attend the second day due to food poisoning. Talk about bad luck.
All my games finished early or on time except game 6-that one we actually ha to split the last 20 minutes and play our last turn. It was all good, though, as the results would probably have been the same had the game gone to turn 6 or 7. Some very tense but good gaming moments in every game!
tyrannosaurus wrote: Sounds like a really well run event, and glad it showed that superheavies weren't the end of 40k. More evidence I can point to to convince my friends to let me use mine!
However despite being very tempted that blog by Adam B is the reason I would never enter a competitive event. From my limited experience whoever argues more wins, and the player who doesn't want to create a fuss and doesn't play as if it's life and death invariably ends up on the losing side.
There's a big difference between saying "I have an Iron halo" and "I have a 3+ invulnerable save", and also between stating your character's weapon skill and telling your opponent what he needed to roll to hit. Why would the guy call over a TO, or even question, if he was trusting his opponent to know his own list and not give him misinformation?
Well, I just hit up my first GT at the BAO. I lost every game and still had a blast. Meeting the people there was well worth the trip. I learned a ton about how to play my army better and hopefully made some lifelong contacts to BS with about 40k.
RiTides wrote: Rough game, but hopefully the rest of the event was better for you. Sorry to hear about that experience... I've had similar but I think dwelling on it can overshadow / ruin the rest of a great event. In the future I guess you'll just have to double check the rolls needed in that critical situation.
Anyway, hopefully this does not burn you out, as MVBrandt said there are thousands of great experiences for every one like this.
Oh yeah, absolutely, I'll be the first person to endorse going to tournaments, even as a non ultra competitive player. This event was overall quite fun and I had 5 other games against some fantastic opponents, a couple of which I'm going to go play with again tonight even! Tournaments are generally a great place to socialize with a bunch of other people with a common interest. In my life, I've never had another experience that was nearly as bad as this one, so as MVBrandt said, one in a thousand. I'm still glad I wrote the article though, I'm surprised how many people have had similar experiences with the same person, so at least it makes me feel like I'm not just crazy.
Blackmoor wrote: It was a great event and the frontline gaming guys did a great job.
#3. Collect a copy of everyone's army list. This will have 2 outcomes:
a) People will think they are being checked and it might keep some players honest.
b) In case there is an "issue" (like an illegal list or points), you will have a resource to check.
A buddy of mine was there, he did ok. One of the armies he played was way over on points though. He said his opponent was playing Necrons with Tau allies. I asked him to give me the copy of his opponents list but I haven't seen it. He said his opponent fielded the following:
2 Overlords with CCB
2 Ghost arks
2 ABs
1 Night scythe
1 Doom Scythe
1 Riptide
6 Broadsides
Assuming Minimum troops on all the transports, Semp weave, Phase shifters, Warscythes on the Lords, the cheapest tau commander, cheapest unit of Tau troops (unless this is a tau formation) this list comes in at over 2000 points.
If anyone knows otherwise on this, I don't doubt that there is the possibility my friend was wrong since I haven't seen the opponent list. Even at a quick look, this is way too many points. I would have assumed that someone would review all the lists in the tournament.
Warmonger2757 wrote: A buddy of mine was there, he did ok. One of the armies he played was way over on points though. He said his opponent was playing Necrons with Tau allies. I asked him to give me the copy of his opponents list but I haven't seen it. He said his opponent fielded the following:
2 Overlords with CCB
2 Ghost arks
2 ABs
1 Night scythe
1 Doom Scythe
1 Riptide
6 Broadsides
Assuming Minimum troops on all the transports, Semp weave, Phase shifters, Warscythes on the Lords, the cheapest tau commander, cheapest unit of Tau troops (unless this is a tau formation) this list comes in at over 2000 points.
If anyone knows otherwise on this, I don't doubt that there is the possibility my friend was wrong since I haven't seen the opponent list. Even at a quick look, this is way too many points. I would have assumed that someone would review all the lists in the tournament.
Seems totally fine. The Tau will be part of the Firebase Cadre presumably, needing no troops or HQ. It's also entirely possible some of that wargear wasn't on the Overlords either.
mortetvie wrote: All my games finished early or on time except game 6-that one we actually ha to split the last 20 minutes and play our last turn. It was all good, though, as the results would probably have been the same had the game gone to turn 6 or 7. Some very tense but good gaming moments in every game!
Same exact case here....and I played you in game 6! Had a great time, and congrats on 3rd! I ended up placing 19th, which for my first tournament, I was pretty pleased with.
Warmonger2757 wrote: A buddy of mine was there, he did ok. One of the armies he played was way over on points though. He said his opponent was playing Necrons with Tau allies. I asked him to give me the copy of his opponents list but I haven't seen it. He said his opponent fielded the following:
2 Overlords with CCB
2 Ghost arks
2 ABs
1 Night scythe
1 Doom Scythe
1 Riptide
6 Broadsides
Assuming Minimum troops on all the transports, Semp weave, Phase shifters, Warscythes on the Lords, the cheapest tau commander, cheapest unit of Tau troops (unless this is a tau formation) this list comes in at over 2000 points.
If anyone knows otherwise on this, I don't doubt that there is the possibility my friend was wrong since I haven't seen the opponent list. Even at a quick look, this is way too many points. I would have assumed that someone would review all the lists in the tournament.
Seems totally fine. The Tau will be part of the Firebase Cadre presumably, needing no troops or HQ. It's also entirely possible some of that wargear wasn't on the Overlords either.
mortetvie wrote: All my games finished early or on time except game 6-that one we actually ha to split the last 20 minutes and play our last turn. It was all good, though, as the results would probably have been the same had the game gone to turn 6 or 7. Some very tense but good gaming moments in every game!
Same exact case here....and I played you in game 6! Had a great time, and congrats on 3rd! I ended up placing 19th, which for my first tournament, I was pretty pleased with.
Yeah, you did great for your first event and it looked like whoever won our game was poised to take best Eldar/3rd. Our game was like a game of chess, eh? Sure made me think and I loved those tense moments you tried to Psychic Shriek my Wraith Knights; good thing you rolled slightly below average for those 3d6s =)!
Thing to note, unlike the last codex he doesn't need moondrakken to grant scout. It is for bikes and any dedicated transport though so even elites and heavy support options.
Remedy4389 wrote: Thing to note, unlike the last codex he doesn't need moondrakken to grant scout. It is for bikes and any dedicated transport though so even elites and heavy support options.
Right. Everything excluding terminators and centurions.
At the end of every tournament I have a hurt back, painful feet, sore throat and because of my car seats a hurt butt. but a day later i think "Damn, I wanna go back"
hotsauceman1 wrote: At the end of every tournament I have a hurt back, painful feet, sore throat and because of my car seats a hurt butt. but a day later i think "Damn, I wanna go back"
It's the manner in which it was handled. He should have brought this to the attention of the judges immediately. Waiting until the next day to vent is why people don't buy his story.
Here's the thing. If you realized this (the mis-information/cheating/honest mistake) the next day you had an obligation to go to the TO and let them know what took place. If your opponent was a bad sport you had an obligation to give him a thumbs down. From your blog post it doesn't appear that you did either of these things. If what you say is true then it really sucks for you. However, if what you say is not true then it really sucks for your opponent. Either way, not going to the TO and instead posting to your blog after the event just creates an environment of hate on the internet around events like the BAO, which was a well run, well executed event. The BAO was awesome this year and I want to thank Reece, Frankie and all of the volunteers and players for a great weekend of gaming.
Your choice for airing your grievances has cast a cloud on the event; one that could have been avoided if you had addressed the matter in a timely manner through the proper channels. Instead we're left with a pile of steaming poo in the middle of the room and people pointing fingers on both sides.
What a shame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thunderingjove wrote: I had a great first day, but eat sometimes (probably a medium-rare burger at a Star Wars themed bar), and couldn't attend the second day due to food poisoning. Talk about bad luck.
We got out of that place as quickly as we could, what a dive. Opted for some sushi downtown instead. Sorry to hear about your pains - just be glad you didn't come back as the one thing that wasn't up to par was the stock of TP in the bathroom on day 2 after about 11am.
Warmonger2757 wrote: A buddy of mine was there, he did ok. One of the armies he played was way over on points though. He said his opponent was playing Necrons with Tau allies. I asked him to give me the copy of his opponents list but I haven't seen it. He said his opponent fielded the following:
2 Overlords with CCB
2 Ghost arks
2 ABs
1 Night scythe
1 Doom Scythe
1 Riptide
6 Broadsides
Assuming Minimum troops on all the transports, Semp weave, Phase shifters, Warscythes on the Lords, the cheapest tau commander, cheapest unit of Tau troops (unless this is a tau formation) this list comes in at over 2000 points.
If anyone knows otherwise on this, I don't doubt that there is the possibility my friend was wrong since I haven't seen the opponent list. Even at a quick look, this is way too many points. I would have assumed that someone would review all the lists in the tournament.
Seems totally fine. The Tau will be part of the Firebase Cadre presumably, needing no troops or HQ. It's also entirely possible some of that wargear wasn't on the Overlords either.
thunderingjove wrote: I had a great first day, but eat sometimes (probably a medium-rare burger at a Star Wars themed bar), and couldn't attend the second day due to food poisoning. Talk about bad luck.
We got out of that place as quickly as we could, what a dive. Opted for some sushi downtown instead. Sorry to hear about your pains - just be glad you didn't come back as the one thing that wasn't up to par was the stock of TP in the bathroom on day 2 after about 11am.
Ha! Actually, it was FP of the mouth, not of the butt; I could taste the burn of all the jalapenos on the burger (and nachos gaffled from my barmates).
What was weird was some dude tried to start a beef with me as I waited for the bartender (who was ignoring the guys drunkenness), and had to man up on him a little. Weird night. Sunday was worse.
punchdub wrote: Here's the thing. If you realized this (the mis-information/cheating/honest mistake) the next day you had an obligation to go to the TO and let them know what took place. If your opponent was a bad sport you had an obligation to give him a thumbs down. From your blog post it doesn't appear that you did either of these things. If what you say is true then it really sucks for you. However, if what you say is not true then it really sucks for your opponent. Either way, not going to the TO and instead posting to your blog after the event just creates an environment of hate on the internet around events like the BAO, which was a well run, well executed event. The BAO was awesome this year and I want to thank Reece, Frankie and all of the volunteers and players for a great weekend of gaming.
Your choice for airing your grievances has cast a cloud on the event; one that could have been avoided if you had addressed the matter in a timely manner through the proper channels. Instead we're left with a pile of steaming poo in the middle of the room and people pointing fingers on both sides.
What a shame.
Well, I was really hoping I was done here, you're also more than welcome to comment on my blog so that I'm not filling up Dakka threads with this.
It takes a lot for me to give someone a thumbs down (I've literally never done it before), I mentioned it in passing the next morning to one of the staff and they said that since the game was already long done and over, they couldn't really do anything. Reece is a friend of mine, and the last thing I'd want to do is tarnish his name or reputation, it wasn't his fault, or the staff, and I didn't really see the point in pressing the issue any further with them, I also didn't figure he'd go on to win it. I posted on MY blog after feeling frustrated, it was a crappy situation that I've never been in before and wasn't exactly sure what I should have done, thinking that by posting about it, i'd get my usual couple hundred (not 1500+) views and maybe get some sagely words of wisdom. If by the time you find out someone played something fairly dramatically wrong, it's too late, what recourse do you have? If you're upset that I express my opinions on my blog, I suggest you don't read my blog, it's pretty simple.
The funny thing is that the only person who said I was unpleasant to play against is someone I never saw or even met, at this event or any, and plays in the same club as the guy who was a total jerk to me. It seems that everyone else who has experienced the joy of playing him had an equally miserable time, and all my opponents seemed to enjoy the games they had with me, so I'm not really concerned about it.
As MVBrandt said though, there is one bad game for every thousand good game and my number was up. The rest of the event was fun, and with the new edition encouraging more diversity in army lists, I can even say it was probably one of my most enjoyable 40k tournaments, despite the cloud over my 3rd game.
punchdub wrote: Here's the thing. If you realized this (the mis-information/cheating/honest mistake) the next day you had an obligation to go to the TO and let them know what took place. If your opponent was a bad sport you had an obligation to give him a thumbs down. From your blog post it doesn't appear that you did either of these things. If what you say is true then it really sucks for you. However, if what you say is not true then it really sucks for your opponent. Either way, not going to the TO and instead posting to your blog after the event just creates an environment of hate on the internet around events like the BAO, which was a well run, well executed event. The BAO was awesome this year and I want to thank Reece, Frankie and all of the volunteers and players for a great weekend of gaming.
Your choice for airing your grievances has cast a cloud on the event; one that could have been avoided if you had addressed the matter in a timely manner through the proper channels. Instead we're left with a pile of steaming poo in the middle of the room and people pointing fingers on both sides.
What a shame.
Well, I was really hoping I was done here, you're also more than welcome to comment on my blog so that I'm not filling up Dakka threads with this.
It takes a lot for me to give someone a thumbs down (I've literally never done it before), I mentioned it in passing the next morning to one of the staff and they said that since the game was already long done and over, they couldn't really do anything. Reece is a friend of mine, and the last thing I'd want to do is tarnish his name or reputation, it wasn't his fault, or the staff, and I didn't really see the point in pressing the issue any further with them, I also didn't figure he'd go on to win it. I posted on MY blog after feeling frustrated, it was a crappy situation that I've never been in before and wasn't exactly sure what I should have done, thinking that by posting about it, i'd get my usual couple hundred (not 1500+) views and maybe get some sagely words of wisdom. If by the time you find out someone played something fairly dramatically wrong, it's too late, what recourse do you have? If you're upset that I express my opinions on my blog, I suggest you don't read my blog, it's pretty simple.
The funny thing is that the only person who said I was unpleasant to play against is someone I never saw or even met, at this event or any, and plays in the same club as the guy who was a total jerk to me. It seems that everyone else who has experienced the joy of playing him had an equally miserable time, and all my opponents seemed to enjoy the games they had with me, so I'm not really concerned about it.
As MVBrandt said though, there is one bad game for every thousand good game and my number was up. The rest of the event was fun, and with the new edition encouraging more diversity in army lists, I can even say it was probably one of my most enjoyable 40k tournaments, despite the cloud over my 3rd game.
So if he hadn't won you wouldn't have written the blog post?
Maybe he should have said something then and there, that's true. But the negative reaction he is getting is why people DON'T report this kind of **** immediately. He got cheated out of a game and instead of saying that cheating should not be tolerated, people are saying that this shouldn't be mentioned. You're blaming the victim.
Edited so that my "bad word" wouldn't be replaced by the word "gak," which I find to be far grosser/dumber sounding.
Warmonger2757 wrote: A buddy of mine was there, he did ok. One of the armies he played was way over on points though. He said his opponent was playing Necrons with Tau allies. I asked him to give me the copy of his opponents list but I haven't seen it. He said his opponent fielded the following:
2 Overlords with CCB
2 Ghost arks
2 ABs
1 Night scythe
1 Doom Scythe
1 Riptide
6 Broadsides
Assuming Minimum troops on all the transports, Semp weave, Phase shifters, Warscythes on the Lords, the cheapest tau commander, cheapest unit of Tau troops (unless this is a tau formation) this list comes in at over 2000 points.
If anyone knows otherwise on this, I don't doubt that there is the possibility my friend was wrong since I haven't seen the opponent list. Even at a quick look, this is way too many points. I would have assumed that someone would review all the lists in the tournament.
Seems totally fine. The Tau will be part of the Firebase Cadre presumably, needing no troops or HQ. It's also entirely possible some of that wargear wasn't on the Overlords either.
Can someone check my numbers, this seems to come out to 1880 points. How many points is the tau formation? Is there a discount?
I made the checks from the codex es. The broadside team points are 200 not 210. So the list is 1860 that way, And also don't forget that this list was posted pre tournament so he could have just removed 2 target locks from the broadside teams and get 1850.
Warmonger2757 wrote: A buddy of mine was there, he did ok. One of the armies he played was way over on points though. He said his opponent was playing Necrons with Tau allies. I asked him to give me the copy of his opponents list but I haven't seen it. He said his opponent fielded the following:
2 Overlords with CCB
2 Ghost arks
2 ABs
1 Night scythe
1 Doom Scythe
1 Riptide
6 Broadsides
Assuming Minimum troops on all the transports, Semp weave, Phase shifters, Warscythes on the Lords, the cheapest tau commander, cheapest unit of Tau troops (unless this is a tau formation) this list comes in at over 2000 points.
If anyone knows otherwise on this, I don't doubt that there is the possibility my friend was wrong since I haven't seen the opponent list. Even at a quick look, this is way too many points. I would have assumed that someone would review all the lists in the tournament.
Seems totally fine. The Tau will be part of the Firebase Cadre presumably, needing no troops or HQ. It's also entirely possible some of that wargear wasn't on the Overlords either.
Can someone check my numbers, this seems to come out to 1880 points. How many points is the tau formation? Is there a discount?
I made the checks from the codex es. The broadside team points are 200 not 210. So the list is 1860 that way, And also don't forget that this list was posted pre tournament so he could have just removed 2 target locks from the broadside teams and get 1850.
Ah ok, yeah I see, he only has one Target lock each team, not one target lock on each model. But yeah, that still puts him 10pts over. I guess that's not as bad as I thought. It's still not legal as he's over on points, but at least it's no where near as bad as I thought it was.
thunderingjove wrote: I had a great first day, but eat sometimes (probably a medium-rare burger at a Star Wars themed bar), and couldn't attend the second day due to food poisoning. Talk about bad luck.
We got out of that place as quickly as we could, what a dive. Opted for some sushi downtown instead. Sorry to hear about your pains - just be glad you didn't come back as the one thing that wasn't up to par was the stock of TP in the bathroom on day 2 after about 11am.
That was the worse. My pants where down by the time I figured that out
People should always speak up right then and there when something shady is going on or when they suspect something shady is going on. This allows shady play to either be exposed or clarified as something that appears shady to one player may in reality just be a difference of opinion/perception or inadvertence and actually quite innocent. Therefore, you know, talking about problems actually helps resolve them rather than holding them in and brooding over them.
The problem is when you don't discover the "shadiness" until later on and at that point what is the best thing to do? Well, you can always find the opponent and discuss the matter with them or you can post about it publicly and invite the other player involved to give their side of the story and this allows matters to be clarified and at the very least puts people on notice. If you don't at least try to work it out in some way then you are part of the problem.
On that vein of thought, Minion is just giving his side of what happened to him on his own personal blog and that is perfectly ok. Some other people brought it up here so naturally he got dragged into the discussion. If his opponent wants to clarify the situation, he can go ahead. The fact, however, that the opponent in question already received a "thumbs down" for sports from a previous game is a pretty big deal for a tournament with as laid back a sports grading system as BAO. Would be interesting to hear about what happened there. In the meantime, I think it is best we give the opponent the benefit of the doubt and just beware for next time.
Once again, communication is key between both players. If everyone made it a point to call out potential shadiness or at the very least provide an opportunity for clarification then this sort of problem would be greatly mitigated. So while everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt, there is nothing wrong with asking questions or for explanations of what is going on.
Ultimately, one major problem is when people observe what appears to be shady play and don't do anything about it or give the opponent an opportunity to clarify or resolve an issue but then just complain behind people's backs which is arguably worse and leads to hearsay upon hearsay and exaggeration. Even worse is to go into a game presupposing something about a player and letting that bias color everything they do instead of starting a dialogue with them before the game starts or talking to them as things come up. If a player in question is innocent and reasonable, talking to them in an amicable/respectful manner should resolve the issue. Simply saying "hey I noticed this or observed that, can you talk to me about it?" However, that does take some maturity, respect and communication skills from both parties which may be a problem in and of itself.
I just wanted to throw my two cents in and say that while this was my first tournament, and i have nothing prior to compare it to. I thought it was run extremely well, and i had a hell of a time!
The guys at Frontline really ran things well and I've had nothing but great things to say to those who have asked me about the tournament.
Thanks again to everyone involved in setting it up, and hopefully you all know that there are people who appreciate the behind the scenes stuff. I will definitely be at the LVO!
And a big shout out to Grant V who gave me one of the funnest games i've ever played in, and passed on some pretty awesome tips as well.
"If you see fraud and don't shout fraud - you are a fraud."
It's very hard to catch cheating in 40k, so generally behind any exposed occurrances of it there are hundreds of hidden ones.
Nobody must care how "well" the tournament was run if it's win by cheater. We are living in the 21 sentury, is it really hard to find other Steve Sisk's opponents and get confirmation/refutation of such claims?
elotar wrote: "If you see fraud and don't shout fraud - you are a fraud."
It's very hard to catch cheating in 40k, so generally behind any exposed occurrances of it there are hundreds of hidden ones.
Nobody must care how "well" the tournament was run if it's win by cheater. We are living in the 21 sentury, is it really hard to find other Steve Sisk's opponents and get confirmation/refutation of such claims?
It is not.
Checking TorrentofFire yields that round two opponent did not give a thumbs up.
elotar wrote: "If you see fraud and don't shout fraud - you are a fraud."
It's very hard to catch cheating in 40k, so generally behind any exposed occurrances of it there are hundreds of hidden ones.
Nobody must care how "well" the tournament was run if it's win by cheater. We are living in the 21 sentury, is it really hard to find other Steve Sisk's opponents and get confirmation/refutation of such claims?
I disagree. The average person can effectively supervise 3 to 5 people in a work place before the quality of the supervision becomes effected (see "span of control"). Applying that as a rough guide, a tournament the size of the BAO would need 12 judges each watching 5 games every round to really have an idea of how each game developed and who was or was not trying to play by the rules. A tournament can only do so much and we should care of the quality of which it was run. BAO awarded a winner based on all information submitted and known to them at the time. There are no allegations that the TOs somehow shaded the event to favor the winner or other shennanigans on their part. A great event run by a great team. It matters. You can't penalize them for not knowing information that comes out after the fact.
He's not saying to penalize Frontline; as I read it, he's simply saying that, because the results appear to be based on a cheat, the results are invalid. If the accusations can be substantiated or refuted, then perhaps we can begin to respect the results. Because 40k is so outlandishly easy to cheat at in many small, nigh imperceptible, ways, it makes it more important to vocally and publically stop cheating when it is so egregious that we somehow DO see it. The message must be that cheating cannot be tolerated.
The allegations are based solely upon hearsay. As such it doesn't mean all that much and people shouldn't believe everything they read on the Internet.
Dozer Blades wrote: The allegations are based solely upon hearsay. As such it doesn't mean all that much and people shouldn't believe everything they read on the Internet.
This is technically incorrect since there is no warhammer court, and statements regarding this subject matter are never under oath. For our purposes, hearsay would be repeating what one heard someone else say rather than what one actually witnessed or experienced firsthand. Minion is giving us what he himself experienced first hand and others have pointed out the verifiable fact that minion's opponent had received a "thumbs down" on sports during his second game.
He should have addressed his grievance at the GT. Reading his posts here he comes across to me as a sore loser with an axe to grind. His excuses are just that too and nothing more. There is nothing substantial enough to warrant any merit. How would you like if someone attacked you in a similar manner - is it still okay ?
Given the allegations come from also a long time member of the gaming community, they are from the third round not the final or even the last rounds of the tournament, the player in question had another thumbs down, and many people from the gaming community have come forth and said this player has a history of doing similar things- its very likely the allegations are true. Given they rolled for end of game, a very important roll without the other player looking and then telling them is in itself IMO unsportsmanlike. That's something like seizing, or roll for table edge/side. You look at your opponent, you tell them what you are doing, and you make sure they are paying attention- if they aren't you wait until they are remind them then roll.
If the player in question had received no other thumbs downs at the tournament, and it was the last match of the game tournament it would be much more suspect.
Ultimately it is up to FG to decide if they want to do anything / care, or if it matters.
I'm under the belief that in a tournament where someone can be ejected for getting 2 thumbs downs, that thumbs downs are handed out rarely as they are highly significant. That means the person who gave the first thumbs down either was themselves petty, or the player in question was in fact cheating / completely terrible to play against / some combination of TFG.
Most cheating in 40k is either immediately caught or not found out until much later. And given the vast amount of rules, the modifications of general rules based on special rules, the further modification of general rules based on codex rules, the further modification of general rules based on specific items/rules for sub entries in a codex, the game has a lot of rules and is quite easy for a player to misrepresent / cheat / forget what a rule is.
It's less likely to not know the rules if its your own army that you are playing and you forget a rule, than a rule for someone elses army that you may not know as well.
This leads to players either immediately knowing something is wrong and calling the other player, or not realizing it until they are talking about their match to someone later who does know that armies rules much better.
That some people burdened the accuser is ridiculous. A player has to knowingly decide to cheat and then it shouldn't be the burden of their opponent to know if they are cheating or not. I may be mistaken but I don't think the accuser even came out and said the other player was cheating, but even left it open that the player may have forgotten the rules or been confused.
If we had to constantly ask each other for each others army lists and check every item and every stat at every round of firing/assault/anything the game would take a long time. We have to have some level of trust in our opponent under the assumption that even though it is a competitive tournament, we are gentelepeople with honor and respect for each other as well as ourselves and that we will be honest.
Of course mistakes happen, there are instances where things are forgotten, or confused.
I'm sorry, but this is getting a little ridiculous. If you guys want to go start a thread and bitch about your experience go ahead and do that. I'm not trying to negate the fact that you are all contributing how the situation could have been remedied, but I am just saying that it wasn't a good idea to come and post it online. I would like to get back to having more than 50% (don't quote me on an exact number) of the posts be about the BAO and how it could be changed, successes, etc. not people still reminiscing on a bad experience, it happens, I had a bad match too. I understand that this is also about cheating in 40k, but this is not the place for it. I'm just tired of checking the thread and there is 1 post from someone new saying something, and then at least 2 just on this debate. So could you please just take it somewhere else. I understand that it pertains to the BAO, but seriously, get over it, you had a bad experience, stop crying about it, get over it, and focus on what you can do next time to make sure this doesn't happen again, and then spare all of us of your repeated arguments in the incorrect place. Just IMHO.
elotar wrote: "If you see fraud and don't shout fraud - you are a fraud."
It's very hard to catch cheating in 40k, so generally behind any exposed occurrances of it there are hundreds of hidden ones.
Nobody must care how "well" the tournament was run if it's win by cheater. We are living in the 21 sentury, is it really hard to find other Steve Sisk's opponents and get confirmation/refutation of such claims?
I disagree. The average person can effectively supervise 3 to 5 people in a work place before the quality of the supervision becomes effected (see "span of control"). Applying that as a rough guide, a tournament the size of the BAO would need 12 judges each watching 5 games every round to really have an idea of how each game developed and who was or was not trying to play by the rules.
There is a difference. When supervising employees, for example, if I see them doing something incorrectly, I step in and correct the error immediately.
When judging in a 40k tournament, you are not going to interrupt game play to correct "mistakes" made unless there is a disagreement and you are asked to help resolve it.
This is why its called rules judging and not rules referee. We resolve disputes, not stop the game at every rules infraction we see as we pass by.
Dozer Blades wrote: He should have addressed his grievance at the GT. Reading his posts here he comes across to me as a sore loser with an axe to grind. His excuses are just that too and nothing more. There is nothing substantial enough to warrant any merit. How would you like if someone attacked you in a similar manner - is it still okay ?
To be fair Mortetvie has been attacked in a similar way. He is speaking from a place of first hand experience.
To be clear, discussing specific games / results from the BAO is totally acceptable in this thread, as is discussing the painting results, overall meta, etc.
However, name-calling is not. No matter what your opinion is, please stick to Dakka's rule #1- Be Polite. Arguments will be much more persuasive that way, and conducive to discussion. Thanks!
--------------------------
For myself, I agree that it should have been handled at the event itself. That was a big learning experience for me in going to GTs- that if you have an issue, you need to deal with it right there. However, there certainly is pressure to NOT utilize the "thumbs down" result, and so it is often not effective in deterring a player who is consistently giving his opponents terrible games, as many settle for giving the middle result and moving on.
I think a more useful outcome from this, rather than focusing on the specific case, would be how to make it easier for situations like this to come out and be resolved at the actual event in the future. Maybe a "resolution center" with a judge devoted solely to things like that, that players can contact in between rounds and ask them to keep an eye on a certain player, or to resolve certain things?
Seeing it come out on the internet after the fact when nothing can be done about it does suck, but the person mentioned they went to a staff member the next morning and was told nothing could be done already.
I think that's the reaction that likely would have occurred in talking to a "normal" judge at any GT, so maybe some sort of resolution center / judge would be a good idea for events of this caliber?
Just brainstorming, because this kind of thing does seem to happen all too often, and it does seem like there's not an easy path for addressing it at the event themselves, since normal judges have enough on their plates just handling the ongoing games, let alone checking to see if a player is consistently not following the rules throughout the event, or the like.
All things aside, I'm very much interested in seeing the army lists of the top 10 players. Are there any fellow dakkanauts that were one of the top 10 BAO players or players' opponents who are willing to post them?
SabrX wrote: All things aside, I'm very much interested in seeing the army lists of the top 10 players. Are there any fellow dakkanauts that were one of the top 10 BAO players or players' opponents who are willing to post them?
Dozer Blades wrote: Well it's still just hearsay unless you can actually prove it occurred.
Which would still be the case even had he called a judge. Should he record the game next time? What you are saying is that timing is all that's important which is foolish frankly. I agree his timing could have been better, but it's much better to speak up later then never.
I think a more useful outcome from this, rather than focusing on the specific case, would be how to make it easier for situations like this to come out and be resolved at the actual event in the future. Maybe a "resolution center" with a judge devoted solely to things like that, that players can contact in between rounds and ask them to keep an eye on a certain player, or to resolve certain things?
[.....]
Just brainstorming, because this kind of thing does seem to happen all too often, and it does seem like there's not an easy path for addressing it at the event themselves, since normal judges have enough on their plates just handling the ongoing games, let alone checking to see if a player is consistently not following the rules throughout the event, or the like.
I like that you're trying to move this discussion along the lines of solutions to problems, and appropriate behavior during play (especially play against strangers) is worthy of discussion. My big beef is lazy, plodding, disorganized play (another discussion).
Regardless, shame is an incredibly important factor towards correcting bad behavior. Whether the BAO champ cheated is undetermined; that he was & is an unpleasant competitor unafraid to look like a cheat and a bully has been certified by friends and others; the exposure here will affect his future behavior.
Several lists have been posted but they get burried in te discussion so perhaps it would be fruitful to contact the players in the top 10 and have thier lists posted in a new thread titled "lists of the top 10 in BAO"?
The rules I follow when playing (even in tournaments)
1. Never roll dice unless my opponent is aware and watching or has said 'go ahead'
2. I have my opponent count how many of his models are under any templates or blast markers I have to place.
elotar wrote: "If you see fraud and don't shout fraud - you are a fraud."
It's very hard to catch cheating in 40k, so generally behind any exposed occurrances of it there are hundreds of hidden ones.
Nobody must care how "well" the tournament was run if it's win by cheater. We are living in the 21 sentury, is it really hard to find other Steve Sisk's opponents and get confirmation/refutation of such claims?
I disagree. The average person can effectively supervise 3 to 5 people in a work place before the quality of the supervision becomes effected (see "span of control"). Applying that as a rough guide, a tournament the size of the BAO would need 12 judges each watching 5 games every round to really have an idea of how each game developed and who was or was not trying to play by the rules.
There is a difference. When supervising employees, for example, if I see them doing something incorrectly, I step in and correct the error immediately.
When judging in a 40k tournament, you are not going to interrupt game play to correct "mistakes" made unless there is a disagreement and you are asked to help resolve it.
This is why its called rules judging and not rules referee. We resolve disputes, not stop the game at every rules infraction we see as we pass by.
Depends, as a TO/judge if I see a player deliberately play a rule wrong I will point it out, for instance in this case if I knew Khan only had a 4++, or WS6, and saw a player tell his opponent elsewise. I wouldn't call the player on cheating for it, but would point out the correct rule, or at least have the player look it up. I feel doing this results in less bad feeling from people losing games due to rules getting played wrong, further the corrected player should only be upset if they were intentionally cheating, if it was a mistake, then no big deal we all make them. Only resolving disputes leaves you possibly watching cheating happen.
That said you cannot be everywhere at the same time and if the rules issue comes up when you are not nearby, obviously the players are responsible to catch it.
RiTides wrote:To be clear, discussing specific games / results from the BAO is totally acceptable in this thread, as is discussing the painting results, overall meta, etc.
However, name-calling is not. No matter what your opinion is, please stick to Dakka's rule #1- Be Polite. Arguments will be much more persuasive that way, and conducive to discussion. Thanks!
--------------------------
For myself, I agree that it should have been handled at the event itself. That was a big learning experience for me in going to GTs- that if you have an issue, you need to deal with it right there. However, there certainly is pressure to NOT utilize the "thumbs down" result, and so it is often not effective in deterring a player who is consistently giving his opponents terrible games, as many settle for giving the middle result and moving on.
I think a more useful outcome from this, rather than focusing on the specific case, would be how to make it easier for situations like this to come out and be resolved at the actual event in the future. Maybe a "resolution center" with a judge devoted solely to things like that, that players can contact in between rounds and ask them to keep an eye on a certain player, or to resolve certain things?
Seeing it come out on the internet after the fact when nothing can be done about it does suck, but the person mentioned they went to a staff member the next morning and was told nothing could be done already.
I think that's the reaction that likely would have occurred in talking to a "normal" judge at any GT, so maybe some sort of resolution center / judge would be a good idea for events of this caliber?
Just brainstorming, because this kind of thing does seem to happen all too often, and it does seem like there's not an easy path for addressing it at the event themselves, since normal judges have enough on their plates just handling the ongoing games, let alone checking to see if a player is consistently not following the rules throughout the event, or the like.
We had a similar situation happen at connecticon last year, a player played a couple rules wrong on one of his ICs, and ended up winning a game in part because of it. I did not find out until after the event was over and at that point there was really nothing to be done.
As for how to handle it post occurrence, the issue is 2 fold. How do you know a player cheated if you don't witness it? For me I would require multiple opponents stating the same issue/issues. Second, how do you determine intent? Maybe that player is rolling a 3++ on a character because he thought that he did. DO we go to the point where a rules mistake is an auto forfiet of all previous games, and re-doing points, for that players opponents? The issue with that is in say a battle point event, doing this means the previous players now played easier games after this game that they lost.
Say I lose to the suspected cheater round 1, maybe 15-5 in battle points, then go on to 20-0 my second round, and 3rd round. Now I have 45 points. Day 2 I find out my opponent cheated, so I get a full points win for round 1, and jump to 60 points. I haven't earned that 60 in the same way as other players may have....in general it causes issues.
At the same time it sucks that those players lost to a player playing rules wrong.....
Essentially until either players can self judge games well enough to determine rules wrong, or enough judges exist to ref games, cheating will always happen in some cases.
Part of the issue is that people only really call attention to incorrect rules when it matters. If Khan had rolled his 3++ incorrectly but rolled a bunch of 2s no one cares.
Breng, for myself I wouldn't see any need for battle points "in general" to be adjusted based on a sportsmanship issue, especially after the fact. I think it's more that, if there was a better way for TOs / a "resolution judge" to track this kind of thing occurring while an event is taking place, the player in question could be penalized (not their opponent's scores bumped up, just their own docked). I believe in Frontline's events two thumbs-down votes results in action being taken, anyway, so there is a mechanism for it... but since this has come up before, I think considering a better way to handle it at an event is useful.
Certainly, adjusting everyone's scores post-mortem later in the tournament isn't a good idea, imo... simply docking that one player's score is enough of a deterrent, imo, and easier to manage.
It would have to be followed up on and determined at the event, though, which obviously normal judges have no time to do. Which is why having a judge set aside just for situations like this, with an easy means of contacting them at the end of a round/day, would be a useful thing to consider, I think.
undertow wrote: The rules I follow when playing (even in tournaments)
1. Never roll dice unless my opponent is aware and watching or has said 'go ahead'
2. I have my opponent count how many of his models are under any templates or blast markers I have to place.
Those are good policies! I've had lots of folks do the second to me (having me count the number of my models under their template), particularly seasoned players. I think it's faster and results in their hitting at least as many of my models as they would have chosen themselves. It puts the onus on me to be honest, and I think when put to it most players will be when given that kind of decision to make.
I would like to see some lists too. It would be easy to PM the people if I only knew their usernames. If you can specify who it is and what their dakka name is, just post it for everyone on the thread. Thanks!
Dozer Blades wrote: Well it's still just hearsay unless you can actually prove it occurred.
Naw, man. mortevie just gave you the lawyer/court/legal definition of what "hearsay" is. In a court/trial hearsay is not admissible. Testimony is.
DB, how's this?
If *I* state/testify that I saw Bigfoot, then it is *not* hearsay. It's testimony, therefore, more heavily weighted (thus more believable) than ... :
If OverwatchCNC says, that *I* (BrotherErekose) said I saw Bigfoot, then that is 'hearsay'. OverWatch: "Yeah, I heard BrotherErekose say he saw a sasquatch." < - - - hearsay
@mortevie
Well, stated counselor.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Hunting for pictures:
1. I'm failing to find a link to the cool tau diorama, so I am trying a paint judge contact (Chung Chow).
2. Anyone have a picture of me and Grant VBD of the ITC?
- - - - -- - -
(read the following as sarcasm):
I know you all are desperate to know what list could have possibly taken *me*, Mr. Table 95 of the LVO to a whopping, 4 and 2!
Autarch - fusion gun
x5 Fire Dragons, including Exarch, firepike & fast shot & their WaveS
x3 D.A.V.U. all WaveS are ScatLas & Holo
x4 jetbikes
x5 jetbikes
x6 S.Hawks
x9 W.Spiders including Ex with fast shot
I finished 49 at the BAO, only 2 places behind GTA. I'm pretty happy with it, should have been 5-1 though. I just realized an illegal list the day after day 2 of the BAO, and I failed a 3 or 4 inch charge. Lol, good times.
Dozer Blades wrote: Well it's still just hearsay unless you can actually prove it occurred.
Naw, man. mortevie just gave you the lawyer/court/legal definition of what "hearsay" is. In a court/trial hearsay is not admissible. Testimony is.
DB, how's this?
If *I* state/testify that I saw Bigfoot, then it is *not* hearsay. It's testimony, therefore, more heavily weighted (thus more believable) than ... :
If OverwatchCNC says, that *I* (BrotherErekose) said I saw Bigfoot, then that is 'hearsay'. OverWatch: "Yeah, I heard BrotherErekose say he saw a sasquatch." < - - - hearsay
@mortevie
Well, stated counselor.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Hunting for pictures:
1. I'm failing to find a link to the cool tau diorama, so I am trying a paint judge contact (Chung Chow).
2. Anyone have a picture of me and Grant VBD of the ITC?
- - - - -- - -
(read the following as sarcasm):
I know you all are desperate to know what list could have possibly taken *me*, Mr. Table 95 of the LVO to a whopping, 4 and 2!
Autarch - fusion gun
x5 Fire Dragons, including Exarch, firepike & fast shot & their WaveS
x3 D.A.V.U. all WaveS are ScatLas & Holo
x4 jetbikes
x5 jetbikes
x6 S.Hawks
x9 W.Spiders including Ex with fast shot
OverwatchCNC wrote: You changed the list after our practice game the Tuesday before the BAO?! Why did you split the War Walkers into two squads instead of 1?
... On my own, with my little brian, I figured that two Outflanking units were better than one to present dual flank threats. It's one more scoring unit. 2 and 1 is harder to tarpit in h2h, etc.
undertow wrote: The rules I follow when playing (even in tournaments)
1. Never roll dice unless my opponent is aware and watching or has said 'go ahead'
2. I have my opponent count how many of his models are under any templates or blast markers I have to place.
Completely agree. I've learnt this through experience though. One time I rolled a pretty crucial save while my opponent was looking up a rule [genuine mistake, didn't realise he was looking away] and I then tried to argue that the roll should stand. I quickly realised that I was in the wrong [based upon how I would feel if he had done the same] and rolled it again [still made the save lol]. My friend who plays Guard does number 2 with his [many] templates and it really cuts out any arguments.
I also get my opponent to check I have line of site if it's marginal [even if they didn't question] as I don't want to gain an unfair advantage.
While I sympathise with minion and his situation, when you're playing at BAO-level event you should be expected to know the rules (or at least attempt to find out on the spot.), especially for a crucial roll like the one he mentioned. It doesn't take very long to open the codex to compare, but it sounds like you're not a competitive player anyway, and you were more upset about the sportsmanship aspect. In which case you should have changed your thumbs up to a thumbs down on Day 2, which you didn't. Writing a blog post is pretty passive-aggressive, and it seems the weakest way out.
If someone tries to hustle you with a 3+ on an Iron Halo save and you get played, it's partly your fault for not knowing the ruleset. When I attend a tournament and want to play at the highest level, I make damn sure I know everything there is to know and if I don't I make sure I find out.
Part of 40k (well, most of it) is rules knowledge but part of a competitive tournament is playing to your opponent's weaknesses (in this case a trusting nature), and making sure you don't get played. He used this edge to get ahead, and thus won the tournament. While I certainly don't advocate cheating to win, not getting cheated is an important part of a competitive environment you have to be aware of. Fight your corner.
Asmodai Asmodean wrote: If someone tries to hustle you with a 3+ on an Iron Halo save and you get played, it's partly your fault for not knowing the ruleset.
This like how if my car gets stolen, it's my fault for not putting it in a garage, right?
And yes, by coming down in favor of NOT calling out a cheater, everybody IS endorsing cheating as a means to win.
Asmodai Asmodean wrote: While I sympathise with minion and his situation, when you're playing at BAO-level event you should be expected to know the rules (or at least attempt to find out on the spot.), especially for a crucial roll like the one he mentioned. It doesn't take very long to open the codex to compare, but it sounds like you're not a competitive player anyway, and you were more upset about the sportsmanship aspect. In which case you should have changed your thumbs up to a thumbs down on Day 2, which you didn't. Writing a blog post is pretty passive-aggressive, and it seems the weakest way out.
If someone tries to hustle you with a 3+ on an Iron Halo save and you get played, it's partly your fault for not knowing the ruleset. When I attend a tournament and want to play at the highest level, I make damn sure I know everything there is to know and if I don't I make sure I find out.
Part of 40k (well, most of it) is rules knowledge but part of a competitive tournament is playing to your opponent's weaknesses (in this case a trusting nature), and making sure you don't get played. He used this edge to get ahead, and thus won the tournament. While I certainly don't advocate cheating to win, not getting cheated is an important part of a competitive environment you have to be aware of. Fight your corner.
You are completely wrong on every level. How can you possibly justify cheating regardless of the circumstances? ?? I'm not accusing anyone. But I would never defend cheating in any way. If someone is cheating, it is 100% their fault and they should be punished.
The language should be something like: it's prudent & wise to know ALL the rules, but unacceptable to cheat, implicitly (which seems the case here), much less explicitly.
thunderingjove wrote: The language should be something like: it's prudent & wise to know ALL the rules, but unacceptable to cheat, implicitly (which seems the case here), much less explicitly.
Good phrasing.
As a new player who wants to participate in tournaments just to play some 40k, I'm worried now. I just know my army and it's rules. I have considered tournaments like BAO just because they seem like an awesome time. I don't want to study every rule to feel like I am prepared enough. I don't care about winning per se. I just love playing the game.
If your going to have fun, that's a whole other thing. You should always go to GTs if your just looking to have fun, hang out with new friends and play some 40k.
Now, if your intent is to go compete and win a lot then you should know in advance and study up on the armies you think should be there.
thunderingjove wrote: The language should be something like: it's prudent & wise to know ALL the rules, but unacceptable to cheat, implicitly (which seems the case here), much less explicitly.
Good phrasing.
As a new player who wants to participate in tournaments just to play some 40k, I'm worried now. I just know my army and it's rules. I have considered tournaments like BAO just because they seem like an awesome time. I don't want to study every rule to feel like I am prepared enough. I don't care about winning per se. I just love playing the game.
Stay the course, you seem to have the right spirit of the game.
Asmodai Asmodean wrote: While I sympathise with minion and his situation, when you're playing at BAO-level event you should be expected to know the rules (or at least attempt to find out on the spot.), especially for a crucial roll like the one he mentioned.
This flies directly in the face of the spirit of the tournament. This attitude is what keeps newer players (or those who have not yet attended a GT) from attending. Let alone the sisyphean task of actually knowing all the rules.
Did you like the army composition guidelines we used for the BAO 2014?
We are referring to how you write your list, how many detachments you can use and of what type, etc.
I liked the format as it was at the BAO: 1 mandatory CAD and 1 optional other non-CAD detachment, with Factions able to self-ally.
I would like to see 2 detachments of my choice, but only 1 of them can be a CAD, but allowing Factions to ally with themselves and the limit of 1 LoW and/or Fortification. This means you could only ever have 1 CAD, but you don't have to take a CAD.
I would like to see more freedom with 2 Detachments total, of any type the player chooses but with a limit of only 1 Lord of War or Fortification and Factions not able to self-ally. This means you could have 2 CADs, or 2 Formations as your army.
I think we can reference classic MTG story of Van Cleave disqualification from gran prix Boston, which was based on coverage photo and post tournament reports of one player and judges.
The general logic here is that it's not a court, accused is not facing jail time or any other phisical loss, so we does't need high profile evidence of deeds and intent (!) to make accusation.
Main goal of tournament judges is to provide pleasant environment for all involved, so if we got player, who is definately TFG as well as alleged cheater, it'll be much better to everybody, if he will be encoraged to change his behaviour(I see no problem in changing tournament results) or leave the community (be banned from attending futher tournaments for some time).
We're going to see 2 force orgs eventually available to all armies. Orks have it (they actually have 3 to choose from with the supplement), Space Wolves are going to have it. Every book moving forward is going to have a CAD and army specific force org. So I think it's time to embrace it
We're going to see 2 force orgs eventually available to all armies. Orks have it (they actually have 3 to choose from with the supplement), Space Wolves are going to have it. Every book moving forward is going to have a CAD and army specific force org. So I think it's time to embrace it
I agree. Seems like LoW and FW didn't ruin the BAO but actually promoted games finishing early possibly. The more neutered down you make games in this edition it seems like the longer and slower they play out IMHO.
Looking at the top 10 lists, none of them included self allying.
Was it that much of an issue?
From a RAW standpoint I don't think you should be able to take an allied detachment that has the same faction as your primary, since that is against the RAW [if that's what you mean]
But if you mean the ability to take a formation other than your primary that includes the same faction, still I think most of the top 10 armies at BAO did not have that either.
My two cents on this whole thing, if anybody cares:
I sympathize with minion, it sounds like he got a raw deal, assuming everything went as he said it did.
BUT, I have been on the other side of this situation back in my days as a MTG tournament player. Back in '03, I was a tournament regular, trying to get on the pro tour. A couple friends of mine put together a janky G/W beats deck that was a total meta play, and which we kept as "secret tech" until Midwest Regionals. And we absolutely stomped the competition.
In the last round of regionals, after going 7-2 in a field of like 400-500 people, I ended up facing against a very well known tournament player who had his own blog that lots of folks in the community read. He asked me to concede to him at the start of the match. I said no, I wanted to play, as I was hoping to make it as high in the rankings as I could so that our secret tech would make the MTG blogs and make a name for our team. He went on to be extremely whiny and passive aggressive for the entire game, and I beat him handily 2 out of 3 games. The only game he won was one where he topdecked four "destroy all creatures" spells in a row. I ended up 17th overall, which was slightly disappointing for me as I was hoping to make top 16 (which would have triggered the posting of my list on many of the top boards).
Then, the next week a couple of his friends posted a blog article about how I was such a TFG, how I should have just conceded to him, and how I was a total jerk. None of this was true (or, at least, it was totally distorted - I can't say that I was super-nice to him after he started being rude to me, but I would describe my demeanor as "cold," not insulting).
The whole experience sucked, cast a pallor over my achievements at the tourney, and within about 6 months I dropped out of MTG altogether. So, I guess the whole point of this is that everyone should just lay off the witch hunt until we've heard both sides of the story. The player in question (who I do not know) may not be the greatest to play against, but he deserves the benefit of the doubt in light of the fact that this could easily have been an error.
Rolling dice when your opponent isn't looking, though, is not kosher with me, FWIW.
What I would like is more options on the poll. I do not care too much one way or another, but I always want to see more options.
Also, before you start throwing around people wanting to play 6th edition, we are already making a lot of changes to the 7th edition FOC, so there are a lot worse things that you can do than play with 6th's.
What I would like is more options on the poll. I do not care too much one way or another, but I always want to see more options.
Also, before you start throwing around people wanting to play 6th edition, we are already making a lot of changes to the 7th edition FOC, so there are a lot worse things that you can do than play with 6th's.
No need to get testy, it was a legitimate question.
Theres no point in them putting out more options that they will then need to sort through if they have no intent on running those sorts of events.
Asmodas wrote: I ended up facing against a very well known tournament player who had his own blog that lots of folks in the community read. He asked me to concede to him at the start of the match.
I'm not familiar with MTG tournaments, but why would anyone start a match by asking their opponent to concede?
Asmodas wrote: I ended up facing against a very well known tournament player who had his own blog that lots of folks in the community read. He asked me to concede to him at the start of the match.
I'm not familiar with MTG tournaments, but why would anyone start a match by asking their opponent to concede?
Player 1 and Player 2 have the same record going into the top 8. The top 4 get rewards at an out of state tournament (either X number of byes or an invite, whatever). Player 1 wants to go to that out of state tournament, player 2 doesn't care. Player 1 asks because if they play and luck goes against him (mana screwed repeatedly, Player 2 gets nut draws, etc) he'll lose out on those rewards and Player 2 won't use them.
It's worth asking but shouldn't be more than a 10 second yes/no thing.
Asmodas wrote: I ended up facing against a very well known tournament player who had his own blog that lots of folks in the community read. He asked me to concede to him at the start of the match.
I'm not familiar with MTG tournaments, but why would anyone start a match by asking their opponent to concede?
Player 1 and Player 2 have the same record going into the top 8. The top 4 get rewards at an out of state tournament (either X number of byes or an invite, whatever). Player 1 wants to go to that out of state tournament, player 2 doesn't care. Player 1 asks because if they play and luck goes against him (mana screwed repeatedly, Player 2 gets nut draws, etc) he'll lose out on those rewards and Player 2 won't use them.
It's worth asking but shouldn't be more than a 10 second yes/no thing.
Yeah. The process of intentionally drawing matches or conceding in M:tG is well known and common in bigger tournaments. There are even specific rules in place about what one player can say/offer to another player in order to induce a draw or concession. As Rigel says though, if one player isn't interested, that should be the end of the conversation (and as I understand it now, pestering an opponent about this will now cause an instant disqualification or match loss).
You also can't offer things like splitting rewards or prize money for the concession. It's relatively above the board, if somewhat annoying to people who don't understand.
undertow wrote: I'm not familiar with MTG tournaments, but why would anyone start a match by asking their opponent to concede?
Because they're an arrogant TFG who expects a "lesser" opponent to recognize how truly great they are as a well-know "pro player" and concede the match so that they can go on to the top-16 spot that they are so obviously entitled to? There are only two reasons to concede a match in MTG:
1) Bribery, which is cheating but still happens.
2) Playing against a friend/teammate and conceding the match because they have a better chance of winning future rounds. This would never happen with a random stranger.
There are much more common reasons to take an intentional draw late in a tournament, since you'll often get situations where both players just need to avoid losing to maintain their desired position in the standings (for example, the top 8 players go to the final elimination bracket), and an intentional draw allows them to do that without any risk of losing. But that's a case where both players are getting something, not one player asking for a huge advantage at the expense of the other player.
undertow wrote: I'm not familiar with MTG tournaments, but why would anyone start a match by asking their opponent to concede?
Because they're an arrogant TFG who expects a "lesser" opponent to recognize how truly great they are as a well-know "pro player" and concede the match so that they can go on to the top-16 spot that they are so obviously entitled to? There are only two reasons to concede a match in MTG:
1) Bribery, which is cheating but still happens.
2) Playing against a friend/teammate and conceding the match because they have a better chance of winning future rounds. This would never happen with a random stranger.
There are much more common reasons to take an intentional draw late in a tournament, since you'll often get situations where both players just need to avoid losing to maintain their desired position in the standings (for example, the top 8 players go to the final elimination bracket), and an intentional draw allows them to do that without any risk of losing. But that's a case where both players are getting something, not one player asking for a huge advantage at the expense of the other player.
It's like you completely ignored the fact that I posted a legitimate reason. It often has nothing to do with being an arrogant TFG or "pro-player" or anything.
rigeld2 wrote: It's like you completely ignored the fact that I posted a legitimate reason. It often has nothing to do with being an arrogant TFG or "pro-player" or anything.
It's not a legitimate reason because it will never happen in a sanctioned tournament. Pro tour qualifiers only award travel prizes to the top finisher, so even if you're not interested in the primary reason for being at a PTQ you could only have this happen in the extremely unlikely situation that the rest of the prize for first was no better than the prize for second. And it will certainly never happen in a grand prix tournament, where the difference between a top-8 finish with a travel prize and a 9th or worse finish without one is hundreds of dollars in cash. So unless you think that there are generous people who would realistically say "sure, I'll give up $500 and concede the match so I don't waste this pro tour invite" without their opponent handing them some cash I don't think we have to seriously consider your scenario.
And also note that travel prizes in MTG include plane tickets to the event, so "sure, I'll let you have that" is a lot less likely than, say, X-Wing where the byes awarded in lower-tier events are pretty much worthless to a lot of people.
rigeld2 wrote: It's like you completely ignored the fact that I posted a legitimate reason. It often has nothing to do with being an arrogant TFG or "pro-player" or anything.
It's not a legitimate reason because it will never happen in a sanctioned tournament. Pro tour qualifiers only award travel prizes to the top finisher, so even if you're not interested in the primary reason for being at a PTQ you could only have this happen in the extremely unlikely situation that the rest of the prize for first was no better than the prize for second. And it will certainly never happen in a grand prix tournament, where the difference between a top-8 finish with a travel prize and a 9th or worse finish without one is hundreds of dollars in cash. So unless you think that there are generous people who would realistically say "sure, I'll give up $500 and concede the match so I don't waste this pro tour invite" without their opponent handing them some cash I don't think we have to seriously consider your scenario.
And also note that travel prizes in MTG include plane tickets to the event, so "sure, I'll let you have that" is a lot less likely than, say, X-Wing where the byes awarded in lower-tier events are pretty much worthless to a lot of people.
This either blatantly a lie or, more generously, I could assume that you're working from incomplete knowledge.
tomjoad wrote: I'm not sure how easy it is to get Peregrine to agree with a new viewpoint.
It's easy, if you provide a good reason. There just isn't one in this case. If you're asking someone to concede a match because they might not be able to use the plane tickets they're about to win it's a pretty safe bet that you're cheating and handing them some cash in exchange.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tomjoad wrote: This either blatantly a lie or, more generously, I could assume that you're working from incomplete knowledge.
Scroll down to prizes. Top 8 get pro tour invites and $1000+, 9th place gets $600. Even if you aren't going to use the pro tour invite because you absolutely can't go to it there's still a difference of $400 in cash at stake. The scenario rigeld2 proposed, where a person concedes a match because they can't use the travel prize and don't want it to be wasted, is never going to happen without the conceding player getting some cash in exchange.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Will you accept people camping outside the store for tickets But I look forward to seeing how you guys handle 7th edition. LVO was the first major after Formations. LOW and Stronghold, and now you guys are first for 7th
That would be Texas Games Con being the first major 7th edition tournament at the end of June,.
I do not think that having a poll is the best way to sort out the issues that 7th edition has with tournaments.
It is only a week and a half and most people are afraid of what is out there without seeing it in action.
For an example if I am playing Tau I would love a cap on psychic powers. I want to limit the other armies ability to get things like ignore cover, and twin linking when all I have to do is take wargear tjhat can't be stopped.
If I was playing Eldar I want a ban on invisibility. I have fortune that does the same thing, so why have other armies that can stop my deathstars?
If I am not playing Demons, I want a cap on summoning. That way they have another nerf to keep the one to their FMC company.
Play most OP army in game - ask that other people gimp any sort of advantage they have over Tau.... Typical.
Play most OP army in game - ask that other people gimp any sort of advantage they have over Tau.... Typical.
Heh - I like the jab, but I hope you're not seriously considering Tau as the most OP army in 7th. Check out the BAO results here and TOF, not a ton of Tau topping out even local tourneys these days. They've really fallen into a well balanced, middle range+ army. Pod marines, Rhino rush, and Deldar seem to be doing the best these days.
.
fire 
's on the Stomp table!
I included in my analyses every game (344 games) that was played today (3 games per individual). The structure of the data is nested and is therefore dependent. That is, one individual played three games and it is important that we maintain that information in our analyses and not collapse across individuals, or even avg. within an individual. This will allow us to account for some of the 'noise' between individuals. That is, some players might just be better than other players. The second consideration. was that my variable of interest was 'Battle-Points'. Battle points as a variable ranges from 0 to 10 (per game) and is therefore discrete (there are no values of 5.4 or 1.3 for example) and possibly non-normal. I thought it would be good to correct for the properties of this 'count-data' (that is, counts of battle points '1, 2, 3.. 5.. etc') using a Poisson distribution. In order to respect the structure of the data (mutli-level / nested) and the nature of the dependent variable (discrete values), I used a multi-level Poisson regression model estimated using maximum likelihood (estimated in 
The Blog author mentioned the possibility of being ejected for this which sounds strange. At any rate, if a player is consistently getting negative feedback then it isn't just the same old from "another tournament."
