Kanluwen wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Interesting still - so BattleScribe (which is often recommended to new players and generally held out as the list builder currently) is not representative of anything but a tournament is. Also while it may not be free to play in a tournament it is certainly 'free' to judge one (i.e. judges are all volunteers). I think instead of trying to hold the tournament accountable we should probably hold the players accountable.

Battlescribe is a symptom, not the disease itself--at least in my opinion. Daedalus81 and Auticus both posted about how people don't want to buy the codex--and Daedalus further had a point earlier on regarding that "people don't have four months between releases to learn new books"(I'm kind of coopting this point to discuss people not wanting to buy the books rather than just them not having time to learn the books but both have merit as arguments) and others have commented on the rapid pace of book releases this edition.

There are people who genuinely, for whatever reason, feel that they're entitled to owning all of the rules for every single army and they shouldn't have to pay for it or it should all be made cheaper/"more streamlined" so as they don't get inconvenienced. So Battlescribe and torrents/leaked stuff ends up being their 'solution' to the issue.

If it isn't BattleScribe's fault that people don't proof read or double check then it isn't a tournament organizers - its just that person.

I can't agree with you on this point. The tournament organizers are supposed to be the ones organizing the event and, ideally, ensuring that everyone follows the same rules.
Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

Ideally that would mean that the TO would ensure that measures are taken to prevent these kinds of things from happening. How we've had at least 2 notable instances of people writing lists with invalid Relic setups and no measures being put into place to avoid them raises some serious questions regarding organizers for myself.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
In my younger days when I first perused the Internet, People were asking dumb questions like what's the maximum unit size for bikers and stuff.

Rybrook wrote:

I just want to know how many bikers are in a squadron for 8th ed?

That was from four days ago.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Battlescribe is only a reference and nothing else, and is even said as such. No different than writing stuff on Notecards like how many CP you have, and which units go where, and the only Strategems you choose to use (which is very few in the Marine codex, trust me!).

But that's the thing at the heart of this issue. Battlescribe might bill itself as "only a reference", but some people think it a substitute for a codex.

People were always trying to acquire the rules for free. In my younger days when I first perused the Internet, People were asking dumb questions like what's the maximum unit size for bikers and stuff. I of course never called people out on it in fear of my identity being found out (I was kinda paranoid as a kid haha), but at least other people did. Or they'd ask in reference to rules on the Pariah because their codex "didn't come with the page the rules were on".

Sure people have always been trying to acquire the rules for free; I'm not trying to pretend that "back in my day..." everyone bought everything or there weren't people using pirated/scanned material.

It just wasn't something that you saw as often since digital formats didn't exist legally and people couldn't have multiple army books on their daggone cell phone or tablet.
*goes back to his rocking chair*

To belabor an earlier point. This is how disinformation spreads in groups.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Battlescribe is only a reference and nothing else, and is even said as such. No different than writing stuff on Notecards like how many CP you have, and which units go where, and the only Strategems you choose to use (which is very few in the Marine codex, trust me!).

But that's the thing at the heart of this issue. Battlescribe might bill itself as "only a reference", but some people think it a substitute for a codex.

People were always trying to acquire the rules for free. In my younger days when I first perused the Internet, People were asking dumb questions like what's the maximum unit size for bikers and stuff. I of course never called people out on it in fear of my identity being found out (I was kinda paranoid as a kid haha), but at least other people did. Or they'd ask in reference to rules on the Pariah because their codex "didn't come with the page the rules were on".

Sure people have always been trying to acquire the rules for free; I'm not trying to pretend that "back in my day..." everyone bought everything or there weren't people using pirated/scanned material.

It just wasn't something that you saw as often since digital formats didn't exist legally and people couldn't have multiple army books on their daggone cell phone or tablet.
*goes back to his rocking chair*

All it did was make it slightly easier. Nothing more, nothing less. Battlescribe is simply just a wonderful tool if you need to do quick crunching.

Saying it's bad because people are using it like that is similar to banning knives because somebody might stab somebody else, ya know?

Again they should crowdsource list checking. People like myself - who aren't attending - could sign up to vet lists. For free. I'd do it. It helps the integrity of the game, and takes very little time to do a thorough check.

People flag the lists that they think have errors with an explanation. Either the TOs get a ton of stupid feedback and it's a horrible idea, or people don't ruin it and it really helps improve the lists and alleviates the burden from TOs.

 Marmatag wrote:
Again they should crowdsource list checking. People like myself - who aren't attending - could sign up to vet lists. For free. I'd do it. It helps the integrity of the game, and takes very little time to do a thorough check.

People flag the lists that they think have errors with an explanation. Either the TOs get a ton of stupid feedback and it's a horrible idea, or people don't ruin it and it really helps improve the lists and alleviates the burden from TOs.

This is a good idea, that will improve tournaments if it works and is an actionable suggestion!

 Marmatag wrote:
Again they should crowdsource list checking.

I second this notion.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
People at the local store wondered why I stripped my Knights of Blood and repainted them as Blood Angels when I told them about the relics...

Totally glad I did now, not worth the hassle when a new player shows up and calls me out on cheating. They also said tournaments wouldn't care haha.

It makes no difference how they are painted, you can still have <blood angels> as your chapter.

What you can't do is take a character that requires you to be chapter <something else> and still take relics that are <blood angels> only no matter how they're painted.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

Yeah, I'd say that's fair.

Battlescribe is an unoffical free mod, no-one is compelled to use for anything that has no concequences on anything. [Unless you argue it's responsible for people neglecting to read their Codex's, but I'm fairly sure if you deleted Battlescribe people would still fail to read their Codex's.]

Tournaments, [And I assume here we are talking about GT type events, not you and 7 mates in a garage.] are -

Not Free.
Representative of the hobby to a wider community, including being streamed.
Judged.
Direct Datapoints for GW to make actual rules changes to the actual game.

It feels perfectly reasonable to me that we hold them responsible.
If Battlescribe was an offical app, that I paid to use, and mandatory at events then I'd hold them more accountable, too.

Interesting still - so BattleScribe (which is often recommended to new players and generally held out as the list builder currently) is not representative of anything but a tournament is. Also while it may not be free to play in a tournament it is certainly 'free' to judge one (i.e. judges are all volunteers). I think instead of trying to hold the tournament accountable we should probably hold the players accountable. If it isn't BattleScribe's fault that people don't proof read or double check then it isn't a tournament organizers - its just that person.

You don't give any supporting evidence here. Yes it's free to judge an event, you give no reason as to why this is relevent. If I am paying money to do something, I expect a service as a result. If I am paying to attend the event, I expect the event to have standards, including but not limited to, fair play. It's their responsibility to manage that, be that with free judges, paid judges, or some entirely alternative method.

While I can never claim to have managed a GT, I have managed smaller 20 people events, and I have managed Science Fiction conventions with hundreds of attendees. I don't disagree with your claim that list checking would be difficult, but I flat out disagree that it would be impossible, and I respectfully suggest that if you want to hold the single largest, and thus most important Warhammer Event in the _Entire World_ you should be prepared to be better organised. Volunteer list checkers are a thing.

Or are you suggesting that if Adeptacon asked Dakka for volunteer list checkers, we wouldn't have at _least_ half a dozen people super eager to crawl through all those lists and nitpick any faults for free? And that's just here on this one forum, not counting any friends, offical gaming organisations, stores...

"All lists checked and verified by [Insert name of organisation here." is free publicity.
There are options. This is not an impossible task, it is one that's perfectly within reason if you want to be credited with running such a high level hobby event. Defending it is excusing laziness.
People write sloppy crap lists _Because they can get away with it_ if they know their lists are going to be checked, and they're going to be penalised/disqualified if they've made errors _They Will Make Better Lists_ I promise you that.

I do agree that you're paying to play in an event that it is generally fair to expect a level of service. It definitely varies with the size of the event and the cost of entry.

The question is, how much would you be willing to pay for this specific 'list-audit' service? Since the current cost of entry doesn't cover that.

Crowdsourcing would be the best way to do it - but might also pose some challenges.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

You don't give any supporting evidence here. Yes it's free to judge an event, you give no reason as to why this is relevent. If I am paying money to do something, I expect a service as a result. If I am paying to attend the event, I expect the event to have standards, including but not limited to, fair play. It's their responsibility to manage that, be that with free judges, paid judges, or some entirely alternative method.

While I can never claim to have managed a GT, I have managed smaller 20 people events, and I have managed Science Fiction conventions with hundreds of attendees. I don't disagree with your claim that list checking would be difficult, but I flat out disagree that it would be impossible, and I respectfully suggest that if you want to hold the single largest, and thus most important Warhammer Event in the _Entire World_ you should be prepared to be better organised. Volunteer list checkers are a thing.

Or are you suggesting that if Adeptacon asked Dakka for volunteer list checkers, we wouldn't have at _least_ half a dozen people super eager to crawl through all those lists and nitpick any faults for free? And that's just here on this one forum, not counting any friends, offical gaming organisations, stores...

"All lists checked and verified by [Insert name of organisation here." is free publicity.
There are options. This is not an impossible task, it is one that's perfectly within reason if you want to be credited with running such a high level hobby event. Defending it is excusing laziness.
People write sloppy crap lists _Because they can get away with it_ if they know their lists are going to be checked, and they're going to be penalised/disqualified if they've made errors _They Will Make Better Lists_ I promise you that.

You're paying for terrain, rules packs, trophies/prize support, venue space, table rentals, and a host of other things. So to act like you're just dumping money in the pocket of the TO and they're providing you with nothing in return is fallacious. And as to crowd list sourcing that's why they have people submit lists to BCP ahead of the tournament so anyone can go on to BCP and check those lists. Ultimately I don't agree people don't write sloppy lists because they think they can get away with it, people make mistakes. Oh and if they're crowd sourced no one is getting DQ'd or penalized outside having to correct the list error. And to be clear I'm not saying we should never check lists - I agree with the crowd sourcing concept. The issue I have and have stated several times is that it is unreasonable to expect the TOs to personally validate every list at a major event and I don't want to discourage people from running events simply because they're not actual tournaments. I'd rather they continue to run them - flawed or not.

 Marmatag wrote:
Again they should crowdsource list checking. People like myself - who aren't attending - could sign up to vet lists. For free. I'd do it. It helps the integrity of the game, and takes very little time to do a thorough check.

People flag the lists that they think have errors with an explanation. Either the TOs get a ton of stupid feedback and it's a horrible idea, or people don't ruin it and it really helps improve the lists and alleviates the burden from TOs.

Can tournaments find enough volunteers for that to run through every list through several?

tneva82 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Again they should crowdsource list checking. People like myself - who aren't attending - could sign up to vet lists. For free. I'd do it. It helps the integrity of the game, and takes very little time to do a thorough check.

People flag the lists that they think have errors with an explanation. Either the TOs get a ton of stupid feedback and it's a horrible idea, or people don't ruin it and it really helps improve the lists and alleviates the burden from TOs.

Can tournaments find enough volunteers for that to run through every list through several?

Why stop at volunteers? Put a bounty on every player caught and DQed for an illegal list. People will go find those mistakes if they get paid for finding them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Ultimately I don't agree people don't write sloppy lists because they think they can get away with it, people make mistakes.

You can disagree all you want, but you're wrong. People get sloppy because they know the chances of any meaningful consequences are low. I guarantee that if the price of submitting an illegal list was getting DQed at the beginning of the tournament after paying for airline tickets, hotel rooms, etc, and getting to watch in frustration as everyone else has fun without you people would suddenly stop having these "accidents". There is no excuse for making a mistake with something that is as black and white as list construction.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

You don't give any supporting evidence here. Yes it's free to judge an event, you give no reason as to why this is relevent. If I am paying money to do something, I expect a service as a result. If I am paying to attend the event, I expect the event to have standards, including but not limited to, fair play. It's their responsibility to manage that, be that with free judges, paid judges, or some entirely alternative method.

While I can never claim to have managed a GT, I have managed smaller 20 people events, and I have managed Science Fiction conventions with hundreds of attendees. I don't disagree with your claim that list checking would be difficult, but I flat out disagree that it would be impossible, and I respectfully suggest that if you want to hold the single largest, and thus most important Warhammer Event in the _Entire World_ you should be prepared to be better organised. Volunteer list checkers are a thing.

Or are you suggesting that if Adeptacon asked Dakka for volunteer list checkers, we wouldn't have at _least_ half a dozen people super eager to crawl through all those lists and nitpick any faults for free? And that's just here on this one forum, not counting any friends, offical gaming organisations, stores...

"All lists checked and verified by [Insert name of organisation here." is free publicity.
There are options. This is not an impossible task, it is one that's perfectly within reason if you want to be credited with running such a high level hobby event. Defending it is excusing laziness.
People write sloppy crap lists _Because they can get away with it_ if they know their lists are going to be checked, and they're going to be penalised/disqualified if they've made errors _They Will Make Better Lists_ I promise you that.

You're paying for terrain, rules packs, trophies/prize support, venue space, table rentals, and a host of other things. So to act like you're just dumping money in the pocket of the TO and they're providing you with nothing in return is fallacious. And as to crowd list sourcing that's why they have people submit lists to BCP ahead of the tournament so anyone can go on to BCP and check those lists. Ultimately I don't agree people don't write sloppy lists because they think they can get away with it, people make mistakes. Oh and if they're crowd sourced no one is getting DQ'd or penalized outside having to correct the list error. And to be clear I'm not saying we should never check lists - I agree with the crowd sourcing concept. The issue I have and have stated several times is that it is unreasonable to expect the TOs to personally validate every

list at a major event and I don't want to discourage people from running events simply because they're not actual tournaments. I'd rather they continue to run them - flawed or not.

I've never claimed that anyone is "Putting money in the pocket of the TO", I am paying for a service, if that service is flawed, why am I paying for it? Look at the example we're discussing. He got to the top 16, and then dropped because of a list error that should of been picked up. Someone else _should_ have been in the top 16 instead. We don't know who they are, but they were cheated out of their place. It certainly wasn't fair they paid to enter, and arguably nor was it for everyone else that lost to him, or anyone else that paid and lost to people with list errors that were never caught.

If I pay for a service, and you only give me 75% of it, that's not on. I'd rather there were fewer, better run 40k events, Particularly if GW is going to use them as a basis to change the actual rules of the game.

The issue is that list checking was never stated as part of said service, so you were not shorted on anything you were promised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Again they should crowdsource list checking. People like myself - who aren't attending - could sign up to vet lists. For free. I'd do it. It helps the integrity of the game, and takes very little time to do a thorough check.

People flag the lists that they think have errors with an explanation. Either the TOs get a ton of stupid feedback and it's a horrible idea, or people don't ruin it and it really helps improve the lists and alleviates the burden from TOs.

Can tournaments find enough volunteers for that to run through every list through several?

Why stop at volunteers? Put a bounty on every player caught and DQed for an illegal list. People will go find those mistakes if they get paid for finding them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Ultimately I don't agree people don't write sloppy lists because they think they can get away with it, people make mistakes.

You can disagree all you want, but you're wrong. People get sloppy because they know the chances of any meaningful consequences are low. I guarantee that if the price of submitting an illegal list was getting DQed at the beginning of the tournament after paying for airline tickets, hotel rooms, etc, and getting to watch in frustration as everyone else has fun without you people would suddenly stop having these "accidents". There is no excuse for making a mistake with something that is as black and white as list construction.

How much would you pay them exactly to find errors? What if 2 people find the same error do you pay them both? Where exactly is this money coming from? Increased entry fees to events? The idea of an error bountry borders on rediculous.

As to people cleaning up their act, some people might do a better job, but honestly if you ran your tournament with gotcha DQs for bad lists, lots of people would stop attending because of the negative experience. If doing advanced list checking the proper response is to allow players to correct their lists not to DQ them for it, especially after they spend a ton of money.

The other issue with that approach is that it assumes the list checkers are perfect, and miss nothing. If you pre check lists you don’t guarantee no illegal list makes the tournament but you assume the responsibility for it.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue is that list checking was never stated as part of said service, so you were not shorted on anything you were promised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Again they should crowdsource list checking. People like myself - who aren't attending - could sign up to vet lists. For free. I'd do it. It helps the integrity of the game, and takes very little time to do a thorough check.

People flag the lists that they think have errors with an explanation. Either the TOs get a ton of stupid feedback and it's a horrible idea, or people don't ruin it and it really helps improve the lists and alleviates the burden from TOs.

Can tournaments find enough volunteers for that to run through every list through several?

Why stop at volunteers? Put a bounty on every player caught and DQed for an illegal list. People will go find those mistakes if they get paid for finding them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Ultimately I don't agree people don't write sloppy lists because they think they can get away with it, people make mistakes.

You can disagree all you want, but you're wrong. People get sloppy because they know the chances of any meaningful consequences are low. I guarantee that if the price of submitting an illegal list was getting DQed at the beginning of the tournament after paying for airline tickets, hotel rooms, etc, and getting to watch in frustration as everyone else has fun without you people would suddenly stop having these "accidents". There is no excuse for making a mistake with something that is as black and white as list construction.

How much would you pay them exactly to find errors? What if 2 people find the same error do you pay them both? Where exactly is this money coming from? Increased entry fees to events? The idea of an error bountry borders on rediculous.

As to people cleaning up their act, some people might do a better job, but honestly if you ran your tournament with gotcha DQs for bad lists, lots of people would stop attending because of the negative experience. If doing advanced list checking the proper response is to allow players to correct their lists not to DQ them for it, especially after they spend a ton of money.

The other issue with that approach is that it assumes the list checkers are perfect, and miss nothing. If you pre check lists you don’t guarantee no illegal list makes the tournament but you assume the responsibility for it.

I'm sorry, wait what? You're concerned that the people who get DQ'd for incorrect lists might be upset and not come this time? As opposed to our current system where they get DQ'd if they get caught? So you'd prefer the system that only disqualifies people who get caught, and anyone who cheats but doesn't gets encouraged to come again? And this is for the people we hail as the best of the best in the hobby? That's completely unreasonable. If you get DQ'd because your list was illegal, and that upsets you to the extent you'll never compete "Professionally" again, that's... a good thing for the hobby? Either learn to list write, or don't compete?
We're not saying people can't play the hobby, here. Just that if they can't write a list, maybe tournment level events arn't for them? You don't get into a magic tournament until you've learned to make a legal deck. They don't stop deck checking for fear that if they caught people those people might not come back next time!

Breng77 wrote:
What if 2 people find the same error do you pay them both?

First one to find and submit the error gets the bounty.

Where exactly is this money coming from? Increased entry fees to events?

That's for the TO to figure out. Given the harsh penalty for making a mistake I would expect errors to be very rare, and how to fund an occasional bounty payment to be a very easy problem to solve.

but honestly if you ran your tournament with gotcha DQs for bad lists, lots of people would stop attending because of the negative experience.

Alternatively, they could just stop being careless and create legal lists. This is not exactly a difficult requirement to meet, and if a few people who are incapable of following the rules decide to stop attending, well, nothing of value is lost. They're probably cheating elsewhere too.

If doing advanced list checking the proper response is to allow players to correct their lists not to DQ them for it, especially after they spend a ton of money.

No, the proper response is to DQ them and let them deal with the financial loss. If there is effectively zero penalty for an illegal list then there is zero incentive to get it right. If submitting an illegal list costs you $1000 in wasted airline tickets and hotel reservations, plus the embarrassment of being publicly DQed and outed as a cheater then you're going to have a lot of incentive to get it right the first time. Players will check their lists several times, ask friends to look at it, etc, and illegal list submissions should become virtually nonexistent.

The other issue with that approach is that it assumes the list checkers are perfect, and miss nothing.

You're right, it isn't perfect. But it's sure better than the current system, and it can be supplemented by a zero-tolerance policy for illegal lists if you're caught during the event. Delay prize payouts for a few days after the event and let the community go over the top 16 (or whoever gets prizes) in obsessive detail, and if any illegal lists are found no prize is paid. Don't let demands for perfection get in the way of implementing significant improvements.

If you pre check lists you don’t guarantee no illegal list makes the tournament but you assume the responsibility for it.

The TO already has responsibility for it. They just, as a general rule, aren't living up to their obligations right now.

 auticus wrote:
Thats what happens when a free army builder is available. People don't want to buy codex, so they use free army builder. And then have no idea how their army works. And then any errors in app buildier carry over to their games since they don't know better.

I don't use Battlescribe, so I wouldn't know, but isn't it just a list builder, and you'd still need the codex for statlines, rules, etc?

It also has stats and rules. Not bullet proof though with errors which isn't surprise since it's made by humans

So if the first person gets the reward how do you communicate that it has been found. Sounds like a lot of time replying to people who don’t get the bounty. Do that enough checkers will stop checking because they get nothing.

If you expect mistakes to be rare you’ve never list checked an event. List errors are super common. Which is the problem with the dq at the door response. When I ran events and list checked I would have been DQing 25-30% of the field. If they had to travel pay for hotels, con badges etc. embarrassed is not how they will feel. It will be pissed. There is nothing to be gained by the DQ approach it is not as if I can stop checking lists after a few times, and checking good lists is the same time commitment as checking bad lists, so all I gain is angry people, which I can avoid by allowing corrections. Which still allows for playing with fewer illegal lists. Sorry your suggestions hold no water when talking about the reality of organizing events. The idea in any device industry is to please the customers, and your way will puss if significantly more than it will please.

tneva82 wrote:
It also has stats and rules.

How can that be legal?

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
It also has stats and rules.

How can that be legal?

Battlescribe is safe as it's program without data. Suing them would be like suing pc companies because you can read pirated codex with pc. As fordatafiles maybe gw just figures hunting anonymous guys for them just ain't worth as in practice you still need codex due to errors

Breng77 wrote:
So if the first person gets the reward how do you communicate that it has been found. Sounds like a lot of time replying to people who don’t get the bounty. Do that enough checkers will stop checking because they get nothing.

You can put the lists up for public review and then flag illegal ones once they're caught, and put a "questionable" flag on any list that has a report submitted as a warning that trying to check that list might not pay out for you. The whole thing can be automated except for actually reviewing the list once it is flagged.

If you expect mistakes to be rare you’ve never list checked an event. List errors are super common. Which is the problem with the dq at the door response. When I ran events and list checked I would have been DQing 25-30% of the field. If they had to travel pay for hotels, con badges etc. embarrassed is not how they will feel. It will be pissed. There is nothing to be gained by the DQ approach it is not as if I can stop checking lists after a few times, and checking good lists is the same time commitment as checking bad lists, so all I gain is angry people, which I can avoid by allowing corrections. Which still allows for playing with fewer illegal lists. Sorry your suggestions hold no water when talking about the reality of organizing events. The idea in any device industry is to please the customers, and your way will puss if significantly more than it will please.

Yes, of course people will be unhappy. And some of them will blame the TO for the DQ instead of admitting their own laziness and stupidity. The first group will take the lesson and show up with a legal list next time. The second group are a bunch of whiny TFGs that can't stand they fact that they got caught cheating, and losing them is a benefit to the community.

The problem with the "make changes at the door" approach is that there's no penalty to getting caught with an illegal list. If you're careless (or attempting to cheat) and get caught you just fix your mistake. So you can pretty much bet that you'll have that same 25-30% error rate every single time. DQ those people and let them eat a $1000 bill for their stupidity and your error rate for all subsequent events should drop to essentially zero.

So TOs now need to program websites to automate list checking, that is eliminating a majority of them off the top. The reality until someone else develops the checking site (and thus assumes the pay out in your case at least as a go between) is that list checking would function an email or forum style review, that the TO(s) would need to manually verify. The forum style might work as a method of not having double reporting. But TOs would still need to verify every found error.

As to the people being upset being TFGs that are upset they go caught cheating. Sorry you are wrong, they are regular guys that made mistakes and lost $1000 because of it. That is likely to piss off a lot of people to the point where it is not worth the risk to them where they might make such a costly error. I know I wouldn’t attend those events because I cannot afford that kind of lesson even though to my knowledge I’ve never run an illegal list at an event. Most people aren’t going to several big events a year they go to 1, and that might be their vacation for the year. Risking that on easy to make errors will turn people away. If you are checking you do it at least a week in advance and allow players to correct what typically amount to minor errors. You have it in your mind that all list mistakes are people trying to cheat. That is the disconnect from reality, 80+% are lower level players/new players, harsh penalties are a good way to push them out of the hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also most won’t blame the TO for DQ, but instead blame them for the harsh policy that cost the. A ton of money when it is not necessary.

Breng77 wrote:
So TOs now need to program websites to automate list checking, that is eliminating a majority of them off the top. The reality until someone else develops the checking site (and thus assumes the pay out in your case at least as a go between) is that list checking would function an email or forum style review, that the TO(s) would need to manually verify. The forum style might work as a method of not having double reporting. But TOs would still need to verify every found error.

Even a forum would be pretty easy. Make the forum public, give the bounty to the person with the earliest timestamp on their post pointing out the error. Anyone going to the site to review a list would be able to look and see which mistakes have already been pointed out and avoid reviewing any list with a pending error report if they're concerned about missing the bounty.

Sorry you are wrong, they are regular guys that made mistakes and lost $1000 because of it.

No, they're "regular guys" who were too ing lazy to bother writing a correct list. Getting a correct list is not some kind of impossible obstacle, mistakes here are inexcusable. Write your list. Check it twice a day until the submission deadline. Ask your friends to check it. Post it on a public forum for people to check it. If people can't be bothered to follow the rules in a competitive tournament then they don't need to play in one.

You have it in your mind that all list mistakes are people trying to cheat.

No I don't. Some of them are trying to cheat, but I'm sure most of them are just people who are too lazy to bother following the rules and don't care if they cheat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Also most won’t blame the TO for DQ, but instead blame them for the harsh policy that cost the. A ton of money when it is not necessary.

You're wrong, it is necessary. It may not be necessary for one particular event to run well, but it's necessary to kill off the mindset that cheating is ok as long as you can claim it's an accident. It's simple, you have two choices:

1) Have an event or two where people learn painful lessons and get DQed for their own stupidity, and permanently fix the problem because people will now put the effort into making sure their lists are correct. People are unhappy (though they have only themselves to blame) in the short term, but things are greatly improved in the long run.

or

2) Keep letting people get away with no meaningful consequences for illegal lists, and keep having problems with people bringing illegal lists. People are happier in the short term, but competitive 40k continues to be a joke and there continue to be fights and disputed winners over illegal lists.

The choice should be obvious. Deal with the problem permanently.

Breng77 wrote:
So TOs now need to program websites to automate list checking, that is eliminating a majority of them off the top. The reality until someone else develops the checking site (and thus assumes the pay out in your case at least as a go between) is that list checking would function an email or forum style review, that the TO(s) would need to manually verify. The forum style might work as a method of not having double reporting. But TOs would still need to verify every found error.

No-one send anything about a website that automatically checks the list. Having a site with the lists which flags a list as questionable when someone submits a possible issue and then removes it when the TO verifies the issue is a trivial thing to implement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Getting a correct list is not some kind of impossible obstacle, mistakes here are inexcusable.

Ha. I had a club player who played very loose with the rules but would only play against people that would let him get away with it.

We implemented list checking at a club event specifically because of him - he made three failed attempts to write a legal list and then quit in a huff. Apparently he'd spent so long cheating on his lists that he actually couldn't create a legal list.

Nothing of value was lost.

It seems some of you are unfamiliar with the express "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained with incompetence". There are definitely people who knowingly cheat, but for the most part, list building mistakes are just that: mistakes. This is a complicated system with multiple inconsistency.

Breng77 wrote:

How much would you pay them exactly to find errors? What if 2 people find the same error do you pay them both? Where exactly is this money coming from? Increased entry fees to events? The idea of an error bountry borders on rediculous.

When you submit your list, you put a 5 dollar deposit down. If your list is fine you get it back. If your list is invalid, the TO's remove the offending units and you play the event without them and the 5 bucks goes to the first person who noticed your error/cheat. Hell, that 5 bucks can even buy a pair of nice beers.

"congratulations, your list was fine, enjoy two beers/sodas/hotdogs/etc"

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So TOs now need to program websites to automate list checking, that is eliminating a majority of them off the top. The reality until someone else develops the checking site (and thus assumes the pay out in your case at least as a go between) is that list checking would function an email or forum style review, that the TO(s) would need to manually verify. The forum style might work as a method of not having double reporting. But TOs would still need to verify every found error.

Even a forum would be pretty easy. Make the forum public, give the bounty to the person with the earliest timestamp on their post pointing out the error. Anyone going to the site to review a list would be able to look and see which mistakes have already been pointed out and avoid reviewing any list with a pending error report if they're concerned about missing the bounty.

Sorry you are wrong, they are regular guys that made mistakes and lost $1000 because of it.

No, they're "regular guys" who were too ing lazy to bother writing a correct list. Getting a correct list is not some kind of impossible obstacle, mistakes here are inexcusable. Write your list. Check it twice a day until the submission deadline. Ask your friends to check it. Post it on a public forum for people to check it. If people can't be bothered to follow the rules in a competitive tournament then they don't need to play in one.

You have it in your mind that all list mistakes are people trying to cheat.

No I don't. Some of them are trying to cheat, but I'm sure most of them are just people who are too lazy to bother following the rules and don't care if they cheat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Also most won’t blame the TO for DQ, but instead blame them for the harsh policy that cost the. A ton of money when it is not necessary.

You're wrong, it is necessary. It may not be necessary for one particular event to run well, but it's necessary to kill off the mindset that cheating is ok as long as you can claim it's an accident. It's simple, you have two choices:

1) Have an event or two where people learn painful lessons and get DQed for their own stupidity, and permanently fix the problem because people will now put the effort into making sure their lists are correct. People are unhappy (though they have only themselves to blame) in the short term, but things are greatly improved in the long run.

or

2) Keep letting people get away with no meaningful consequences for illegal lists, and keep having problems with people bringing illegal lists. People are happier in the short term, but competitive 40k continues to be a joke and there continue to be fights and disputed winners over illegal lists.

The choice should be obvious. Deal with the problem permanently.

You’d be surprised how much cut you could check your list post ignore on forums, have friends check it and still get mistakes. And I’m the end you end up punishing the guy who is a new player and doesn’t know to check their list 85 times. Say what you want I still think a non-dq list checking method is superior for the health of the game. Because it won’t be 2 guys get caught once and the problem self corrects it will be 10-20 guys every year. Your fix might work for top guys, other guys will just stop showing up, and get hammered. There is a large issue with the people here that want every mistake to be auto-dq. I’d prefer submit list, it is checked, if errors resubmit if errors are still present then dq. I would also issue the dq prior to the event, not force someone to get on a plane, fly 1000 miles, then say “oh btw you’re dq’d“.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 davou wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

How much would you pay them exactly to find errors? What if 2 people find the same error do you pay them both? Where exactly is this money coming from? Increased entry fees to events? The idea of an error bountry borders on rediculous.

When you submit your list, you put a 5 dollar deposit down. If your list is fine you get it back. If your list is invalid, the TO's remove the offending units and you play the event without them and the 5 bucks goes to the first person who noticed your error/cheat. Hell, that 5 bucks can even buy a pair of nice beers.

"congratulations, your list was fine, enjoy two beers/sodas/hotdogs/etc"

Somewhat possible, it would need cleaning out. If you are 2 points over which unit isn’t offending? What if removal of that unit makes the list illegal?

Does anyone else get the feeling B77 is a TObot? I mean seriously gets away with some serious trolling.

It looks to me like the problem with the list at the origin of this thread was an honest mistake. I can see how it happened. Its a game played by humans, which is part of the reason why I play. The guy DQ'd himself and made a good post here explaining what happened.

For the folks demanding major changes, how many of you attended Adepticon or other major tournaments? I sense a lot of internet outrage here without much substance behind it. Offering bounties for people who find bad lists? Really really? Come'on man.

One thing I could get behind, though, is a requirement to bring a hard copy of your Codex. Not only would this give Soup players some exercise lugging around eight books, it might help ensure that folks read the fine print in their Codex.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I sense a lot of internet outrage here without much substance behind it.

40k's online community in a nutshell.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It looks to me like the problem with the list at the origin of this thread was an honest mistake. I can see how it happened. Its a game played by humans, which is part of the reason why I play. The guy DQ'd himself and made a good post here explaining what happened.

For the folks demanding major changes, how many of you attended Adepticon or other major tournaments? I sense a lot of internet outrage here without much substance behind it. Offering bounties for people who find bad lists? Really really? Come'on man.

One thing I could get behind, though, is a requirement to bring a hard copy of your Codex. Not only would this give Soup players some exercise lugging around eight books, it might help ensure that folks read the fine print in their Codex.

Do you not want bad lists found?

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It looks to me like the problem with the list at the origin of this thread was an honest mistake. I can see how it happened. Its a game played by humans, which is part of the reason why I play. The guy DQ'd himself and made a good post here explaining what happened.

For the folks demanding major changes, how many of you attended Adepticon or other major tournaments? I sense a lot of internet outrage here without much substance behind it. Offering bounties for people who find bad lists? Really really? Come'on man.

One thing I could get behind, though, is a requirement to bring a hard copy of your Codex. Not only would this give Soup players some exercise lugging around eight books, it might help ensure that folks read the fine print in their Codex.

Do you not want bad lists found?

Not to the point that I want internet cowboys with no skin in the game to ride herd looking for bounties - the cure must be appropriate to the disease. At the end of the day, a game of 40K at a major tournament is still just a game of 40K. The less people butting in the better!

I go to tournaments (40K and FOW/TY), and I trust my fellow players to police themselves (ourselves) and the TOs to provide some basic level of oversight. Tourney players and organizers are a community (I do local tourneys now, but I've gone to national ones back when the earth was cooling and I didn't have kids). Its not a perfect community, but are the calls for improvement and associated action coming from the community or from the outside?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Do you not want bad lists found?

Not to the point that I want internet cowboys with no skin in the game to ride herd looking for bounties - the cure must be appropriate to the disease

But why not? Bug bounties work this way. So does TaskRabbit.

In the ammusing side of thing apparently the GW community team (including someone who worked on the Nids codex) were playing an illegal list and making rules errors in the team tournament.

Must be super easy to avoid these things when the rules writers cannot even do it.

Breng77 wrote:
In the ammusing side of thing apparently the GW community team (including someone who worked on the Nids codex) were playing an illegal list and making rules errors in the team tournament.

Must be super easy to avoid these things when the rules writers cannot even do it.

Alternatively, we know GW has very little concern for competitive play, and has expressed their contempt for it in the past. They may have showed up at a tournament, but I remain skeptical that they actually cared about it. Though I suppose the hilarity and PR debacle of GW's own team getting DQed for an illegal list would be a good way to make sure it never happens again...

Breng77 wrote:
In the ammusing side of thing apparently the GW community team (including someone who worked on the Nids codex) were playing an illegal list and making rules errors in the team tournament.

Must be super easy to avoid these things when the rules writers cannot even do it.

Well apart from the person who worked on the codex (and did he or she do the rules or some other element like art or fluff) I get the impression they are fairly casual players - yes you should know the rules if you go to a tournament but I have never met a player who did not make mistakes on occasion - in any system /game.

Its not an easy situation.

Breng77 wrote:
In the ammusing side of thing apparently the GW community team (including someone who worked on the Nids codex) were playing an illegal list and making rules errors in the team tournament.

Must be super easy to avoid these things when the rules writers cannot even do it.

So what was the illegal list they wrote and rules errors being made?

And I mean, if your argument is that "if they can't avoid it then why should everyone else be expected to!"...I can argue "Why didn't the TOs catch an illegal list being put out there for PR purposes?".

Apparently put 2 main guns on a tyranofex which is not allowed. There were other errors I heard about it on the Heroic intervention podcast interview of Matt Root. And lists were never checked by the TO so no reason it would get caught. My point is that everyone (even the guy who apparently worked on writing the book) makes list mistakes so the idea that we should crucify people because of it is nonsense. It also wasn’t even a good list, so obviously not cheating to win. I’d be fine with a DQ during the event, or if lists are checked allowing for correction ahead of time. But the idea that harsh penalties eliminate problems is flawed at its core.

Breng77 wrote:
Apparently put 2 main guns on a tyranofex which is not allowed. There were other errors I heard about it on the Heroic intervention podcast interview of Matt Root. And lists were never checked by the TO so no reason it would get caught. My point is that everyone (even the guy who apparently worked on writing the book) makes list mistakes so the idea that we should crucify people because of it is nonsense. It also wasn’t even a good list, so obviously not cheating to win. I’d be fine with a DQ during the event, or if lists are checked allowing for correction ahead of time. But the idea that harsh penalties eliminate problems is flawed at its core.

Honestly, I feel this is worse. That the rules writers get the rules wrong means there is something grievously wrong with the rules and list building, if even the people who wrote it can't get it right. It shows they really are not caring.

Breng77 wrote:
Apparently put 2 main guns on a tyranofex which is not allowed. There were other errors I heard about it on the Heroic intervention podcast interview of Matt Root. And lists were never checked by the TO so no reason it would get caught. My point is that everyone (even the guy who apparently worked on writing the book) makes list mistakes so the idea that we should crucify people because of it is nonsense. It also wasn’t even a good list, so obviously not cheating to win. I’d be fine with a DQ during the event, or if lists are checked allowing for correction ahead of time. But the idea that harsh penalties eliminate problems is flawed at its core.

So the GW Community team posted on Facebook the other day that they aren't involved in writing the rules (in response to FAQ questions). So are you sure these were the rule writers?

Breng77 wrote:
Apparently put 2 main guns on a tyranofex which is not allowed. There were other errors I heard about it on the Heroic intervention podcast interview of Matt Root. And lists were never checked by the TO so no reason it would get caught. My point is that everyone (even the guy who apparently worked on writing the book) makes list mistakes so the idea that we should crucify people because of it is nonsense. It also wasn’t even a good list, so obviously not cheating to win. I’d be fine with a DQ during the event, or if lists are checked allowing for correction ahead of time. But the idea that harsh penalties eliminate problems is flawed at its core.

Threeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeead in bold. Also, depending on who was playing the "guy who worked on the book" might just have been the guy doing the graphics layouts. Since y'know, they don't say who actually wrote the book anymore.

I don't even know how you can physically put two main guns on a Tyrannofex.

I think I need some concrete proof for this claim on GW team thing, considering that for pages the people were stating as a fact that the person with the BA relic issue and the person with the Guard relic issue were the same guy, while that was not the case. This sounds like complete hearsay to me.

 Crimson wrote:
I think I need some concrete proof for this claim on GW team thing, considering that for pages the people were stating as a fact that the person with the BA relic issue and the person with the Guard relic issue were the same guy, while that was not the case. This sounds like complete hearsay to me.

And I'm guilty a bit of people reading that from my posts and ignoring the big statement about how "I legitimately don't know if this is the same guy or not and if it is, it's not okay".

Then someone else pointed out that this particular individual supposedly did have another issue related to Guard in that they played Creed and gave themselves his bonus Command Points without him actually being the Warlord.

It would then be hearsay from the winner of adepticon who played against them in the team tournament. I have not seen the list myself.

Breng77 wrote:
It would then be hearsay from the winner of adepticon who played against them in the team tournament. I have not seen the list myself.

You know how hearsay works, right?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Apparently put 2 main guns on a tyranofex which is not allowed. There were other errors I heard about it on the Heroic intervention podcast interview of Matt Root. And lists were never checked by the TO so no reason it would get caught. My point is that everyone (even the guy who apparently worked on writing the book) makes list mistakes so the idea that we should crucify people because of it is nonsense. It also wasn’t even a good list, so obviously not cheating to win. I’d be fine with a DQ during the event, or if lists are checked allowing for correction ahead of time. But the idea that harsh penalties eliminate problems is flawed at its core.

Threeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeead in bold. Also, depending on who was playing the "guy who worked on the book" might just have been the guy doing the graphics layouts. Since y'know, they don't say who actually wrote the book anymore.

I don't even know how you can physically put two main guns on a Tyrannofex.

Yeah and unless someone develops a crowd sourcing method that works lists will still not get checked for most large events. So saying “why wasn’t it caught is irrelevant to the point that if they guys who work for the company that makes the game make illegal lists, than it can happen to anyone and a dq when it is easily fixed without (if we are pre-checking), is too harsh. My view is the following: either we don’t Check and wrong list is an auto DQ, or we check and get lists fixed. Pre-checking and dqing people at the door is too much and bad for the community.

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Apparently put 2 main guns on a tyranofex which is not allowed. There were other errors I heard about it on the Heroic intervention podcast interview of Matt Root. And lists were never checked by the TO so no reason it would get caught. My point is that everyone (even the guy who apparently worked on writing the book) makes list mistakes so the idea that we should crucify people because of it is nonsense. It also wasn’t even a good list, so obviously not cheating to win. I’d be fine with a DQ during the event, or if lists are checked allowing for correction ahead of time. But the idea that harsh penalties eliminate problems is flawed at its core.

Threeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeead in bold. Also, depending on who was playing the "guy who worked on the book" might just have been the guy doing the graphics layouts. Since y'know, they don't say who actually wrote the book anymore.

I don't even know how you can physically put two main guns on a Tyrannofex.

Yeah and unless someone develops a crowd sourcing method that works lists will still not get checked for most large events. So saying “why wasn’t it caught is irrelevant to the point that if they guys who work for the company that makes the game make illegal lists, than it can happen to anyone and a dq when it is easily fixed without (if we are pre-checking), is too harsh. My view is the following: either we don’t Check and wrong list is an auto DQ, or we check and get lists fixed. Pre-checking and dqing people at the door is too much and bad for the community.

So basically you have no real answer and you're working strictly off hearsay, a thing that you tried to lambast me for earlier.

Good stuff!

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
It would then be hearsay from the winner of adepticon who played against them in the team tournament. I have not seen the list myself.

You know how hearsay works, right?

Yeah it doesn’t involve first hand witnesses. It is “I heard from a guy....”. Not the guy actually involved. I provided you with where I heard the actual interview so you can go listen your self.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Apparently put 2 main guns on a tyranofex which is not allowed. There were other errors I heard about it on the Heroic intervention podcast interview of Matt Root. And lists were never checked by the TO so no reason it would get caught. My point is that everyone (even the guy who apparently worked on writing the book) makes list mistakes so the idea that we should crucify people because of it is nonsense. It also wasn’t even a good list, so obviously not cheating to win. I’d be fine with a DQ during the event, or if lists are checked allowing for correction ahead of time. But the idea that harsh penalties eliminate problems is flawed at its core.

Threeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeead in bold. Also, depending on who was playing the "guy who worked on the book" might just have been the guy doing the graphics layouts. Since y'know, they don't say who actually wrote the book anymore.

I don't even know how you can physically put two main guns on a Tyrannofex.

Yeah and unless someone develops a crowd sourcing method that works lists will still not get checked for most large events. So saying “why wasn’t it caught is irrelevant to the point that if they guys who work for the company that makes the game make illegal lists, than it can happen to anyone and a dq when it is easily fixed without (if we are pre-checking), is too harsh. My view is the following: either we don’t Check and wrong list is an auto DQ, or we check and get lists fixed. Pre-checking and dqing people at the door is too much and bad for the community.

So basically you have no real answer and you're working strictly off hearsay, a thing that you tried to lambast me for earlier.

Good stuff!

Don’t recall lambasting anyone for hearsay. Sure you aren’t confusing me with someone else? I provided my answer to the issue at hand.

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
It would then be hearsay from the winner of adepticon who played against them in the team tournament. I have not seen the list myself.

You know how hearsay works, right?

Yeah it doesn’t involve first hand witnesses. It is “I heard from a guy....”. Not the guy actually involved. I provided you with where I heard the actual interview so you can go listen your self.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Apparently put 2 main guns on a tyranofex which is not allowed. There were other errors I heard about it on the Heroic intervention podcast interview of Matt Root. And lists were never checked by the TO so no reason it would get caught. My point is that everyone (even the guy who apparently worked on writing the book) makes list mistakes so the idea that we should crucify people because of it is nonsense. It also wasn’t even a good list, so obviously not cheating to win. I’d be fine with a DQ during the event, or if lists are checked allowing for correction ahead of time. But the idea that harsh penalties eliminate problems is flawed at its core.

Threeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeead in bold. Also, depending on who was playing the "guy who worked on the book" might just have been the guy doing the graphics layouts. Since y'know, they don't say who actually wrote the book anymore.

I don't even know how you can physically put two main guns on a Tyrannofex.

Yeah and unless someone develops a crowd sourcing method that works lists will still not get checked for most large events. So saying “why wasn’t it caught is irrelevant to the point that if they guys who work for the company that makes the game make illegal lists, than it can happen to anyone and a dq when it is easily fixed without (if we are pre-checking), is too harsh. My view is the following: either we don’t Check and wrong list is an auto DQ, or we check and get lists fixed. Pre-checking and dqing people at the door is too much and bad for the community.

So basically you have no real answer and you're working strictly off hearsay, a thing that you tried to lambast me for earlier.

Good stuff!

Don’t recall lambasting anyone for hearsay. Sure you aren’t confusing me with someone else? I provided my answer to the issue at hand.

Not that I have much a stake in this point in the argument, but I thought I'd give the ACTUAL definition of hearsay. In law, it's "an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted". In layman's terms it's worded differently but still the same: "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor".

So it can include first hand sources. It's basically any quote given to a TO (in this context) by anyone that the TO can't substantiate.

Considering the GW team played the first match on stream I would expect more then 'hearsay'.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
People at the local store wondered why I stripped my Knights of Blood and repainted them as Blood Angels when I told them about the relics...

Totally glad I did now, not worth the hassle when a new player shows up and calls me out on cheating. They also said tournaments wouldn't care haha.

It makes no difference how they are painted, you can still have <blood angels> as your chapter.

What you can't do is take a character that requires you to be chapter <something else> and still take relics that are <blood angels> only no matter how they're painted.

Well, originally I wasn't go to use any special characters. But the Codex made things like Lemartes and Mephiston pretty sweet. Figured to avoid all confusion I would just paint them all in glorious black and red. Plus, I didn't really have all that many painted up anyways haha. Made the decision pretty easy.

Breng77 wrote:
In the ammusing side of thing apparently the GW community team (including someone who worked on the Nids codex) were playing an illegal list and making rules errors in the team tournament.

Must be super easy to avoid these things when the rules writers cannot even do it.

I played in the Adepticon TT against Phil Kelly many years ago. He had his rules wrong a few times during that game as well.

Though to be fair, his error was trying to play by 5th edition rules while the rest of us plebs still only had 4th edition as our ruleset for 6 more months.

 Marius Xerxes wrote:

I played in the Adepticon TT against Phil Kelly many years ago. He had his rules wrong a few times during that game as well.

Though to be fair, his error was trying to play by 5th edition rules while the rest of us plebs still only had 4th edition as our ruleset for 6 more months.

Okay, that's pretty hilarious.

Phil... hee. He loves his precious eldar so.

 Ordana wrote:
Considering the GW team played the first match on stream I would expect more then 'hearsay'.

"Heresy", perhaps?

 Dysartes wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Considering the GW team played the first match on stream I would expect more then 'hearsay'.

"Heresy", perhaps?

I keep seeing that heresy word flying around... gets my burning instincts tingling.

Regardless of rule complexity or 8th Edition issues, it's an incredibly positive thing that action was taken, and on a top 16 player no less. Up until now, the only consequences for illegal lists or cheating was ridicule by the internet.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Regardless of rule complexity or 8th Edition issues, it's an incredibly positive thing that action was taken, and on a top 16 player no less. Up until now, the only consequences for illegal lists or cheating was ridicule by the internet.

Technically, there wasn't action taken against him.

Everything was self-inflicted.

From the disqualification to the coming here to try to clean stuff up and the ensuing purification of his black soul.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Regardless of rule complexity or 8th Edition issues, it's an incredibly positive thing that action was taken, and on a top 16 player no less. Up until now, the only consequences for illegal lists or cheating was ridicule by the internet.

Correcting, the guy took action himself. The TO seemed to be perfectly fine with him playing on, just without the relic going forward.

 Ordana wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Regardless of rule complexity or 8th Edition issues, it's an incredibly positive thing that action was taken, and on a top 16 player no less. Up until now, the only consequences for illegal lists or cheating was ridicule by the internet.

Correcting, the guy took action himself. The TO seemed to be perfectly fine with him playing on, just without the relic going forward.

I'm curious where you got this, "The TO seemed to be perfectly fine with him playing on," since it's false. Everyone, players, the TO, and the assistant TO knew immediately what had to happen. The only decision to make was whether to record it as, "Expelled by TO" or, "Forfeit/Withdrawn." "Expelled by TO" implies the player in question does not agree that they have broken rules and therefore contests their removal from the tournament. "Forfeit/Withdrawn" implies the player in question agrees that they have broken rules and therefore do not contest their removal from the tournament.

Hint: I'm the TO.

DCannon4Life wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Regardless of rule complexity or 8th Edition issues, it's an incredibly positive thing that action was taken, and on a top 16 player no less. Up until now, the only consequences for illegal lists or cheating was ridicule by the internet.

Correcting, the guy took action himself. The TO seemed to be perfectly fine with him playing on, just without the relic going forward.

I'm curious where you got this, "The TO seemed to be perfectly fine with him playing on," since it's false. Everyone, players, the TO, and the assistant TO knew immediately what had to happen. The only decision to make was whether to record it as, "Expelled by TO" or, "Forfeit/Withdrawn." "Expelled by TO" implies the player in question does not agree that they have broken rules and therefore contests their removal from the tournament. "Forfeit/Withdrawn" implies the player in question agrees that they have broken rules and therefore do not contest their removal from the tournament.

Hint: I'm the TO.

OOOOH SNAP

DCannon4Life wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Regardless of rule complexity or 8th Edition issues, it's an incredibly positive thing that action was taken, and on a top 16 player no less. Up until now, the only consequences for illegal lists or cheating was ridicule by the internet.

Correcting, the guy took action himself. The TO seemed to be perfectly fine with him playing on, just without the relic going forward.

I'm curious where you got this, "The TO seemed to be perfectly fine with him playing on," since it's false. Everyone, players, the TO, and the assistant TO knew immediately what had to happen. The only decision to make was whether to record it as, "Expelled by TO" or, "Forfeit/Withdrawn." "Expelled by TO" implies the player in question does not agree that they have broken rules and therefore contests their removal from the tournament. "Forfeit/Withdrawn" implies the player in question agrees that they have broken rules and therefore do not contest their removal from the tournament.

Hint: I'm the TO.

Thanks for the clarification, but unfortunately, confusion comes when given the context that we were given. Which largely seemed like the TO was unwilling to flat out DQ him, so he decided himself to pull himself from the event to make the decision at that time.

That was clearly not the case, but I guess that is between the two of you.

At the end of the day, it was still a withdraw instead of a disqualification.

Kinda like those times when you screw up at work and the HR guy is like: "Well, you can either quit, or we can fire you. The choice is yours." Of course you say: I voluntarily quit.

Seems like a very similar situation.

Unfortunately, your disclosure of what really happens kind of turns all of that on its head.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, but unfortunately, confusion comes when given the context that we were given. Which largely seemed like the TO was unwilling to flat out DQ him, so he decided himself to pull himself from the event to make the decision at that time.

That was clearly not the case, but I guess that is between the two of you.

At the end of the day, it was still a withdraw instead of a disqualification.

Kinda like those times when you screw up at work and the HR guy is like: "Well, you can either quit, or we can fire you. The choice is yours." Of course you say: I voluntarily quit.

Seems like a very similar situation.

Unfortunately, your disclosure of what really happens kind of turns all of that on its head.

I'm not sure what gets turned on its head. Let me be very, VERY clear: Gonyo voluntarily forfeit his current game, withdrew from the tournament, and forfeit any/all ITC points he would have earned without coming anywhere NEAR putting the TO in a position where an ultimatum had to be given. He didn't argue. He didn't make excuses. And THEN, because his opponent wanted to, rather than just walk away, Gonyo played out the forfeited game.

DCannon4Life wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Regardless of rule complexity or 8th Edition issues, it's an incredibly positive thing that action was taken, and on a top 16 player no less. Up until now, the only consequences for illegal lists or cheating was ridicule by the internet.

Correcting, the guy took action himself. The TO seemed to be perfectly fine with him playing on, just without the relic going forward.

I'm curious where you got this, "The TO seemed to be perfectly fine with him playing on," since it's false. Everyone, players, the TO, and the assistant TO knew immediately what had to happen. The only decision to make was whether to record it as, "Expelled by TO" or, "Forfeit/Withdrawn." "Expelled by TO" implies the player in question does not agree that they have broken rules and therefore contests their removal from the tournament. "Forfeit/Withdrawn" implies the player in question agrees that they have broken rules and therefore do not contest their removal from the tournament.

Hint: I'm the TO.

Well I'm glad to hear I was wrong :p
I was going off of Andrew's own account earlier in the this thread

I offered to drop, and they agreed that was the best option.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/753409.page#9900281
Which made me believe there was an option other then DQ. Probably my mistake for trying to infer to much.

On a side note,
I don't entirely agree with your differentiation of terms. DQ to me doesn't mean that the offender disagreed with the ruling. Just that the fault was big enough to warrant a removal from the tournament. Forfeiting is for people who cannot continue for some other reason (like an emergency they need to go to). But this is just personal opinion and has no real bearing on this story.

 Ordana wrote:
On a side note,
I don't entirely agree with your differentiation of terms. DQ to me doesn't mean that the offender disagreed with the ruling. Just that the fault was big enough to warrant a removal from the tournament. Forfeiting is for people who cannot continue for some other reason (like an emergency they need to go to). But this is just personal opinion and has no real bearing on this story.

Fair enough.

Cheers

why not have the BCP app open up the lists for everyone to see once the Tournament starts ? Seems like a good way of crowd sourcing the lists. Adepticon was one of the few Tournaments i saw that allowed you to view lists as the Tournament was going on. Usually its closed to outside the players in the Tournament.

That is way too late I am afraid.

It always seemed kind of odd to me that more players don't upload their list to BCP as text documents prior to the tournament. Instead we have these janky pictures of a list that was printed in a hotel lobby, folded a dozen times, and assaulted by dorito fingers. If players uploaded their list as text prior to the tournament, judges could quickly look over the high seeded players list to make sure there are no gotchas. Because it would suck to fly out to a tournament, make it to the final 16, and get DQ'd for a bone headed mistake on my list.

Some are modifying their uber lists until the last minute and others are scared to revealed their secrets too far in advance. But most are simply lazy.

Perhaps the tournament community would be better served by having pre-qualifiers at capable rogue trader stores for major events, so by the time it comes around you're already down to the top 100, or top 150?

The idea of gigantic one-off tournaments doesn't seem to scale very well.

 Marmatag wrote:
Perhaps the tournament community would be better served by having pre-qualifiers at capable rogue trader stores for major events, so by the time it comes around you're already down to the top 100, or top 150?

The idea of gigantic one-off tournaments doesn't seem to scale very well.

Would sucks for folks who can't make it to those qualifiers but would still like to participate.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Perhaps the tournament community would be better served by having pre-qualifiers at capable rogue trader stores for major events, so by the time it comes around you're already down to the top 100, or top 150?

The idea of gigantic one-off tournaments doesn't seem to scale very well.

Would sucks for folks who can't make it to those qualifiers but would still like to participate.

I think the idea would be to make it so that there are lots of little qualifiers held at shops that prove they can handle running the events.

I mean, it's not exactly a bad idea.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Perhaps the tournament community would be better served by having pre-qualifiers at capable rogue trader stores for major events, so by the time it comes around you're already down to the top 100, or top 150?

The idea of gigantic one-off tournaments doesn't seem to scale very well.

Would sucks for folks who can't make it to those qualifiers but would still like to participate.

Also sucks for the organizers who now have much smaller events and thus less money. Something like that could make sense if it were like NOVA where there is an open and invite tournament, but as the standard 40k event for a large convention qualifiers seem like a non-starter. I mean maybe ITC could do like an ITC championship where they invite the top x players from the ITC rankings, then have that be separate from the ITC season championship based on points. It wouldn't be perfect but if you want a small elite event it seems like the best approach.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Perhaps the tournament community would be better served by having pre-qualifiers at capable rogue trader stores for major events, so by the time it comes around you're already down to the top 100, or top 150?

The idea of gigantic one-off tournaments doesn't seem to scale very well.

Would sucks for folks who can't make it to those qualifiers but would still like to participate.

I think the idea would be to make it so that there are lots of little qualifiers held at shops that prove they can handle running the events.

I mean, it's not exactly a bad idea.

Using shops is a bad idea because the level of play at each is no where near equal, so if I go to my LGS and beat up on a bunch of scrubs, I get in but some guy that plays at a super competitive store might now. I think ITC points would be better if they wanted to do it.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Perhaps the tournament community would be better served by having pre-qualifiers at capable rogue trader stores for major events, so by the time it comes around you're already down to the top 100, or top 150?

The idea of gigantic one-off tournaments doesn't seem to scale very well.

Would sucks for folks who can't make it to those qualifiers but would still like to participate.

Agreed, but as the tournament community grows, it will be easier to find a tournament. When 8th dropped I was within driving distance of roughly 1 tournament per month.

Now, i'm able to drive to about 4 tournaments a month, to the point where i actually have to pick and choose which shops i want to play at! Of course, there are millions of people out here in the Bay Area, and the population density is very high.

So, YMMV depending on the state / city you live in. Maybe this would be better served in a trial fashion for a large event out here. Sort of like a NorCal Open, with 10 or so qualifying RTTs to trip the field down to the top 200 (finishers 1 & 2 from each event).

I still think the point stands, though - the current setup doesn't scale as tournaments become more and more popular, especially at big cons that already draw a crowd.

Breng77 wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Perhaps the tournament community would be better served by having pre-qualifiers at capable rogue trader stores for major events, so by the time it comes around you're already down to the top 100, or top 150?

The idea of gigantic one-off tournaments doesn't seem to scale very well.

Would sucks for folks who can't make it to those qualifiers but would still like to participate.

Also sucks for the organizers who now have much smaller events and thus less money. Something like that could make sense if it were like NOVA where there is an open and invite tournament, but as the standard 40k event for a large convention qualifiers seem like a non-starter. I mean maybe ITC could do like an ITC championship where they invite the top x players from the ITC rankings, then have that be separate from the ITC season championship based on points. It wouldn't be perfect but if you want a small elite event it seems like the best approach.

Awww, too bad.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Perhaps the tournament community would be better served by having pre-qualifiers at capable rogue trader stores for major events, so by the time it comes around you're already down to the top 100, or top 150?

The idea of gigantic one-off tournaments doesn't seem to scale very well.

Would sucks for folks who can't make it to those qualifiers but would still like to participate.

I think the idea would be to make it so that there are lots of little qualifiers held at shops that prove they can handle running the events.

I mean, it's not exactly a bad idea.

Using shops is a bad idea because the level of play at each is no where near equal, so if I go to my LGS and beat up on a bunch of scrubs, I get in but some guy that plays at a super competitive store might now. I think ITC points would be better if they wanted to do it.

Your objections are literally invalid since the current situation is exactly what happens anyways whenever a shop announces a "tournament" with any kind of prizes.

Sorry, not sorry--if people were told that there's ITC qualifiers that were going to be held there? I don't think you'd see the "scrubs"(codeword for "casual players" I guess...) lining up to play in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

I still think the point stands, though - the current setup doesn't scale as tournaments become more and more popular, especially at big cons that already draw a crowd.

Alternatively, maybe events should stop calling their stuff "tournaments" and instead just call it something else.

Having seen things like Ard Boyz and other such qualifier events in the past, I have zero faith in them. Mostly because half the people that would show up to a store had never been seen before and were just there to avoid competition from wherever they normally played, and the drama level spiked notably at most such events.

I dont seee what value they add, at least that isnt matched or exceeded by its own new issues.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Alternatively, maybe events should stop calling their stuff "tournaments" and instead just call it something else.

*cough* organizedgamingconventions *cough*

Having player rankings, and other strong incentives to win is a mistake (IMHO). When people super care about the results of the game that's when you get That Guy behaviors... and rewards kind of bake that into the game, when it might not exist. (Of course, some people are just gak monsters regardless, but still).

Playing should be its own reward.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Having seen things like Ard Boyz and other such qualifier events in the past, I have zero faith in them. Mostly because half the people that would show up to a store had never been seen before and were just there to avoid competition from wherever they normally played, and the drama level spiked notably at most such events.

I dont seee what value they add, at least that isnt matched or exceeded by its own new issues.

It doesn't matter if it's "qualifier" events or things like that. As long as there's some kind of prize involved, you'll get the traveling TFGs. I'm going to be avoiding my local shop on Saturday past a certain time because of the Shadespire tournament they're hosting and knowing there will be several of those kinds of people.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Alternatively, maybe events should stop calling their stuff "tournaments" and instead just call it something else.

Ahh I see we're back to the no true tournament. We all know it isn't a tournament until its a perfect event. Also again I find your general opinion on 'well that's too bad for the event organizer' laughable - guess what if its too bad for him, its too bad for anyone who attends because he isn't going to continue running it since his chances to break even are now slim to none.

You've got a real high horde you ride about events where effectively you're pretty demanding about how and what they should be without being willing to, you know, do the work yourself.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Perhaps the tournament community would be better served by having pre-qualifiers at capable rogue trader stores for major events, so by the time it comes around you're already down to the top 100, or top 150?

The idea of gigantic one-off tournaments doesn't seem to scale very well.

Would sucks for folks who can't make it to those qualifiers but would still like to participate.

Also sucks for the organizers who now have much smaller events and thus less money. Something like that could make sense if it were like NOVA where there is an open and invite tournament, but as the standard 40k event for a large convention qualifiers seem like a non-starter. I mean maybe ITC could do like an ITC championship where they invite the top x players from the ITC rankings, then have that be separate from the ITC season championship based on points. It wouldn't be perfect but if you want a small elite event it seems like the best approach.

Awww, too bad.

It is too bad, those organizers need to at least break even to keep running events. If that is prevented from happening, then those events no longer occur. So yeah, providing a reason why it won't happen is totally worth sarcasm. If you want to run an event that functions like you describe, do it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Perhaps the tournament community would be better served by having pre-qualifiers at capable rogue trader stores for major events, so by the time it comes around you're already down to the top 100, or top 150?

The idea of gigantic one-off tournaments doesn't seem to scale very well.

Would sucks for folks who can't make it to those qualifiers but would still like to participate.

I think the idea would be to make it so that there are lots of little qualifiers held at shops that prove they can handle running the events.

I mean, it's not exactly a bad idea.

Using shops is a bad idea because the level of play at each is no where near equal, so if I go to my LGS and beat up on a bunch of scrubs, I get in but some guy that plays at a super competitive store might now. I think ITC points would be better if they wanted to do it.

Your objections are literally invalid since the current situation is exactly what happens anyways whenever a shop announces a "tournament" with any kind of prizes.

Sorry, not sorry--if people were told that there's ITC qualifiers that were going to be held there? I don't think you'd see the "scrubs"(codeword for "casual players" I guess...) lining up to play in it.

No it isn't, every shop offers some prize for their events, and as often as not it is primarily local people that show up. Maybe an ITC championship slot on the line would change that, maybe it wouldn't. That largely depends on the location of the store. So unless the stores are going to be hand picked and vetted (more work), and extremely limited. It doesn't work. Local guys go to their local shops tourney regardless of what is the prize, because they want to play games. Getting an "invite" for winning a local RTT seems like a terrible plan. ITC points are far better, at least it proves consistent good results.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

I still think the point stands, though - the current setup doesn't scale as tournaments become more and more popular, especially at big cons that already draw a crowd.

Alternatively, maybe events should stop calling their stuff "tournaments" and instead just call it something else.

Alternatively you could stop caring what actual tournaments (by the definition of the word) call themselves because you don't own the term and get to decide who uses it and how.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Having seen things like Ard Boyz and other such qualifier events in the past, I have zero faith in them. Mostly because half the people that would show up to a store had never been seen before and were just there to avoid competition from wherever they normally played, and the drama level spiked notably at most such events.

I dont seee what value they add, at least that isnt matched or exceeded by its own new issues.

It doesn't matter if it's "qualifier" events or things like that. As long as there's some kind of prize involved, you'll get the traveling TFGs. I'm going to be avoiding my local shop on Saturday past a certain time because of the Shadespire tournament they're hosting and knowing there will be several of those kinds of people.

You get a ton more of it as you raise the stakes, and making it a qualifier to an event with a larger prize does just that. Most events have so little on the line prize wise as to be trivial as the reason most people attend.

I dunno, I won almost $70 for first place at a tournament recently. In the past 6 months i've spent hundreds of dollars of store credit thanks to tournaments. It's nontrivial prize money if you attend enough events. If you're on a fixed budget, over the course of a year getting a free $1,000 to spend on the hobby is a big fething deal.

 Grimgold wrote:
It always seemed kind of odd to me that more players don't upload their list to BCP as text documents prior to the tournament. Instead we have these janky pictures of a list that was printed in a hotel lobby, folded a dozen times, and assaulted by dorito fingers. If players uploaded their list as text prior to the tournament, judges could quickly look over the high seeded players list to make sure there are no gotchas. Because it would suck to fly out to a tournament, make it to the final 16, and get DQ'd for a bone headed mistake on my list.

Yeah, that seems completely bizarre to me. Even in our tiny casual local leagues the players need to post their list to the league organiser as RTF files by a deadline, and when everyone has posted theirs they're published online for everyone to see.

I'm getting the feeling that the main beef here isn't the cheating/mistakes or whatever, it's that many of the tournament players don't fit neatly into the stereotypical boxes some posters here have for them. This thread has covered a lot of ground but it always keeps coming back to the tournaments are bad premise and so are the people who play in them.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Alternatively, maybe events should stop calling their stuff "tournaments" and instead just call it something else.

Ahh I see we're back to the no true tournament. We all know it isn't a tournament until its a perfect event.

Well no, the bit about not calling their stuff "tournaments" is to make it a bit less (for lack of a better term) hypercompetitive. Calling things tournaments, for whatever reason, seems to bring some very not great people out of the woodwork.

Also again I find your general opinion on 'well that's too bad for the event organizer' laughable - guess what if its too bad for him, its too bad for anyone who attends because he isn't going to continue running it since his chances to break even are now slim to none.

Yeah, no. The idea that someone running tournaments at a big event is going to get hurt significantly by others having "qualifiers" that are run in advance is the part that is laughable.

Y'know, the argument that was being put forward?

You've got a real high horde you ride about events where effectively you're pretty demanding about how and what they should be without being willing to, you know, do the work yourself.

I've ran events in years past. I know that it can be rough.

I also know that there's a lot of people who do a shoddy job running events to start with and think they're entitled to players and their money by dint of being the only game in town.

Breng77 wrote:It is too bad, those organizers need to at least break even to keep running events. If that is prevented from happening, then those events no longer occur. So yeah, providing a reason why it won't happen is totally worth sarcasm. If you want to run an event that functions like you describe, do it.

Again: If organizers are "needing to at least break even to keep running events", it makes me very curious as to where/how they're running the events to start with--especially in light of the idea of the existence of having "qualifying games" for big events would somehow mean that the big events aren't going to be profitable.

No it isn't, every shop offers some prize for their events, and as often as not it is primarily local people that show up. Maybe an ITC championship slot on the line would change that, maybe it wouldn't. That largely depends on the location of the store. So unless the stores are going to be hand picked and vetted (more work), and extremely limited. It doesn't work. Local guys go to their local shops tourney regardless of what is the prize, because they want to play games. Getting an "invite" for winning a local RTT seems like a terrible plan. ITC points are far better, at least it proves consistent good results.

I'm calling bull. My local GW is hosting a Shadespire tournament soon and a full half of the slots allocated are going to people who never stepped foot in the shop before they found out that he had free swag for Shadespire.

Also, lol @ you assuming that events wouldn't have some kind of tracking to do the "invites". I mean what do you think they'd do, just give the winner an invite to a national event?

Alternatively you could stop caring what actual tournaments (by the definition of the word) call themselves because you don't own the term and get to decide who uses it and how.

Sure, but if they wanted to make money since they're apparently on such razorthin margins? You'd think they'd want a way to appeal themselves a bit more.

You get a ton more of it as you raise the stakes, and making it a qualifier to an event with a larger prize does just that. Most events have so little on the line prize wise as to be trivial as the reason most people attend.

This is just demonstrably wrong, as Marmatag illustrated.

There's a few people local to me that just basically travel between a few shops and their tournaments--they use their winnings to start up new armies every other quarter. That "little on the line prizewise" adds up when places host tournaments every few weeks with maybe $50-$100 in store credit for prizes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
I'm getting the feeling that the main beef here isn't the cheating/mistakes or whatever, it's that many of the tournament players don't fit neatly into the stereotypical boxes some posters here have for them. This thread has covered a lot of ground but it always keeps coming back to the tournaments are bad premise and so are the people who play in them.

The sad part is that the majority of self-described "tournament players"(which is an important distinction--these are people who describe themselves as "tournament players") that I've met absolutely do fit into stereotypical boxes.

One gentleman, for example, is apt to try to rush you during your turns while dragging his out, tries to call you out on rules if you don't know it from the top of your head when he asks without knowing applicable rules for his stuff in the same way, will try to drag in a buddy of theirs that is usually around to 'officiate' a disputed rule, etc.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The sad part is that the majority of self-described "tournament players"(which is an important distinction--these are people who describe themselves as "tournament players") that I've met absolutely do fit into stereotypical boxes.

One gentleman, for example, is apt to try to rush you during your turns while dragging his out, tries to call you out on rules if you don't know it from the top of your head when he asks without knowing applicable rules for his stuff in the same way, will try to drag in a buddy of theirs that is usually around to 'officiate' a disputed rule, etc.

Pretty anecdotal evidence you have there. I could easily share counter experiences but neither is valuable at all. It appears you've taken issue with tournaments and effectively have decided the brush you paint them with is accurate and it seems like you're here to prove that.

 Marmatag wrote:
I dunno, I won almost $70 for first place at a tournament recently. In the past 6 months i've spent hundreds of dollars of store credit thanks to tournaments. It's nontrivial prize money if you attend enough events. If you're on a fixed budget, over the course of a year getting a free $1,000 to spend on the hobby is a big fething deal.

I mean that works if you always win or place. Otherwise you pay out in gas, food and entry fees. If you don't win then you usually end up breaking about even. Now if you wanted to play the games anyway it is nice, but it is hard to make a lot of money that way unless like I say you always win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:It is too bad, those organizers need to at least break even to keep running events. If that is prevented from happening, then those events no longer occur. So yeah, providing a reason why it won't happen is totally worth sarcasm. If you want to run an event that functions like you describe, do it.

Again: If organizers are "needing to at least break even to keep running events", it makes me very curious as to where/how they're running the events to start with--especially in light of the idea of the existence of having "qualifying games" for big events would somehow mean that the big events aren't going to be profitable.

Large hotels and convention centers? Which cost money to rent, building terrain costs money, renting tables and chairs....seriously big events are super expensive.

No it isn't, every shop offers some prize for their events, and as often as not it is primarily local people that show up. Maybe an ITC championship slot on the line would change that, maybe it wouldn't. That largely depends on the location of the store. So unless the stores are going to be hand picked and vetted (more work), and extremely limited. It doesn't work. Local guys go to their local shops tourney regardless of what is the prize, because they want to play games. Getting an "invite" for winning a local RTT seems like a terrible plan. ITC points are far better, at least it proves consistent good results.

I'm calling bull. My local GW is hosting a Shadespire tournament soon and a full half of the slots allocated are going to people who never stepped foot in the shop before they found out that he had free swag for Shadespire.

Also, lol @ you assuming that events wouldn't have some kind of tracking to do the "invites". I mean what do you think they'd do, just give the winner an invite to a national event?

You were the one talking about qualifiers, either it will work like old Ard Boyz, which basically had a store call up and sign up to run a qualifier. Which means anyone can run one. Or you do like the NOVA invite used to and use other GTs, but that results in a very small event. Or as I said you can use ITC rankings, which seems the best method if you want to have a "top guys only" event.

Alternatively you could stop caring what actual tournaments (by the definition of the word) call themselves because you don't own the term and get to decide who uses it and how.

Sure, but if they wanted to make money since they're apparently on such razorthin margins? You'd think they'd want a way to appeal themselves a bit more.

By reducing attendance? I'm confused. Take LVO, right now 500 players. If the idea is to have qualifiers so that there are only say 100 players, that is 20% of the current attendance how is that appealing to more people? Fewer attendees means smaller room block means higher rental prices. So are we charging like $70 to play the qualifiers to then provide that money to the big conventions to offset their loss of attendance? Or are we trying to stretch our thin staffing to running an additional event? Or renting the hall for more days for that event? Or renting a different location that all these people will travel to on a different date? You obviously haven't thought any of that through. Some events used to do qualifiers back in the day, but those did not prosper near to the event of things like NOVA or LVO.

You get a ton more of it as you raise the stakes, and making it a qualifier to an event with a larger prize does just that. Most events have so little on the line prize wise as to be trivial as the reason most people attend.

This is just demonstrably wrong, as Marmatag illustrated.

There's a few people local to me that just basically travel between a few shops and their tournaments--they use their winnings to start up new armies every other quarter. That "little on the line prizewise" adds up when places host tournaments every few weeks with maybe $50-$100 in store credit for prizes. Great, that is less common near me apparently, and would cost a bunch of money to do so unless again you win every week. To get to a tournament every week near me, that probably costs me a tank of gas a week ($30) + Entry fee ($20) + Buying lunch ($10) so that is ~$60. So if I win $100 a week that is great. If I win every other week but place, maybe still ok. If I don't finish in the money every week it starts to be a lot less attactive.

I don't think there is anything that would stop people from having open and closed sections to a tournament, assuming large enough events. Take the las vegas open, the 32 highest rated players have their own tournament, and everyone else is in the more general pool.

The 32 player tournament can have everything cranked to 11, chess clocks, a higher ref to attendee ratio, mandatory list reviews, and tables built for streaming/casting. At only 5 matches, they could have longer games, more prep time, and perhaps even a more relaxed schedule. The open event will be the LVO we know and love without the emphasis on hard core competition.

As for qualifiers, just make the cutoff for the LVC based on ITC scores, so every tournament is a qualifier.

The only thing that makes that tough (if run simultaneously) is staffing. If you want a higher ref ratio then presumably that means a lower ref ratio in the regular event, unless more people decide to staff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
but yes I think that would be the way to go if you wanted an invite tourney. Like the NOVA invite but based of ITC rankings.

 Marmatag wrote:
Also checking a list is a human action. People checking lists make mistakes, too. It's entirely possible someone saw this, and figured it was OK.

GW needs a formal army builder. In order to participate you must submit a legal GW app list.

Then, based on the list you made, you can see everything you have access to, and so can your opponent.

Boom, done. Until then, mistakes will continue to be made.

Good luck with that when they can't even get Azyr right

 lolman1c wrote:
Interesting. So do these successor chapters have any relics or chapter traits at all? Or do they just get the character... That sucks if you give up all the for chat a single character. XD

Much to the chagrin of BA players everywhere, they can only take the worst relic the BA have access too; a power sword that is only special when attacking monsters or vehicles. In return, they gain access to Seth who is meh, and malakim phoros who is a mini guilliman.

I found Seth to be very good.

cerberus_ wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Interesting. So do these successor chapters have any relics or chapter traits at all? Or do they just get the character... That sucks if you give up all the for chat a single character. XD

Much to the chagrin of BA players everywhere, they can only take the worst relic the BA have access too; a power sword that is only special when attacking monsters or vehicles. In return, they gain access to Seth who is meh, and malakim phoros who is a mini guilliman.

Relictors covet chaos relics.