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

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

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

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

*** DRAFT RULES FOR 2011 ***

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

Draft rules for the additional events will soon follow.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would be a dollar a person.

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

Let also add in this fact to the mix:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

+1 Timmah.

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

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

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

*deleted as Matt already commented and covered it*

Good discussion.

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

-1 Timmah

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

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

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

but thanks for listening.

Anything about the Fantasy side?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you spot sheck in round 4

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

in round 1 you would get a -5

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

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

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

I agree with random checks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Validating lists:

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

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

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

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

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

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











Automatically Appended Next Post:
*EDIT*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

everything is an illusion. having rules judges is an illusion as their knowledge is not perfect (so they may be swayed by an incorrect argument) and the opposing player may fall for the cheater's forked tongue and not call them in the first place. nothing stops the determined but having a months to paytest and tweak lists is enough, lol; no one is forced to take the brand-spankin' newest codex to the tourney. if anything, having a cutoff time before the tourney set in stone will help the indecisive list builders because they won't have the choice to flip flop their builds the night before and can actually focus on getting the finishing touches done. either way, any of the solutions above would help in some way despite being illusions.

one other thing i'd suggest is that if a player or judge catches a problem with an illegal upgrade in their opponent's list, the WHOLE UNIT is gone for the entire tourney. if their list is over the alloted points, the judge takes off the highest point non-core unit (so that you don't lose the two troops and an HQ mandatory selection) off the list for the whole tourney. DQ'ing people penalizes the stupid/inept too much and gives the opponent for that round an easy win that they don't necessarily deserve. if the person making the mistake just loses a unit, they still have a chance at winning (important if it was an honest mistake) but are still penalized severely (important for the willful cheaters). its the best of both worlds regarding punishments! p.s. as a side note, record who this happens to and put them on a grey list for future tourneys (a list of people whose armies MUST be double checked).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
edit: oh, and yeah, having the winner of the nova open field an illegal list is definitely embarassing. i'd say start validating anyone in the semifinals to avoid that kind of stuff. that way you catch it before they get to a prize.

@warboss - The imposed penalty you and MVB suggested is a solid one for sure. Defiantly under consideration.

I like that penalty.

I would propose that you have an army builder station set up on Sunday for the finalists.

That way they can sit down, go over their list one more time, and print it out. Have a judge watch the proceedings, so you make sure that at least those lists are the accurate ones. Those are the ones that really matter anyways, you remove the possibility of TO error in the transcribing anothers list, and you ensure everything is on the level.

3 Laptops set up and you can have that done in an hour.

Better yet - the top players should have their lists verified manually Friday night during round 4. This issue should be handled Friday night, either before qualifiers are announced or shortly after the event wraps up.

Matthias wrote:Better yet - the top players should have their lists verified manually Friday night during round 4. This issue should be handled Friday night, either before qualifiers are announced or shortly after the event wraps up.

I would hope this would go without saying.

Or better yet, just do it sunday morning at the start of all the games.

Or both.

For sure - without question - I was just saying Friday night better than Sunday morning...look at the schedule .

Knowing lists are legal before even announcing qualifiers on Friday is best case scenario.

In this day and age, I'd say it's possible to have final list printing done on site. I will say I haven't completely thought through the logistics required for this, and it may be completely useless, but I'll throw it out anyway. It combines many ideas already posted in this thread. At registration you're required to bring a flash drive/disk/CD, something with your lists(in AB format) for every event you're playing in on it. These are printed then and there on special colored paper(Someone on the staff has access to a laserjet or something similar right?), and then filed for you until you check in for the actual event (this requires several file boxes with folders for each player in an event). When you arrive to play in the event, the organizer hands you your copies of your list and these are the ONLY copies you should be using. Your opponent should get a copy and can confirm your army to your list every game. Judges can still spot check.

Army builder validates lists, if it's illegal, over points, etc. For people that don't have access to the program? They can find someone with it before arriving, or go stand in a queue for event provided Army Builder stations. People's time on these stations should be LIMITED to ensure a quick moving queue. They shouldn't be thinking about their list, only inputting it.

It comes with an added cost, but I would bet you can find a way to cover it.

derek wrote:In this day and age, I'd say it's possible to have final list printing done on site. I will say I haven't completely thought through the logistics required for this, and it may be completely useless, but I'll throw it out anyway. It combines many ideas already posted in this thread. At registration you're required to bring a flash drive/disk/CD, something with your lists(in AB format) for every event you're playing in on it. These are printed then and there on special colored paper(Someone on the staff has access to a laserjet or something similar right?), and then filed for you until you check in for the actual event (this requires several file boxes with folders for each player in an event). When you arrive to play in the event, the organizer hands you your copies of your list and these are the ONLY copies you should be using. Your opponent should get a copy and can confirm your army to your list every game. Judges can still spot check.

Scaling issues here - assuming the 40k Championships doesn't get any bigger than last year, you're looking at 220 people. Each of them will need 6 copies of their lists; most lists are 2-3 pages. So now we're talking about a print run that involves 4000 pages, collated. Assuming a decent printer (10 ppm), that's 400 minutes (and a replacement toner cartridge). So now we're looking for at least 10 printers to bring time down to reasonable; ouch.

(Never mind the time involved in opening 220 AB files & print them; that, of course, assumes that they open - if your AB files at home are a different release than those at the event, your list may not open properly, so the TOs will have to find you & have you recreate your list.)

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

I really think that’s all you need to do. I would however let the people know what you’re going to do if they’re caught doing the old" switch arue."

Seems like a way to try and degrade team blower lists, and boost NIDS.

Kinda like the INAT you guys made which made your NIDS viable again.

Oh snap! I dont like limiting Force Orgs.

Task and Purpose wrote:Seems like a way to try and degrade team blower lists, and boost NIDS.

Kinda like the INAT you guys made which made your NIDS viable again.

Oh snap! I dont like limiting Force Orgs.

What? How does this fit into the conversation? What are you even talking about?

Janthkin wrote:

derek wrote:In this day and age, I'd say it's possible to have final list printing done on site. I will say I haven't completely thought through the logistics required for this, and it may be completely useless, but I'll throw it out anyway. It combines many ideas already posted in this thread. At registration you're required to bring a flash drive/disk/CD, something with your lists(in AB format) for every event you're playing in on it. These are printed then and there on special colored paper(Someone on the staff has access to a laserjet or something similar right?), and then filed for you until you check in for the actual event (this requires several file boxes with folders for each player in an event). When you arrive to play in the event, the organizer hands you your copies of your list and these are the ONLY copies you should be using. Your opponent should get a copy and can confirm your army to your list every game. Judges can still spot check.

Scaling issues here - assuming the 40k Championships doesn't get any bigger than last year, you're looking at 220 people. Each of them will need 6 copies of their lists; most lists are 2-3 pages. So now we're talking about a print run that involves 4000 pages, collated. Assuming a decent printer (10 ppm), that's 400 minutes (and a replacement toner cartridge). So now we're looking for at least 10 printers to bring time down to reasonable; ouch.

(Never mind the time involved in opening 220 AB files & print them; that, of course, assumes that they open - if your AB files at home are a different release than those at the event, your list may not open properly, so the TOs will have to find you & have you recreate your list.)

Like I said, I didn't think through the logistics. One thing I did assume was having a couple of printers capable of doing 25-30 ppm, and it being something done right as people check in so that they're there if there is a problem. May not be feasible, but it was only a suggestion.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Task and Purpose wrote:Seems like a way to try and degrade team blower lists, and boost NIDS.

Kinda like the INAT you guys made which made your NIDS viable again.

Oh snap! I dont like limiting Force Orgs.

What? How does this fit into the conversation? What are you even talking about?

I thought the rules development was here to develop the rules for the upcoming Adepticon? As far as verifying lists, it seems like this added work is the self inflicted wound resulting from changing the force orgs per teams.

The Adepticon "guys" play Nids and well there werent any changes like this in the Zilla days. Its just interesting to see Adeptioncon, via the old INAT, making Nids Relevant. IMO seems like the Tau need more help and well the force ORG changes dont really help them. There is also a lot of preference on theme and fluff for team but unless you play Chaos or Imperial then your team/alliance for fluff points is pretty restricted. That isnt addressed because the Adepticon Nid guys bring homogeneous lists.

The talk concerning list verification concerns the 40K Championships, but you keep talking about the Team Tournament force org...not sure what thread you are reading.

The only Tyranids I own are 6mm.

Sounds like opportunity for a company to provide a solution.

Online interface that folks can type in lists and also validate them.

Barcode functionality built into the army list printouts for onsite scanning purposes.

Task and Purpose wrote:The Adepticon "guys" play Nids and well there werent any changes like this in the Zilla days. Its just interesting to see Adeptioncon, via the old INAT, making Nids Relevant. IMO seems like the Tau need more help and well the force ORG changes dont really help them. There is also a lot of preference on theme and fluff for team but unless you play Chaos or Imperial then your team/alliance for fluff points is pretty restricted. That isnt addressed because the Adepticon Nid guys bring homogeneous lists.

Ummm...what? First, the INAT was harsh on the 'Nids during Adepticon 2010 (e.g., Tyrants had to be on the board to use their bonus to Reserves rolls); and second, who are these "Adeptioncon" guys who play 'Nids? None of the judges for the team tournament play in the team tournament, and to the best of my knowledge, none of them were using 'Nids for any of the other events that weekend. (And I don't recall any Tyranid teams anywhere near the top of the heap.)

Yes, getting theme points is harder with Xenos teams than with Imperial or Heretical teams. That's mostly because GW's setting doesn't provide for as much background along those lines.

The only additional "Alliance/Theme" or whatever that I would envision would be a Tau/Gue'la detachment, but that may be stretching a little bit.

Eldar/Dark Eldar may be a potential Theme/Alliance depending on how the fluff goes when the new codex comes out, but we won't know until it does.

If you're Xenos, you're stuck playing Xenos, which is bad how? The "Brothers in Arms" rule is very powerful for single codex Xenos teams just as much as it is for any others.

Matthias wrote:The talk concerning list verification concerns the 40K Championships, but you keep talking about the Team Tournament force org...not sure what thread you are reading.

The only Tyranids I own are 6mm.

Edit: the PRE GW INAT was completely pro NID...Besides that generally good lists want to start on the table to maximize its ability to aquire kill points. (Yes Im aware of pods)

The thread requested comments for all feedback, specifically clarity. The thread had devolved into; how do I read and do math quickly? I saw more things needing attention.

I figure verification issues for all the tournaments, especially for team since you effectively checking 4x the lists. Random checks is all you can do with a small staff.

Here is how I would fix the issue: Adeptioncon draws a quality crowd for sure and has the best organizing of any event out...I would suggest passing you lists to the team to the left and then have that team screen your codex vs lists prior to set up game one. There is always a good PA so verbally walking the crowd through each force org should be easy, moving through each force ORG chioce at a time and not moving on until the "show of hands" says everyone is done. IIRC there is always a pre game 1hr check in in the mornings, do it then. The Codexs support this, and the Adepticon judges can simply roam the floor addressing issues. You could effectively check everything in 15-20mins tops. Then have a Adepticon hole puch to punch the approved lists for the day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote: The "Brothers in Arms" rule is very powerful for single codex Xenos teams just as much as it is for any others.

In your opinion.

I think it breaks some things. I think Brothers in Arms provides AMAZING synergy for Imperial and Chaos across multiple books. IMO mostly increasing mobiliity without transports to reduce the strength of MECH guard.

NIDS? Bonus synapse and Venomthrope Cover, bonus to reserves rolls?
Orks? Maybe Mechboys fixing other vehicles? and 4x Waaaghs and the number of force fields.

What do Eldar get? Extra fearless for having more Avatars? Meh?
Tau?
DE?

Like I said the "Brothers in Arms" is nothing more than a way to reduce team blower lists.

Task and Purpose wrote:
Edit: the PRE GW INAT was completely pro NID...Besides that generally good lists want to start on the table to maximize its ability to aquire kill points. (Yes Im aware of pods)

I would leave this thread to discussions on A-Con and the events themselves. What we who are on the INAT team do has nothing to do with what those who setup and run A-Con. Even more so those who make up the rules for the Champs, Team Tournament, and Gladiator etc are not the same as all of us on the INAT. Matter of fact in reguard to myself specifically, the recent posting of the draft rules for the Champs and TT on Adepticons site are the first I even knew of them.

If you want to discuss your feelings on the INAT (beyond its use at A-Con but rather the document and how it comes about), there are several threads on Dakka already about that topic. Or, you could start another one and for my part would be happy to give my feelings on the issues you speak of. Though I am but a single member and do not represent the feelings of the group as a whole.

Wow thast was about 1/10 of what I spoke about. Certainly not the focus of what Im saying.

Task and Purpose wrote:Wow thast was about 1/10 of what I spoke about. Certainly not the focus of what Im saying.

Since that 1/10 is the only part of what you talked about that I am a part of, its the only part that I can reply to.

As I said in my post, I am not invovled in the forming of rules in any of the other days many events.

Why not have them submit a .AB file from army builder. Load it, it tells you if there's a problem. Move on. Should make any validation check easier. It also catches people who have hacked the AB files on their computers to adjust points/allow a couple extra combos.

12th Ronin - Main issue is then your requiring people to own AB software to submit a list.

muwhe wrote:12th Ronin - Main issue is then your requiring people to own AB software to submit a list.

AND that everyone be using exactly the same version the AB files; I loaded the newest files today, and the list I made last night doesn't load anymore.

So I see this years adepticon is starting on the 1st of april.

rrrrr, why do you hate us accountants matthias?

Not everything is Matt's fault. : )

Dates are set fall between middle of March to middle of April.

Within reason we need avoid Easter, the time change weekend and Gamma Trade Show. The later you push into April the more likely you will run into conflicts with weddings and other catered events with most venues in Chicago.

Course I work for an accounting/consulting firm as well so I know full well tax season. : (

Hehe, I know.

Us corporate accountants usually have a lot of work on the last and first day of every month. Which make getting them off practically impossible.

For some reason I can't open the rules packets. :(

Links are opening fine for me.

Hank

Matthias wrote:Better yet - the top players should have their lists verified manually Friday night during round 4. This issue should be handled Friday night, either before qualifiers are announced or shortly after the event wraps up.

Easier to check the players that made the cut before any real list shenanigans can slip through to sunday. I know its alot for the Adepticon staff especially when they have to go through preparations for saturday among other things. Might I remind everyone it is also the responsibility of the player who is playing against anyone else to check the opponent's list. This will help out the staff.

My gaming store had a simple thing on matters like this and much like Matthias has proposed. If there is an illegal option in the list or some unit is over priced, the offending unit or character is "lost in the warp" and removed from play for the rest of the tournament.

Let me retry. There is no way to accomplish this digitally.

Beginning the hour long morning registration everyone passes their lists to the table on their left along with the appropriate codexs.

The Public Announcement system verbally walks the crowd through each force org should be easy, moving through each force ORG chioce at a time and not moving on until the "show of hands" says everyone is done. I

The Codexs support this, and the Adepticon judges can simply roam the floor addressing issues. You can effectively check everything in 15-20mins tops.

Then have an Adepticon hole puch/stamp to punch the approved lists for the day so there are no switch-aroos.

O wow the winner of the open's list was 3 over? 3 points doesnt seem like a lot, but when youre squeezing MSU until it screams, 1 point can be the difference between having it how you want, and requiring a fundamental change to at least one unit to make the points.

That guy should have his win stripped.

I am not seeing the issue with pre-verification. Are people serious about changing their lists up to hours before the event? Really?

How about having the opportunity for people to pre-submit their lists for verification, and by doing so those players who pre-submitted get a ticket for a small doorprize or something?

I really like the 'loser doorprize' that some events have done, why not combine it in with that? Anyone who pre-submits a week ahead gets another chance at that prize. Those who still want to wait until the day off... then risk be on them, and that their list will be validated 'sometime' during the event and if it is illegal... then poo poo on them, punishment city.

So those who pre-submit and validate, chance at a prize, no risk of illegal DQing.

Those who don't play at their own risk.

Deleted was grumpy and confused...

: )

Not sure why we were never contacted about any of this...we are incredibly easy to get in touch with.

Pretty sure you just made it impossible to address all your concerns, but I will do what I can....

frgsinwntr wrote:1) we got poor painting and theme scores... worse then some of the people we played who had no themes and very poor painting scores

I assume you are talking about the Team Tournament here? What team? Simply stating you disliked the scores...well, I am sure just about everyone dislikes their scores in some ways and thinks their stuff deserves better. No fault in that, there just isn't much you can do with a complaint of this nature.

The Painting and Theme scoring is pretty linear in the Team Tournament. The theme scoring is in the process of being refined and simplified

frgsinwntr wrote:2) drove 16 hours into stupid traffic with huge displayboards which took up half our car so we were cramped

Last year was our second year there and I am assuming you had time to plan the trip. Traffic around Chicago is a little out of our control. To disparage the event because of Chicago traffic is a bit over the top.

EDIT: Now that I realize this post was about 2 1/2 years ago...yes we have changed venues. We moved to the Westin in Lombard in 2009.

frgsinwntr wrote:3) Had my black jacket stolen

I can sympathize. I had everything I bought at Gen Con 2009 (maybe $400 worth) and my black motorcycle jacket stolen from the concierge desk of the hotel I was staying at. I was pissed as hell at the hotel, but in the end it is the thief that deserves our ire, not the hotel or the event.

frgsinwntr wrote:4) Had the BFG scores never posted (AND they were claimed to have been lost...) after I calculated the winners total and found out I had a better over all score than him and couldn't verify if my findings were correct or not....

Something that should have been brought to our attention immediatly. Dragging this out now, especially something you admit you could not verify, is just throwing fuel on a fire. Haven't heard a single issue regarding the BFG event until now.

frgsinwntr wrote:5) COULDN"T find judge or staff person moving around to watch for rules issues

During what event? The 40K events all have dedicated floor staff that wander the hall during all rounds to field questions at the table. Additionally there is always 2-3 staff at the Judge's Table at all times that are incredibly easy to summon/track down.

frgsinwntr wrote:6) got chipmunked on sportsman ship in Round 2 when we beat tri falcon eldar with our orks...

No arguements here - the old sportsmanship system has worn out its welcome. Read the draft rules (the purpose of this thread) in the first post. Entirely new system. There is also a little discussion of the formation of this scoring system over on the Dev Blog.

frgsinwntr wrote:Oh yea... and when your web site for registration was hacked... so I had to deal with my information being stolen... that is probably the most important

Not sure how this is even possible. I only see you in our records for the 2008 (Purchase Date and Time: Mon Mar 10 2008 16:06:32 CDT). The web cart was only hacked for 24 hours in 2010? Sure about this?

'It needs but one foe to breed a war, and those who have not swords can still die upon them.'

We hope everyone had an safe and enjoyable Labor Day weekend. While most of us spent time relaxing with friends and families, our allies were hard at work putting the finishing touches on the next set of draft rules for AdeptiCon 2011.

From the Great Gate of Minas Tirith to the icy wastes of Forochel, Lord of the Rings returns to AdeptiCon for a fifth year of war and conflict in Middle-earth:

Lord of the Rings Championships [DRAFT]
Lord of the Rings Team Tournament [DRAFT]

Today also saw the release of the beta ruleset for Special Operations: Killzone over at Galaxy in Flames. Special Operations: Killzone is a set of fan-designed rules created with the intent of enabling players to run skirmish games within the Warhammer 40,000 universe and will be a featured event at AdeptiCon 2011. Additional information regarding Killzone at AdeptiCon can be found in this previous post on the AdeptiCon Development Blog.

Killzone Rules [BETA]
Killzone Errata
Killzone Scenarios

The Special Operations: Killzone Rules Committee is also looking for playtesters and feedback. Head over to the Special Operation: Killzone Forums to participate.

As always, please keep in mind these are still in draft/beta form. There may be some changes to the versions that will be in use at AdeptiCon 2011. Additionally, new codices, books and official FAQ documents in the months leading up to the event could require changes to the preceding rules.

At the 40k Championship are you going to re-seed every round (the top player plays the player with the worst score who still won).

Or are the best going up against the others with the top scores?

@Blackmoor - The seeding for the qualifiers on Friday will be a 2-layer Monrad Swiss-system. Per the draft rules:

The first round pairings will be randomly determined. Subsequent qualifier and finals rounds will be seeded by W/L/D record first, then by total number of objectives achieved throughout all games played, and then randomly within those divisions.

The original draft that went out for proofing last month had a different take for Sunday's finals and it looks like we most likely will revert back to something along those lines. There were two avenues of thought - simplicity and consistency in seeding across both the qualifiers and finals vs. a true qualifier feeding into a final/playoffs style event.

The original proposal, and the one on the table at this point, is to still use Friday's record to qualify and seed the first round on Sunday (#1 playing #16 and so on). From that point players would play in a modified single-elimination format. There will be a special rule in all missions: There is No Turning Back! or something like that where each mission will have a series of tiebreakers beyond VP that will be invoked if the players draw on objectives (general mission structure will stay the same). This might be VP --> Strength of Schedule --> Total Objective Achieved or something similar. Basically there will be no secondary draw conditions on Sunday.

Right now we working out some ideas to incorporate new awards on Sunday, and make playing for place important (most likely this will involve qualification tickets for Vegas, the Master Tactician title and a few others).

All of this is still being worked on, and might not be updated until sometime in October. We are still collecting feedback and are currently working on other events/aspects of the convention.

interesting rules for the spec ops. at first i thought the super mobile killy assault units would be unstoppable until i saw that you don't have to fall in with nearby figs. that super killy unit is just sitting there killing a single guardsmen. i don't how transports are overpowered, though, as long as the normal rules are in place (33 total armor or less). against rear armor, even frag/defensive grenades stand a chance.

Hey guys,

I am the mad brain behind the Spec Ops Killzone rules, I'll try to keep an eye in here and answer any questions that come up.

warboss wrote:interesting rules for the spec ops. at first i thought the super mobile killy assault units would be unstoppable until i saw that you don't have to fall in with nearby figs. that super killy unit is just sitting there killing a single guardsmen. i don't how transports are overpowered, though, as long as the normal rules are in place (33 total armor or less). against rear armor, even frag/defensive grenades stand a chance.

We banned most vehicles not because they were overpowered, it mostly came down to two main factors. One, Killzone was initially based on the original Kill Teams rules set and vehicles were not allowed at all; secondly we didn't want to have too much of a rock/paper/scissors thing going on dependent on whether a 200pt team brought enough AT or not.

Sentinels and War Walkers were allowed for "fluffy" reasons, and it was considered they wouldn't be too hard for most teams to handle; Killer Kans just rode in on the coattails.

Cheers,
Jim

BDJV wrote:
We banned most vehicles not because they were overpowered, it mostly came down to two main factors. One, Killzone was initially based on the original Kill Teams rules set and vehicles were not allowed at all; secondly we didn't want to have too much of a rock/paper/scissors thing going on dependent on whether a 200pt team brought enough AT or not.

Sentinels and War Walkers were allowed for "fluffy" reasons, and it was considered they wouldn't be too hard for most teams to handle; Killer Kans just rode in on the coattails.

Cheers,
Jim

i'd say that walkers are HARDER for most teams to handle than regular vehicles. regular vehicles have to move over 6" in order to be hit in close combat on a 6 and they'll have crap shooting... walkers will almost always be hit on 6s since grenades will be the most common way of taking them out (and only marines will stand a chance since they have krak standard and you have to go vs front armor) and can shoot prior at full efficacy. if you're worried about how teams will be able to handle them, i'd say take out the walkers FIRST and then worry about transports. i purposely take armored sentinels in my IG army simply because for 55pts i can have an almost impossible unit to destroy that ties up a more expensive one as long as the other player didn't take a powerfist.

So far our testing have not showed the walkers to be overpowered. Feel free to play some games and let us know if a single walker seems overpowered on the tabletop.

Also don't forget that Anti-armor grenades can be thrown at walkers. Most armies have access to some type of Anti-armor grenade.

In the end if they are shown to be overpowered we may just remove them altogether. Right now is the time to sort these things out, as the rules are still very much a free flowing thing. Come November they will be in a much more solid state.

Jim

lol, i appreciate the offer and probably will take you up on it (i like the format) but i pretty much have my answer. if a walker is difficult to deal with in 2000pts, it doesn't get any easier at 200.

dude, people will have fun at adepticon, and that is what really matters. I like competitive events, and refuse to attend hobby competitions due to my being disabled shooting me in the foot on the paint score (which is serious business). The fact of the matter is, is that even if I don't attend, others will, and will have fun, and that's their prerogative. And I'll keep attending events like the sprue posse RTT because that's my prerogative.

My point is, as long as we have a vareity of events hobby wide, everyone wins, and that is the part that really matters, no matter what anyone says,

Go for the gold, man, go for the gold.

A few quick updates:

1. 40K Gladiator, Combat Patrol and Stupor Bowl IV draft rules are almost ready - look for them on Monday or so.
2. Additionally there will be a few changes to the 40K Championships draft rules (mainly in the scoring for Sunday's finals).
3. New webcart is built, tested and ready to roll.
4. We are currently in the process of collecting and combining all the events for the master schedule. Once this is done, I can finish populating the new webcart...
5. Pre-registration is on track for October 22nd at this time.
6. Concept art for the 2011 Stupor Bowl IV model is on the Dev Blog.
7. Killzone table WIP photos over at A Gentleman's Ones.

Recent Podcast Activity:
Dice Like Thunder - Episode 101 - Tyler talks about some of the changes to Combat Patrol and to AdeptiCon in general.
The Independent Characters - Episode 13 - Matthias talks about his hobby interests and about what he and the folks in Chicago have planned for AdeptiCon 2011!

Ah yes, the king of cons! I can't wait for Adepticon this year, I will be sure to sign up soon enough to get into all three 40K tournaments.

If you guys haven't made the trip, this is well worth it.

Dakka Detachment 2 is going the distance this year!

Lorek, Platuan 4th, Reecius, WHitedragon and Ozzymandias (in Spirit) are going to be kicking some ass!

Reecius wrote:Dakka Detachment 2 is going the distance this year!

What, you're going even lower than last year?

/rimshot

Reecius is playing in the TT again?

Sweet, at least one team we'll place higher than.

Hahahaha, OK, that's it! You guys better be able to cash the checks your mouths are writing!

We're gunning for you guys!

Janthkin, I know you and the other wet noodles on Dakka Detachment 1, But Mike, what team are you on? We'll be sure to come after you chumps!

Just added:

- 2 Malifaux Tournaments (one on Saturday, one on Sunday)
- A 3rd Special Operations: Killzone event!
- The return of the Codicer Challenge! This will be a Jeopardy style quiz show event held Saturday night after the Team Tournament. Qualification will be based on quiz results from Friday and Saturday events.

More updates:

1. Warhammer 40K Gladiator draft rules are now available.
2. Stupor Bowl IV rules packet is now available.

I like the changes to the Gladiator in reguards to the points for your army and side bar sections.

Marius,

So do I Going to make the Gladiator format very interesting this year.

-Hank

More Updates:

1. Warhammer 40K Youngbloods Tournament
2. Battlefleet Gothic Championships
3. Necromunda Tournament
4. Warhammer Ancients Singles Tournament
5. Warhammer Ancients Doubles Tournament

Updates:

1. Warhammer Fantasy Big Brawl Tournament Rules
2. Special Operations: Killzone event specifics:

Special Operations: Killzone is a narrative-rich dynamic grounded in Warhammer 40K's Kill Teams variation (although a Beta-ruleset is currently available on Galaxy in Flames, a finalized version of the Special Operations: Killzone addendum to 40K will be on offer for free download well in advance of the event).

Each participant will bring one Special Operations Team of any standard 40K race. The Team may not exceed 250 points, and up to 25 of those points may be allotted for Specialized Skills and Abilities (note: Special Issue Wargear is not included in the Skills and Abilities points limitation, but operates under different limitations outlined in the basic Special Operations Killzone addendum). Your team will engage in a bitter series of missions across the entire breadth of four custom-made tables for this event.

3. List of Hobby Seminar classes:

Concept Figure Drawing Workshop
Moving Forward: First Steps to Advanced Painting
Warhammer 40K Tactics Boot Camp (Basic)
Warhammer 40K Tactics Boot Camp (Advanced)
Reynolds Advanced Materials & Smooth-On
Airbrushing for Figurines
Introduction to Miniature Painting: Core Skills
Introduction to Miniature Painting: Highlighting and Shading
Painting Faces and Muscular Bodies
Hirst Arts Terrain and Casting
Metallics with a Shine
Lose the Fear: Working with Greenstuff
Colors Through the Art
Quality AND Quantity: Painting an (Ancient) Army with Alacrity
Stepping Up Your Game: Painting to a Competition Level
Photographing Miniatures
Here We Stand: Advanced Basing Techniques
Painting Female Faces and Muscles
Weathering with Acrylics, Dry Pigment and Oil Paint
Maximizing GW Washes
Black Library Roundtable

Updates:

1. More Event Rules
Warhammer 40K Combat Patrol
Warhammer Fantasy Championships
Warhammer Fantasy It's How You Use It Tournament
Flames of War Early-War Tournament
Flames of War Mid-War Tournament
Flames of War Take the Moneys and Run!
Warmachine/Hordes Tournaments & Events (Hardcore!, Mangled Metal/Tooth & Claw, Eternal War!, Steamroller Finale, Stranded Forces)
Epic Armageddon Challenge

2. Registration is NOW OPEN!

The Adepticon Schedule is a bad link/not found.

Right. There is a note on the front page about it coming soon. Tomorrow if real work doesn't get in the way. All the events are in the cart though (save the demo, but there will not tickets for those this year).

Graphic Event Schedule is now available.

Registrations are pouring in. Don't delay! Some smaller events and seminars are already starting to sell out.

What's the reason for 2200 for Fantasy? Just a middle of the road between 2000 and 2500?

TimmyMWD wrote:What's the reason for 2200 for Fantasy? Just a middle of the road between 2000 and 2500?

I'm guessing "easier to calculate 25% than 2250," but it's purely a guess.

The WFB organizer wrote a little about the WFB Championships over on the Dev Blog.

The last few rules for AdeptiCon 2011 are up:

Warhammer Fantasy Team Tournament
Ex illis: Survival of the Illest
Ex illis AdeptiCon Championships
Legends of the Old West Tournament

A full list of event rules can be found in the first post of this thread.