I haven't seen a Wargamescon thread (aside one noting some coverage), so thought this would be a good place for it.

Lots of familiar faces here; its good to catch up with friends! So far I've seen Marc Parker, Paul Murphy, Goatboy (don't know if he's playing or judging this weekend), Blackmoor...a lot of heavy hitters.

Give a shout if you're here / playing / etc.

Day One wraps up! No one posted. ><

I went 4-0 on day one...30/30/30/20.

I missed killpoints 12-11 for secondary on the fourth game. I just checked my codex, and beastmasters are LD8, not LD6, and shouldn't have run away (and consequently been escorted off the board). Damn. That was turn 3 or 4 too.

nice and GL tommorow.

What lists did you play against?

I'd love to hear some more reports/results.

I saw that Ben Mohlie lost in the final round to a guy from the 19th Legion podcast in the Mirror Match tournament. That was an intriguing event, and one I'd be really tempted to try next year.

I saw that Next Level Painting (Kenny and co) won the Team Tourney, which isn't too surprising. I know Kenny's a strong player, no doubt whoever he brought along was too, and I'm sure Kenny painted them a beautiful army.

Who else is at the top going into Day 2 of the GT?

I saw the top table armies on bols. Once again, tournament data shows that it's the player, not the list that matters.

Good luck to all the finalists!

There's some more coverage over on http://bloodofkittens.com/

Game 5 is about to start will add coverage as it happens.

Round 5 top five tables

1. David Light (mech blood angels) vs. Dashofpepper (Mech Dark Eldar)
2. Alan barjamovic (Foot Orks) vs. Chad Knight (mech blood angels)
3. Michael Strange (grey knights) vs. Kenny Boucher (khorne demons)
4. Shawn Lowrey (mixed dark eldar) vs Russell Adams (mech sisters)
5. Joseph Cherry (grey knights) vs. Chandler Lee (grey knights)

Game 5 over

Dash gets more points stays at table 1. Orks win table 2 so dash gets horde orks.

Table 2 will be Michael strange vs. Joseph cherry grey knights vs grey knights

Table 3 Marc Parker battlewagon orks vs. Adam Cortez (hybrid khan marines)

Well table three got over with really quick… Like 15min and khan marines called it with a bold move to kill all the battlewagons and failed. So Marc Parker moves on with max points and looking at the rest of tables Marc should be on the top table for the final round.

Thanks for posting this! I really wish I went! I'm rooting for Marc to take the whole thing with orks!

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2011/07/10/meat-for-meta-wargamescon-issues-of-etiquette/

This says it all. Another sham of an event thanks to some players (and, frankly, TOs)... who constantly make sham of events.

I think its more of an issue with Tasty Taste than anything else. He always seems to report things without the full story. I will wait for the players to report before I take his word.

Latest update from BoK:

"Table 1 is Joe Cherry Grey Knights with Stormraven. Vs Allan Horde Orks (which ended up winning the game against Dash)

Table 2 is Marc Parker (battlewagon orks) vs. Shawn Lowrey (mixed dark Eldar)

Table 3 is Ben Mohile (vulkan list) vs. Dash (Venom spam dark Eldar)

It is really anyone’s game they all can win."

So far (1 hour in) table 1 is getting testy with rad grenades hammerhand and hiding from the ork horde. It really doesn’t look good for the grey knights, but the stormraven is alive so it can contest. Orks have nob bikers about move in

Table 2

Marc Parker has bad dice and Shawn has good dice. Dark Eldar win. Shawn will either have best general or best overall.

Table 3

Ben max points Dash loses but gets bonus points.

Back to table 1

Paladin squad is going on an Ork killing spree. The question is it enough?

Well it was not enough. Orks win out and just have to see where the points land.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would be surprised if Ben had lost to Dash. Dash is a pretty solid player, with an excellent list, but Ben is one of the better players I've come up against.

Pretty cool stuff.

So who won?

Results are on the tournament site.

Shawn Lowrey takes Overall with Dark Eldar
Alan Bajramovic 2nd with horde Orks.
Ben "Spacecurves" Mohlie (defending champion and the ETC team captain) gets Best General with Codex: SM

http://www.wargamescon.com/2011/07/warhammer-40k-grand-tournament.html#more

Meanwhile, in the Rogue Trader event (formerly called the Consolation tournament, last year)...

Allan "Blackmoor" Hernandez and Adam Tricola take Overall and Best General. The website is not entirely clear which got which, though. The main page lists Adam as Overall winner, but the standings list has Allan at the top. They appear to have also accidentally copy & pasted the GT results at the top of the page of the RT results.

http://www.wargamescon.com/2011/07/warhammer-40k-rogue-trader-tournament.html#more

Wow, awesome results.

A major event with no SW, IG, or BA in the top 3? That's awesome in my book, especially the orks. I met Alan at the ATC where he also played foot orks (could be the same list) and our pairing also lost to him. He's quite a good ork player!

I'm sure at least one internet loudmouth with nick the event as "uncompetitive" for some random perceived "fail" in scoring or format, but I've played or observed just about every player in the top 10 and I think we all know this was a tough field.

Good job to all.

Internet loudmouths, for the most part, have a distinct lack of real-world performance to back up their words. When you meet them and play against them, you tend to notice that you know quite a few other players as good or better who aren't obnoxious about it.

When people write Orks off as uncompetetive, what they're actually saying is that Orks aren't competetive under their playstyle. For them, and the way they work, they could never produce the results they could with other lists.

What they fail to acknowledge, is that their playstyle isn't the only way to play this game, and that other styles that produce much better results with orks are perfectly valid.

I'm not sure whether its ignorance or arrogance (or a fine blend of the two) that produces this one eyed approach, but those who assume that their playstyle is the only way to play this game demonstrate hubris at its best.

I have to say that was quite a roller coaster of a final day in a GT. Can't wait to see what battle reports pour out of this one!

I have to agree that the internet loudmouths are only so "superb" thanks to their dedication to their single-minded idea of what Warhammer 40,000 should be like. It seems like every time I turn around, if someone wins with a crappy army, the tournament is non-competitive and unless it is one of the newest codices/a codex they praise it falls on the tournament organizers having a poor understanding of the rules and such,.

Mannahnin wrote:Internet loudmouths, for the most part, have a distinct lack of real-world performance to back up their words. When you meet them and play against them, you tend to notice that you know quite a few other players as good or better who aren't obnoxious about it.

+1

Then we've got guys like Ben Mohlie who also contributes to the blogosphere without insulting people, gives solid advice, and produces results on the tournament circuit. I'm sure a lot of you are familiar with him, if you arent he: Lead the ETC American Team to 5th overall their first time at the event personally representing the best results on the team, took 3rd overall at DaBoyz GT 2010, 1st overall at Boston Brawl last week, 2nd best general at ATC in May, and now in the top 3 again. If you haven't met him, the guy is always smiling and laughing. A genuine nice guy.

It's also interesting to me that Ben and John W., both American ETC members scored the second highest in sportsmanship.

Dash got the lowest sportsmanship score and several blogs reported on the drama during his 3.5 hour game during round 4. I believe he said he's not batrep'ing this event, but damn I would read that report.

Looks like a good event allthough I would have like to see a bigger spread in painting and sportsmanship. Painting from 24-29 hardly makes it even worth including.

Mannahnin wrote:

Meanwhile, in the Rogue Trader event (formerly called the Consolation tournament, last year)...

Allan "Blackmoor" Hernandez and Adam Tricola take Overall and Best General. The website is not entirely clear which got which, though. The main page lists Adam as Overall winner, but the standings list has Allan at the top. They appear to have also accidentally copy & pasted the GT results at the top of the page of the RT results.

I (Adam Tricola) ended up with Overall in the RTT with my Dark Eldar. :-p

I had been under the impression that painting was the only thing that actually 'counted' in the RTT for overall scoring, so I'm assuming that's why I won, though according to the scores, we had drawn. Not sure what the tiebreaker was, unless it was painting.

/shrug

I'll have full battle reports up on my blog in a few days for all 7 games, as well as some slightly less detailed reports of my mirror match games.

Congrats on winning the RTT. Your DE army looks beautiful.

Xaereth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Meanwhile, in the Rogue Trader event (formerly called the Consolation tournament, last year)...

Allan "Blackmoor" Hernandez and Adam Tricola take Overall and Best General. The website is not entirely clear which got which, though. The main page lists Adam as Overall winner, but the standings list has Allan at the top. They appear to have also accidentally copy & pasted the GT results at the top of the page of the RT results.

I (Adam Tricola) ended up with Overall in the RTT with my Dark Eldar. :-p

I had been under the impression that painting was the only thing that actually 'counted' in the RTT for overall scoring, so I'm assuming that's why I won, though according to the scores, we had drawn. Not sure what the tiebreaker was, unless it was painting.

/shrug

I'll have full battle reports up on my blog in a few days for all 7 games, as well as some slightly less detailed reports of my mirror match games.

I hope this educates some people. It is the players, not the list.

And there are some of us who've been shouting from the rooftops for years that orks still kick ass, and yet there are still doubters.

Sisters are super good, too. Just not a common army.

Oh well, enough of that. People are free to think what they choose.

Congrats to the winners! Sounds like a great day of 40k and gaming in general.

@walls
a sham event? Come on dude, your free to your opinion but that's more than a little bit of hyperbole.

hyv3mynd wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Internet loudmouths, for the most part, have a distinct lack of real-world performance to back up their words. When you meet them and play against them, you tend to notice that you know quite a few other players as good or better who aren't obnoxious about it.

+1

Then we've got guys like Ben Mohlie who also contributes to the blogosphere without insulting people, gives solid advice, and produces results on the tournament circuit. I'm sure a lot of you are familiar with him, if you arent he: Lead the ETC American Team to 5th overall their first time at the event personally representing the best results on the team, took 3rd overall at DaBoyz GT 2010, 1st overall at Boston Brawl last week, 2nd best general at ATC in May, and now in the top 3 again. If you haven't met him, the guy is always smiling and laughing. A genuine nice guy.

It's also interesting to me that Ben and John W., both American ETC members scored the second highest in sportsmanship.

Dash got the lowest sportsmanship score and several blogs reported on the drama during his 3.5 hour game during round 4. I believe he said he's not batrep'ing this event, but damn I would read that report.

Looks like a good event allthough I would have like to see a bigger spread in painting and sportsmanship. Painting from 24-29 hardly makes it even worth including.

There were issues with time management in at least one game. Taking notes and photographs for battle reports would only have made things worse.

Reecius, perhaps I said it wrong. I can give you that.

However let's be truthful here. Allowing them to play was a pile of bs. They couldn't finish, that's their fault and probably because of constant arguing rules. What about the guys on other tables not going to the can so they finished in time? Should they have been allowed to take a wazz or go have a smoke or go get a sandwich and be allowed extra time? It was a clear lack of leadership and giving in to friends and "net famous" warhammer players. It was COMPLETELY unfair to the rest of the players.

I'd agree that giving one table an extra thirty minutes (or whatever) is egregious. As a tournament judge what do you do in such a circumstance? If you call time and settle the game at that point it could favor the individual slow-playing. So you either call time and award the win to the player not slow-playing, or call it a draw, or give them more time.

Or you state that any table that doesn't make it through X turns will count as a loss for both players.

Redbeard wrote:Or you state that any table that doesn't make it through X turns will count as a loss for both players.

That is an interesting option. I like it.

I could get on board with that Redbeard. Might be something for people to consider Say minimum 4 turns or you both lose?

Redbeard wrote:Or you state that any table that doesn't make it through X turns will count as a loss for both players.

Which is fine, if both players think they can still win. If one player's getting crushed and will lose anyways, he can spite the other guy by slowing the game down, making the guy crushing him lose as well. Allowing players to chipmunk wins as well as sportsmanship out of spite may not be a move forward.

@Sonsoftaurus

Then call a judge over and have them watch the game. Something like that should be extremely obvious so it wouldn't cause any issues. The TO would just need to make sure they had enough staff to properly judge the event which a lot of tournaments have gotten much better about.

Hulksmash wrote:@Sonsoftaurus

Then call a judge over and have them watch the game. Something like that should be extremely obvious so it wouldn't cause any issues. The TO would just need to make sure they had enough staff to properly judge the event which a lot of tournaments have gotten much better about.

Right - and if you already have policies about slow play, you shouldn't need to add an extra one for the same thing.

Someone who slow-plays through a loss in order to spite their opponent should be asked to leave and be blacklisted from future events. Seriously, are we not above this crap?

Can anyone share what the 'horde orks' list was and how 'hordey' was it? Were we talking like 120 models or someone really packing the table with 30*6 and some meat-based other slots?

This slow-play talk sounds like it wasn't slow play... more like game stoppage over rule arguments. There is a difference between playing slow and constantly stopping the game in my book. (not that either are ideal but they are slightly different situations)

If games stopped for 10+ minutes for Judge intervention, then I think it is acceptable for Judges to extend play based on discretion. The game was paused for judge reasons, not because of slow play. If players were just slow or screwing around then no, they should be cut off.

The reason there's a feel of a need for your amendment, Redbeard, is that we are NOT above this crap ... not everyone. Most players even when in an intense game are gentlemen and honest; adding a policy that punishes both players in a slow game is punishing the innocent to go after the guilty.

I think I don't like to second guess organizer decisions here b/c you never fully understand the why.

Last year at the NOVA 2010, in the final round of Day 1, a couple of players had been notorious slow players and aggressive individuals all day; so, knowing this, when the round began we told ALL players to finish their games in entirety, and stationed judges at the repeat trouble-makers' tables. All games went off without a hitch, and the full round finished not much later than it otherwise would have.

I think hard objective punishments are always a tricky thing to put into place for an event like a 40k tournament, b/c they can be so unfairly applied due to infinite variables and aforementioned potential for chipmunking. It's a problem we as TO's are going to perpetually have to deal with, beyond simply blanket blacklisting repetitively known problem children.

DaBoyz GT last year had a 4 turn minimum with 0 battle points if you didn't complete them in 2.5 hours. I don't think a single game between 90 players and 6 rounds earned that penalty.

The Horde Orks were as follows:

Biker Warboss
Biker Warboss
6 Nob Bikers

25 shoota boys on foot
25 shoota boys on foot
25 slugga/choppas on foot
25 slugga/choppas on foot
+1 more of...one of them I think

5x Lootas
5x Lootas
5x Lootas

1x Deffkopta with TL Buzzsaw and Rokkit Launcha

It would appear that I got a 42 for sportsmanship; I believe I had 3-4 great game votes, 2-3 good game votes, and 1 bad game vote; the bad game vote came from David Light; who was rematching me from the final game of the Alamo GT. We only went five turns in two hours without the die for a random turn six, so didn't get to finish. I overheard (his raised voice) arguing with Nick Rose the (head judge?) after the game that it would have turned out differently had we had another turn, but Nick was adamant that he was getting slaughtered, and another turn wouldn't have changed anything.

My game against Russell was actually fun; I saw that BOLS said that we had a lot of rules arguments, but we didn't. What we did have was 2-3 judges at our table consistently. They made rules calls, cover calls, LOS calls...even when we didn't need it. =p That's not a bash, just noting that constant judge injection, combined with two extremely MSU armies, combined with a two hour time limit for a 2,000 point game....is extremely difficult to finish in time. It was nice that they gave us extra time to finish, but it didn't change the end result from when time was called to when we "legitimately" ended.

The troop vs. trueborn venom....my venoms (not converted raiders, but actual venoms) are distinctively marked to avoid confusion about their passengers. It was loud in there, everyone was shouting at each other to be heard, we had MASSIVE amounts of people around our table...and Russell said that he asked if it was a troop venom; I heard trueborn venom. When he wrecked it, trueborn got out - all with blasters. I noted that if there was confusion about it being a troop venom, that would have been a good identifier. The judge kept the ruling because the guys who shot at the trueborn venom didn't have LOS to the troop venom, and wouldn't have been able to melta it anyway.

In terms of his most expensive HQ...is an Inquisitor really more expensive than a pimped out Cannoness? I had relayed that to Hulksmash Saturday night, and he didn't think so.

I lost to Horde Orks 18-12. Capture and Control (primary), Killpoints (secondary)...something else tertiary. We only got through four turns, and the judge at our table noted that we were both playing with superhuman speed. But again; 2,000 points in two hours - especially with OUR armies, with massive amounts of dice to roll on both sides, gigantic assaults and multi-assaults...it is what it is. I would have appreciated another couple turns. He had two depleted ork units left along with a single nob from a third ork unit surviving - I had the guns left to finish removing them, but not the time. We tied primary, he got secondary, and I think we tied tertiary and both got it.

My game against Ben was much fun, if a bit horrifying. He didn't weapon destroy / shake / stun anything....it was wreck/explode every time (in those first three turns), and cover/flickerfields weren't helping. Worse, for the first three turns, I failed EVERY pinning check. Wyches pinned. Trueborn pinned. Warriors pinned.

When I finally got my beasts up into range of combat...they didn't make it. And the following turn, they barely made it - into an assault against a tactical squad already in combat with a lone remaining trueborn, and I caused a grand total of one wound with my beast unit. He did three back, I failed all three 4+ invulnerable saves to lose by two, failed leadership, and ran away with my tail tucked between my legs. Across the whole board for the rest of the game.

Props to him for a good game.

And finally, I didn't bring my camera; I've done so many battle reports lately that I'm completely burned out of doing them. Burned out of 40k actually; we were talking about canceling up to an hour before we left. And it would have been a nightmare to try doing them anyway; the time limits and point values wouldn't have been conducive to taking time to take pictures, so it turned out to have been a wise call after all.

Yeah I really feel if you're going to put together the people and resources to run a 2 day GT event, you really need to allow reasonable time for the paying players to finish their games naturally.

I think 2.5 hours is best at 2,000pts as deployment can often take 20 minutes, especially if the missions aren't standard and both players need time to read and plan.

There's enough stress in building, painting, and traveling to GT's. It would be nice if people weren't losing games to time limits after all the effort everywhere else.

I guess if it were me, I would trade one game so that my other 5-6 games could finish on time. This is especially true in battle point tournaments as you don't need a single undefeated player at the end.

This was the best battle report I have read from dash. Short and to the point, just my style (ask the wife :-))

2 hours is to short for 2k. Some poeple disagree. Save the Battle Report pictures for pickup games. Then you have all the time in the world to get everything done. The Horde Ork player plays here in Chicago and he is a very fast player.

Sadly time limits seem to come up so very often when it comes to GT's and Ard Boyz. I think as a whole organizers need to take note and find a way to up the time limits for these events even if that means forking out more for the entry fee due to longer room rentals etc. Two hours for a 2k gt is just as bad as the 2.5 they give you for 2500 @ Ard Boyz. I decided after last year that unless the time limit is moved up to 3hrs I am finished with Ard Boyz. I am tired of driving 6 hours round trip for the semis and end up having one of the games make it to turn 4 barely. So many people travel for these events and I am sure they would much rather get home a couple hours later than travel all that way to lose a top 3 finish due to time limits ending one of their games prematurely. Biggest hurdle is probably the players though. The problem is that people nitpick every little thing when the prizes get bigger (bragging rights included). People are more prone to pulling the DB card and requiring judge intervention when there is more on the line than just dicing off for questionable cover or LOS issues.

NOTE: The only other time I have had issues with any of my games finishing is against a friend that plays horde Orks in a local tourney, and it was just the once. We only got to the 4th turn however we did have the 3rd turn smoke break that would have been skipped had we checked the time beforehand, but wasn't so the blame lies mostly on us there.

I was the head judge and I made the call for the hour extension on the game. It was simple players in the hour and half-finished only two turns and one of them held their whole army in reserve. With all the rules issues and disputes between the players I intervened. As stated our duty is to make sure games move at a pace where they can be finished. I sat at the table after making the decision and they finish the rest of their turns under an hour as I had the final say in any rules arguments or discussions. Afterwards I gave them a very clear and final warning. Letting them know this will not happen again and if it does I will be removing them from the tournament regardless.

We always reserved the right to give a few extra tables regardless of where they sat in standings extra time because of certain circumstances. We also exercised this right to players who had issues that were out of their control. We do not tolerate slow playing in any way shape or form at our tournament and we have a schedule to adhere too.

Nick Rose
Darkwynn

DarthDiggler wrote:This was the best battle report I have read from dash. Short and to the point, just my style (ask the wife :-))

This. And underplaying the drama, instead of magnifying.

pretre wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:This was the best battle report I have read from dash. Short and to the point, just my style (ask the wife :-))

This. And underplaying the drama, instead of magnifying.

That's the thing though; there wasn't any drama. There usually never is, a few folks just hype it.

Walls wrote:Reecius, perhaps I said it wrong. I can give you that.

However let's be truthful here. Allowing them to play was a pile of bs. They couldn't finish, that's their fault and probably because of constant arguing rules. What about the guys on other tables not going to the can so they finished in time? Should they have been allowed to take a wazz or go have a smoke or go get a sandwich and be allowed extra time? It was a clear lack of leadership and giving in to friends and "net famous" warhammer players. It was COMPLETELY unfair to the rest of the players.

Fair enough, but to declare the entire event a sham based on one thing is going too far. I agree that that was a bad call, at least with what information I have here as an outside observer, but it doesn't negate the entire event. It looks and sounds like it was a fun, big community building event in which hundreds of gamers had a great time.

Dashofpepper wrote:

pretre wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:This was the best battle report I have read from dash. Short and to the point, just my style (ask the wife :-))

This. And underplaying the drama, instead of magnifying.

That's the thing though; there wasn't any drama. There usually never is, a few folks just hype it.

Glad to see we are in agreement. What I was trying to say though was that, in the past, you hyped a bit of it yourself (intentionally or unintentionally) in the way that you wrote your BR's. I'm glad to see that that is not happening here and I appreciate it.

2000pts and 2 hours has potential for unreasonably short games being unfair to some army builds, especially if two armies end up in a perfect storm against each other.

I do like to hear a horde player still playing without people blaming his army comp for slow play. I would hate to see anything deter valid army comp simply due to time issues.

Darkwynn wrote: It was simple players in the hour and half-finished only two turns and one of them held their whole army in reserve.

That does sound rather odd. You would expect those first two turns to fly by.

sonsoftaurus wrote:

Darkwynn wrote: It was simple players in the hour and half-finished only two turns and one of them held their whole army in reserve.

That does sound rather odd. You would expect those first two turns to fly by.

A lot of disputes on reserve rolls?

@Darkwynn

I don't understand the need to threaten with explusion from the event. According to Jwolf both players had finished all their games up to that point so it doesn't seem like intentional slow play was an issue. Just an observation.

pretre wrote:

sonsoftaurus wrote:

Darkwynn wrote: It was simple players in the hour and half-finished only two turns and one of them held their whole army in reserve.

That does sound rather odd. You would expect those first two turns to fly by.

A lot of disputes on reserve rolls?

Curious indeed! How the feth does it take 90 minutes to do two turns with only one army on the table?

Thanks for the news updates and congrats to the winners. I just wanted to chime in on time limits since it was brought up... I would travel to more events in a wider area if there were longer time limits for high point games. 1500 should be 2 hours, 2000 should be 2.5, 2500 should be 3. If you give more than enough time for each round it allows for slow players, slow armies, or rules disputes. It also has a built in motivation of playing efficiently to give yourself more time to have drinks, check on buddies, and just enjoy the event. If time frames were like that I would be much quicker to travel to a wider area for larger tournaments, no one wants to commit large amounts of time and money into something only to walk away wondering what would have happened if they had finished their games.

Cool format for WargamesCon, I will be adding it to my list for 2012. Looking forward to pictures and reports.

We've had some feedback about time to play games from a number of players every year, which has not moved me previously. This year, a couple of things are clear:

1) Both Dark Eldar and Grey Knights shoot a whole lot more than other armies for more game turns, and people generally cannot manage that volume of shooting / saving (Orks with 45 Lootas might shoot a whole lot, but thanks to Ballistic Skill, don't generally involve as much saving, and it's only 3 units, not 5-8+).
2) Both Dark Eldar and Grey Knights have multiple complex issues that can slow down the Assault Phase.

Locally we have a fairly aggressive position finishing games in 2 hours; it is part of the culture of our gaming group, so these changes have resulted in less of an issue amongst local players than are clearly present elsewhere. I don't think that makes us better - we do generally allow a lot more "oops, I forgot to" than other areas, partially to allow games to happen more quickly, which certainly has its good and bad points as well.

We are considering both change of point value and time limits for next year. With the improvements we have in scorekeeping and pairings (thanks, real genius!) our turnaround time for pairings has dropped from ~15 minutes to <2 seconds, so we will have more latitude for getting in that final turn as well.

As to the scoring of Sportsmanship and Painting. This year Sportsmanship was a completely stand-alone score - it did not matter at all for final standings for awards.

Our Painting scores are a scale of 0-30, and are designed to generally have players with fully painted armies at the 24 point range, with only a 6 point variance for quality of painting. We also have a stipulation that unpainted armies are inelligible for winning overall regardless of their performance on the table. This allows players to come and play with unpainted armies, and each year a small number of players do so. We have a player who would have placed in Fantasy last year and the RTT this year, had his army been painted, but did not do so because of painting. This is what I want from painting scores. We also have an award for the best painted and players choice armies, and a seperate painting contest that is free to all tournament players. We mean to encourage players to do their best on painting and bring attractive armies (and we get tons of beautiful armies), but do not mean to duplicate the painting requirements of other fine events. I don't think our decision about this is right or wrong, just different, and I am pleased with the effect of our painting rubric after 3 successful years.

Jwolf, I would generally support a move downward in points to 1850 or so. I managed to finish 5/6 games in two thousand, but I tended to reserve a lot, and am a pretty quick player. My hand to hand with hydra gauntlets, re-rolls, sharnets are a little complicated, so that does slow things down as well. I also fire 45 or so splinter shots a turn, so the rolls to hit, rolls to wound and armor distribution on squads slows things down as well.

BOLS guys.. It was an awesome event. Thanks again for running it.

There were a ton of heavy hitters in attendance and both the RTT and the champions bracket were mine fields.

-paul murphy

A few things after reading this over

--Isn't having 2 or 3 judges at your table a bad thing? Don't you want none, really? If they are all there, obviously there is a problem.

--If sportsmanship isn't part of your scoring, why bother scoring? A favorite opponent vote is easier really. Sportsmanship being a part of scoring would really help some of the issues the tourney has.

--I really don't get how people can't finish in 2 or 2.5 hours. I was thinking the time limit was at max 1.5 hours. And two turns with most held in reserve? Shouldn't those 2 turns take like 5 minutes, not 1.5 hours? Just how much arguing was going on?

--And finally, obviously there was drama. It only takes one side to make it so. I think alot of this is on the TOs allowing slow players extra turns to compensate for rules bickering. THAT is why sportsmanship in scoring is so important.

I am not going to accuse anyone of slow play but part of being a tournament player is finishing in the time scheduled.

Crap happens every once and a while and exceptions can be made BUT the schedule for the rounds were posted in the tournament packet BEFORE the event.

It is the responsiblity of the player to bring a list that he or she thinks they can command within those constraints.

With that said - This is not a jab at Dash.. Just a statement for reference targeted at people who are not 'pros' at tournament play.

Jon, something to consider...

Why not switch tables around? I was on Table #1 for 3-4 games in a row - no variance of terrain. It would be nice if you guys added table assignment to your matrix as well, so that folks can play on different tables.

@Walls: Table #1 always had judges at it, regardless of who was on it.

blood angel wrote:

It is the responsiblity of the player to bring a list that he or she thinks they can command within those constraints.

You mean Arbitrary Army Comp?

Gunlines and pillboxes are more conducive to speedy play. Shifting the meta game by making games unreasonably short for the point value not only construct what people can being, but limit what people can expect to face which means they can load up on even more of the same.

2000 points for 2 hours is as close to standing on the line of unreasonable time limits as you can get. I don't feel people should be prevented from valid armies and valid tactics in a true competative environment due to an arbitrary limit that removes specific builds from the metagame. Especially hard-lined black and white disqualifications. I think it is fair for a judge to allow a legitimate game to go longer but shut down a slow-player or a quibblefest.

Hulk,

Jwolf and I are tied to the hip when we run these events. Justin and Russell finishing their previous games were taken into consideration and Wolf and I discussed this for a while. Issuing the stern warning was warranted considering the situation. In all due respect I am sure other people who were at the event would agree.

Redbeard wrote:Or you state that any table that doesn't make it through X turns will count as a loss for both players.

this is fantastic. 4 turns or you both lose.

Dashofpepper wrote:Jon, something to consider...

Why not switch tables around? I was on Table #1 for 3-4 games in a row - no variance of terrain. It would be nice if you guys added table assignment to your matrix as well, so that folks can play on different tables.

@Walls: Table #1 always had judges at it, regardless of who was on it.

Justin,

This is something we have talked about and will do next year. This was the first year we ran with new scoring software which will allow us to scale in the future. That being said we limited a lot of the features on the software just in case things didn't work.

I just don't think they should have been allowed to play longer at all. I just don't see the correlation with allowing them to play and then saying "But next time your outta here buddy". Either they are slow playing and don't get to finish and should be warned. Or they weren't slow playing and don't need a warning. See what I'm saying?

Don't read me wrong. This was on my list to attend until work concerns kept me from it and it is on my list for next year. And from all indications this was a minor blip that's been blown out of proportion by the internet which happens too. Kudos on an otherwise well run event.

Prodigalson wrote:Jwolf, I would generally support a move downward in points to 1850 or so. I managed to finish 5/6 games in two thousand, but I tended to reserve a lot, and am a pretty quick player. My hand to hand with hydra gauntlets, re-rolls, sharnets are a little complicated, so that does slow things down as well. I also fire 45 or so splinter shots a turn, so the rolls to hit, rolls to wound and armor distribution on squads slows things down as well.

I'm not sure points down or time up or both are the answer, but I appreciate the feedback and you can be sure that after we've had a time to dig through all the round data and feedback from players we will be making some adjustments for 2012.

Great tournament run by a great group of guys. The judges were really helpful as well.

Hulksmash wrote:I just don't think they should have been allowed to play longer at all. I just don't see the correlation with allowing them to play and then saying "But next time your outta here buddy". Either they are slow playing and don't get to finish and should be warned. Or they weren't slow playing and don't need a warning. See what I'm saying?

Don't read me wrong. This was on my list to attend until work concerns kept me from it and it is on my list for next year. And from all indications this was a minor blip that's been blown out of proportion by the internet which happens too. Kudos on an otherwise well run event.

Hulk,

I see what you're saying. I'm going to take this out of the particular game and switch to two players who have now played more than once at WGC. Both guys get along great with other players, and usually leave the table with themselves and their opponents wearing big smiles. When these two play, suddenly the wheels come off and everyone is mad. I mean, red-faced and completely uncharacteristically mad. My point is that sometimes the interaction of two players who might otherwise be great players and/or great guys lines up and the game becomes a mess. There doesn't have to be any drama, any malice, or any bad behavior for this to occur, and it might not even happen the next time the two play. But definitely table 1 game 4 aligned to make a very odd game, and it was Darkwynn's call as chief judge to have the player's extend into the evening break, a call that I support and would support again, for table 1 or table 128 or any table in between. There is no sense having a game end on time because somehow the players got off to a rocky start early in the match, if we have the luxury of time to let them finish, which we did due to the end of the day and the patience of our scorekeepers.

And I 100% agree that we're talking about a minor blip in the scheme of things - how odd that such a thing would be blow out of proportion, but that's what the internet is for, eh?

Still, can anyone explain how they only got two turns done in 90 minutes with one army in reserve? Did they spend half the time on a smoke break?

His deployment took a while - shifting, changing, re-moving. I didn't track time, or note where we were at any particular point in time during the game - I *do* remember that I moved on flat out, but went too far forward, letting him get close enough to dump out some flamers and meltas on me. >< Tactical error on my part.

Holy gak. That's crazy. If deployment takes more than 10 minutes I call a judge.

First of all, I'd like to thank Jwolf and the crew for an amazing tournament.

In regards to the time allowance, I believe there should be the opportunity for the first tables to be able to finish a game to the point of a clear victor. If I recall correctly, the judges gave the whole first 5 tables the chance to finish there game out if they wanted (none did). I believe that there would have been way more complaining if the game would have ended on turn 3 at the time limit because of the lack of a full game, thus screwing over both table one players and the other top contenders.

Seeing Dash play for the first time really illustrated how the internetz can turn someone into a villain. Dash played at a normal pace, and seemed to be very nice and friendly, including inviting his opponents to dinner with him after the game. In fact, the group that dash played seemed to be the ones trying to get a unfriendly response from him, and I felt bad that he was not treated like a proper guest of Texas.

In the end, the tournament was won by an outstanding guy that deserved it. Congrats to all the winners.


-liquid

I am glad the tournament overall went well with minimal issues. The thing with Dash was perpetrated by some sites that are trying to get any sort of outrage at the expense of someone's rep.

Congratulations to all the winners

thehod wrote:I am glad the tournament overall went well with minimal issues. The thing with Dash was perpetrated by some sites that are trying to get any sort of outrage at the expense of someone's rep.

Congratulations to all the winners

Yeah because just random Internet sites are the only ones that ever had a problem with Dash's behavior. I love comments and sites that perpetrate outrage over outrage

I think I might be outraged with the outrage over the outrage about the outrage.

Though, to be fair, no one can out rage me.

hyv3mynd wrote:
Dash got the lowest sportsmanship score and several blogs reported on the drama during his 3.5 hour game during round 4. I believe he said he's not batrep'ing this event, but damn I would read that report.

Color me unsuprised he's not batreping them.

Does anyone know what the foot ork army looked like?

carmachu, might want to read the thread.

Dashofpepper wrote:

In terms of his most expensive HQ...is an Inquisitor really more expensive than a pimped out Cannoness? I had relayed that to Hulksmash Saturday night, and he didn't think so.

Yes. Depends. They both start at 45 points and go up depending on gear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:carmachu, might want to read the thread.

Thanks, I did. I comment as I read.

I thought wargamescon was great! The compeition there was crazy good, I ended up coming in like 16 or something like that losing to Alan (orks 2nd) and the witch hunter player (6th). I am just glad I got to play some of the best players in the country and was able to hold my own, I was even able to beat the guy that came in second last year and a ETC member, which I thought was pretty cool. However the best part about wargamescon was that out of the 10 players from Mississippi (representing The 19th Legion ) 7 of us made the top 20 and we won 2 out of the 4 events, Steve winning the mirror match and Sean winning the GT! Please check out the blog as Karl did an excellent job covering the event and will have/has pictures and interviews with Jwolf, Dash of Pepper, and Space Curves.

On to the controversy, I had no problem with the game extension as both guys were in 1st and 2nd place and the result of that game influence the winners bracket for the next day. So taking time to make sure that the game was played correctly was not that big of deal. The judges and the tournament organizer did an excellent job, hadez the judges were running knocking people over to answer any questions.

As for the lists at the top tables, there were no super duper list that was killing people, the guys at the top used unique list and played them extremely well.

Funny Note
I made this thread Nob Bikers like a week before wargamescon, and guess who beat me when I was on table 2 at the start of day 2? Alan, the ork player that use nob bikers and came in 2nd place.

Liquidice281 wrote:

Seeing Dash play for the first time really illustrated how the internetz can turn someone into a villain. Dash played at a normal pace, and seemed to be very nice and friendly, including inviting his opponents to dinner with him after the game. In fact, the group that dash played seemed to be the ones trying to get a unfriendly response from him, and I felt bad that he was not treated like a proper guest of Texas.

-liquid

I've made some good friends with some of the Texas crowd. The best part of my weekend (there were a lot of good parts) was burying the hatchet with Chris Carlile. I really liked him when I met him the first time, and was mortified at the change in him after the fated judge call at the Alamo. Hopefully I can buy him a beer the next time I see him.

Other highlights included seeing Marc Parker again, catching up with Paul Murphy, meeting some of the other top players whom I've read about but never met.

Interestingly, I had several players tell me Sunday morning that they had overheard different conversations about certain players and a group banding together to try "fixing" their games and slow-playing me to prevent me from winning because I had already "won enough" in Texas. I overheard a couple things myself that I wasn't supposed to - our hobby has more gossip and backstabbing than a highschool girl's locker room, but I ignore it.

And Tasty...there's a small subset of people who have a real issue with me; there are outliers to that subset that take issue with specific things (like the idea of moving then pivoting being illegal). I don't personally believe that a sideways pivot followed by a 1mm move with a DE raider counts as a 1.5" - 2" movement...but I always play to whatever the rules for an event are. That's tangental to the point though - which is that there is a small subset of people who have a real issue with me. The root cause is always the same. There's a larger subset of people who have "heard" about me in a negative light and choose to believe it. Your site is a disservice to the 40k community in how you present information. You have a chunk of readers who profess that I'm the worst thing to ever happen to the hobby, based solely on what you write.

But like I said - I ignore it. Once upon a time, I cared. I tried to defend, explain, correct....it isn't worth the effort. The sensationalist trash you write and the bashing you do on your fellow hobby-mates isn't worth more than a chuckle. But don't start believing your own hate-mongering.

Dash shut it up, and accept who you are, you are the villain of the 40k world. Everyone wants to beat you, embrace that, strike fear into peoples heart by constantly winning. People hear rumours and they say this and that but who cares you know the type of person you are and you are winning and that is all that matters. At the end of the day you are one of the best players in the country and you terrorize people by mention of name alone, so embrace your role as the villain and cause "good" chaos where ever you go!

What would have happened if one of the 2 players did NOT want extra time. How would it have been handled then. Let's say they took Hulk's stance that the end is the end and it's not fair for others.

Why be concern with would have happen?

I'm just looking for a understanding on what the judges were thinking. What if's are good at helping future events plan ahead.

Here are a few thoughts about War Games Con:
I enjoyed everything about Wargames Con except the drive home (car breakdown+flat tire).

The first year I did not go because I thought 2000 points in 2 hours was unreasonable. Then last year I took a small and elite chaos space marine army and I did not do so well because there were no KP missions, and it was all objective based missions. This year I took a small Grey Knight Terminator army and I finished all of my games about 30 minute early except for a game against Tyranids that we had to hustle to get to the bottom of turn #4 and Orks that barely got to the bottom of 5. There are armies out there that either have a ton of models, or throw a ton of dice and they just take longer to play. When you have to count out a ton of dice, roll them, (then a lot of times re-roll them) and then roll to wound (and sometimes re-roll those) and then distribute the wounds out among the squad, and then take the saves (and sometime re-roll those) and then multiply that by 6 units it takes a long time to play. I wonder how many of the horde/DE players finished their games.

It was nice to see Dash take a step up in class. There were a lot of heavy hitters at the WGC and he held his own.

I, on the other hand, did not do so well. I will post up my bat reps later in the week. I only have pictures though a quarter of the way through game #3 when I had a meltdown caused by my dice. Funny thing is that I was going to buy new dice before leaving, and I forgot to, so I asked JWolf if he will have a vender there selling dice, and they did, but they were the small white GW dice when I needed some blue dice. I knew my dice were plotting against me and they stabbed my in the back when I played Ben (Space Curves) and sabotaged me regularly through the weekend.

I believe their decision to let them play was in the best interest of the tournament. Their final overall score after that game would effect who would be in the winners bracket, so instead of having a controversial short game winner they decided to extend the game length so that there was a true winner and thus a true winners bracket.

So what were the placings?

Yeah aside from the final tables.

Anyone got the top 20 by codexes?

http://www.wargamescon.com/2011/07/warhammer-40k-grand-tournament.html#more

Don't know why they don't have codices listed; people are always curious.

By the way, I really liked the mirror match.

Although the armies were some-what underpowered, the use of Sicarious was nice because it let you do some personal tailoring.

Next year I will get in some practice with these “Space Marines” since this was the first time that I have ever played that codex.

I will beat you yet Ben Mohlie!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:http://www.wargamescon.com/2011/07/warhammer-40k-grand-tournament.html#more

Don't know why they don't have codices listed; people are always curious.

Shawn Lowrey Mixed bag Dark Eldar
Alan Bajramovic Horde Orls
Ben Mohlie Vulcan Space Marines
Matthew Baugh
Jonathan Willingham Space Wolves
Joseph Cherry Mixed bag Grey Knights
Russell Adams Sisters of Battle
Casey Christopher
Paul Murphy Blood Angels
marc parker Battlewagon Orls
Justin Hilderbrandt Venom heavy Dark Eldar
Will Ferguson
Michael Strange Inquisition heavy Grey Knights
Sean Frackowiak
Chandler Lee
Steve Martino Stealer Shock Tyranids
Chad Knight
David Light
Sean Williams
Adam Cortez
Bradford Robinson
Jeremy Yates
Andy Graham
Leslie Donaldson
Kenny Boucher Bloodcrusher Demons
John Cook
Brian Ellis
Bryce Alexander
Hank Edley Strike Squad heavy Grey Knights
JR West
Brian Poole I forgot what Brain brought…Blood Angels?
John Green

I really wanna see this Sisters list.

Walls wrote:I really wanna see this Sisters list.

Hq
Inquisitor Lord Psychic Hood
3xWarrior meltagun
Rhino

Canooness Book of St.Lucius Cloak of St.Aspira Jump pack Melta bombs eviscerator

Troop
10x Battle Sisters flamer heavy flamer veteran sister book of st.lucius brazier of holy fire eviscerator rhino Extra av

10x Battle Sisters flamer heavy flamer veteran sister book of st.lucius brazier of holy fire eviscerator rhino Extra av

10x Battle Sisters 2xflamers veteran sister book of st.lucius brazier of holy fire eviscerator rhino extra av

10x Battle Sisters 2xflamers veteran sister book of st.lucius brazier of holy fire eviscerator rhino extra av

Fast Attack
5x Dominion Squad 3x Melta guns Rhino extra av

5x Dominion Squad 3x Melta guns Rhino extra av

Heavy Support
Exorcist

Exorcist

Exorcist

Brought to you by The 19th Legion!

I played the list and it was good the main problem I had was trying to eliminate the exorcist. The model was able to hide behind the rhinos and target almost everything with little to no return fire because the only thing you could see were the pipes, and I didnt know if the pipes counted as the turret (which you can target) or a vehicle gun barrel ( something you cannot target). Besides that the game was excellent he was able to Divide Guide his flamers and kill Mephiston and my assault terminators. I really havent had a chance to look at all the list I played and digest the tactics used against me, but one of the cool things Russel Adams was able to do with this list is choose to keep his units stubborn with the book of st.lucius for one turn, then turn it off and lose combat so he can flame you with another unit.

Yeah I'm not so sure the sisters will keep the book, which is one of the VERY main things that makes them so competitive. They tend to lose close combats they get into, even if they can create 3+ invul saves to stall. That and being I3 without ATSKNF means they'd get chased down a lot, too, if they didn't have the option to be stubborn. We'll see what the new WD codex brings.


As for the tournament I did have a BLAST and had lots of great games [even one against my own WIFE, how cruel is that?], but I thought dice down should have been dice F'ing DOWN, because the tournament packet on the internet said there would be NO exceptions. I'm fine with letting table 1 play on, maybe even the top few tables - but specify that in the tournament write-up so people know what to expect. Nobody wants to give up 1st place and think "if only I could have finished that turn" or even "if only he'd rolled those seventeen armor saves on that one model that kept me from winning". These tables decide the tournament and should be played out.

But if you advertise dice down as dice down, it should be so. I went from a primary win, secondary tie, tertiary win to a primary loss, secondary tie and tertiary loss because dice-down was not enforced on my table either, and we were made to play out the last turn. With only slightly over a minute left I allowed him to start his turn instead of saying "we won't be able to finish both, so it's over", thinking there wasn't enough time for anything significant to happen. One shooting phase later, everything was different.

My opinion is that 2 hours is not enough for the game. There was very little time between matches [honestly, a good thing] but that meant lots of tables didn't even have their opponents present until about 10 minutes in. Between packing up from the previous game [which went RIGHT to the time limit almost every time], finding out my standing, going back to grab my army, moving to my table amidst the FLURRY of others doing the same, exchanging army lists, reading the scenario....

Almost all of my games were having the 30 minutes have passed warning before the second half of the first turn had even started. I'm not a slow player, and I'm a tournament veteran, and time has NEVER been an issue for me except for this tournament. I'd much rather 6 games at 2.5 hours than 7 at 2 each, and I'm comfortable with the 2k limit, rather then lowering it to 1850.


But again, all in all a very fun tournament and for the post a few above mine, I'm Brian Ellis, I finished 27th, and I played counts-as Slaaneshi Blood Angels [DoA with predator support].

A big thanks out to the WargamesCon crew for putting on a great event. I was glad to finally after a few years of attempting to get down there make it!

Additionally, thanks to all my opponents over the weekend. Allan it was great to finally play a game after all these years. I went into the weekend without a whole lot of expectations. I do not get an opportunity to play like I once did. It showed with some costly mistakes, and it definitely took a while to knock all the rust off my game. Making the cut to Sunday was an unexpected bonus to just getting in some games and drinking beer with some long time friends.

-Hank

Updated the list with what I could remember...


Shawn Lowrey Mixed bag Dark Eldar
Alan Bajramovic Horde Orls
Ben Mohlie Vulcan Space Marines
Matthew Baugh – Imperial Guard
Jonathan Willingham Space Wolves
Joseph Cherry Mixed bag Grey Knights
Russell Adams Sisters of Battle
Casey Christopher
Paul Murphy Blood Angels
marc parker - Battlewagon Orks
Justin Hilderbrandt - Venom heavy Dark Eldar
Will Ferguson – Space Wolves
Michael Strange - Inquisition heavy Grey Knights
Sean Frackowiak
Chandler Lee
Steve Martino Stealer Shock Tyranids
Chad Knight
David Light
Sean Williams
Adam Cortez – Space Marines
Bradford Robinson
Jeremy Yates
Andy Graham
Leslie Donaldson
Kenny Boucher Bloodcrusher Demons
John Cook
Brian Ellis
Bryce Alexander - Imperial Guard
Hank Edley - Strike Squad heavy Grey Knights
JR West - Orks
Brian Poole – Blood Angels
John Green

If I can fill in a bit on your list from what I remember:

Sean Williams: Space Wolves (razorfang spam)
David Light: Blood Angels (Predator/Razor spam)
Adam Cortez: Khan/Cassius Vanilla Marines
John Cook: Chaos Marines (9x Obliterators, 2x Plague Marines, 2x Undivided, 2x DPs)
John Green: Scatterlaser heavy Mechdar

Just helping with the list a bit.

Chandler Lee - Grey Knights (Strike Squads and Paladin Unit)
David Light - Blood Angels (Mech)
Chad Knight - Blood Angels (Mech and Mephiston)

Chandler and I had an awesome game in the 7th round on table 7, which was a blast, it was the last round of the day and neither of us were in the runner so we just had a blast. Chad beat my face in round 3 I believe. I couldn't get to Mephiston early enough and he went on a reunion tour of my army, eating 3 squads of Grey Hunters, my poor Run Priest who I needed to shut him down ran off the board round 2 with a failed leadership test *note to self one auto cannon dreadnought is all you need to take out a Rune Priest and Long Fang Squad.

muwhe wrote:A big thanks out to the WargamesCon crew for putting on a great event. I was glad to finally after a few years of attempting to get down there make it!

Additionally, thanks to all my opponents over the weekend. Allan it was great to finally play a game after all these years. I went into the weekend without a whole lot of expectations. I do not get an opportunity to play like I once did. It showed with some costly mistakes, and it definitely took a while to knock all the rust off my game. Making the cut to Sunday was an unexpected bonus to just getting in some games and drinking beer with some long time friends.

-Hank

It was nice to see you play for once

I had a fun game with you even though your storm raven would not die! I ended up pushing you into the championship bracket while I swam in the kiddy pool. I know how to play against Grey Knights now. Grey Knight-on-Grey knight games are brutal because of psych out grenades.

Updated list:
Shawn Lowrey Mixed bag Dark Eldar
Alan Bajramovic Horde Orls
Ben Mohlie Vulcan Space Marines
Matthew Baugh – Imperial Guard
Jonathan Willingham Space Wolves
Joseph Cherry Mixed bag Grey Knights
Russell Adams Sisters of Battle
Casey Christopher
Paul Murphy Blood Angels
marc parker - Battlewagon Orks
Justin Hilderbrandt - Venom heavy Dark Eldar
Will Ferguson – Space Wolves
Michael Strange - Inquisition heavy Grey Knights
Sean Frackowiak
Chandler Lee Grey Knights (Strike Squads and Paladin Unit)
Steve Martino Stealer Shock Tyranids
Chad Knight Blood Angels (Mech and Mephiston)
David Light Blood Angels (Predator/Razor spam)
Sean Williams Space Wolves (razorfang spam)
Adam Cortez – Khan/Cassius Vanilla Marines
Bradford Robinson
Jeremy Yates
Andy Graham
Leslie Donaldson
Kenny Boucher Bloodcrusher Demons
John Cook Chaos Marines (9x Obliterators, 2x Plague Marines, 2x Undivided, 2x DPs)
Brian Ellis
Bryce Alexander - Imperial Guard
Hank Edley - Strike Squad heavy Grey Knights
JR West - Orks
Brian Poole – Blood Angels
John Green Scatterlaser heavy Mechdar

What was the size of the 40k field (approximate is fine)?

Just curious, as I'm not too familiar with wargamescon! Congrats to the winners and everyone involved, maybe one of these years I'll fly down!

Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:What would have happened if one of the 2 players did NOT want extra time. How would it have been handled then. Let's say they took Hulk's stance that the end is the end and it's not fair for others.

This exact thing did happen, as one guy (Cheezeburger) was happy to complain about. He was furious that Dash and his opponent got to keep playing, when his game ended. But once you got the story out of him, you found out he asked a judge for extra time, the judge asked his opponent if he would like to play another turn, and his opponent said no (because he was winning, and would have gone to a draw or loss). So, I don't blame CB's opponent at all for doing the smart thing and ending the game per the tournament rules.

Personally, I had a great time. I went 3-3-1, placed 36th in the RTT, which I think makes 60th overall. I picked up 5 "Great" ratings for sportsmanship, which I'm really happy about, and am looking forward to going again next year.

I do feel that the time limit is too restrictive. I'm playing a Kan Wall with 119 models on the table, and even plopping stuff down as fast as I can, my setup was running around 12-15 minutes. I only had one game not go to completion, however, so I feel I played quickly enough once things got going. That one game was against another ork army with a large model count.

I met a bunch of great people, had a really good time, and definately feel like I got my money's worth out of it.

I dream of running a horde ork army (6x 30 boyz, etc), but I don't see it happening in the current tournament environment. It just takes too long to move that much stuff.

*edit* This is Alexander Williams, if anyone was curious.

Spellbound wrote:
But if you advertise dice down as dice down, it should be so. I went from a primary win, secondary tie, tertiary win to a primary loss, secondary tie and tertiary loss because dice-down was not enforced on my table either, and we were made to play out the last turn. With only slightly over a minute left I allowed him to start his turn instead of saying "we won't be able to finish both, so it's over", thinking there wasn't enough time for anything significant to happen. One shooting phase later, everything was different.

Everyone should finish the game turn and you should not have it so that one player gets an extra player turn. If you are saying that you started a new game turn with one minute left that is wrong.

No, I let HIM start a player turn with a minute left. And when dice down was called no judge asked me if I wanted to continue like in josh's game, he just said "play it out". I think, though, he may have come into it thinking the man that asked was the bottom of the turn, and not that he had just started it.

Thus, to avoid this in the future, the games should be 2.5 hours and dice down be undisputable. If they want table 1 to have extra time habitually, state that in the tournament writeup.

Yeah, I have to agree.

What were the scores of the two people directly below the people at table one? Did not enforcing "dice down" screw them out of a better placing?

A couple more I can speak for:

Bradford Robinson - Blood Angels
Brian Ellis - Blood Angels (of Slaanesh?)

Leslie Donaldson had blood angels with 3 units of vanguard. Impressive he made it as far as he did.

Does anyone know the winning Dark Eldar list? It looked extremely unconventional, Id really like to know what it was.

The field was in the high 140s, I can't remember the exact number but callin 150 is probably fair.

Dashofpepper wrote:If I can fill in a bit on your list from what I remember:

Sean Williams: Space Wolves (razorfang spam)
David Light: Blood Angels (Predator/Razor spam)
Adam Cortez: Khan/Cassius Vanilla Marines
John Cook: Chaos Marines (9x Obliterators, 2x Plague Marines, 2x Undivided, 2x DPs)
John Green: Scatterlaser heavy Mechdar

Hi, Sean Williams here, I was running mech Blood Angels w/Mephiston. I believe Dash mixed up my list with a previous list that I ran at a local tourney.

Any idea what the mixed bag dark eldar that took it out looked like?
I've been helping a friend with various DE lists recently, and am curious how off the mark we were :>

Here is a link to the DE list that got overall

http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/WargamesCon-Shawn-Lowrey-Best-Overall-Dark-Eldar.pdf

Never a dull moment at these bigger games.

Looking at the partial top 20, Orks did mighty fine again... I dont know why some people think Orks is bad, I see the codex as atleast tier1, and not to mention 4 Ork lists made it to the final 16 at Adepticon.

I am not surprised seeing mostly BA, DE, Orks, GK, IG and SW in the top 20. Although Salamander are still kicking butt like a tier1 list. I doubt no matter how skilled a player is, if he/she plays a weak codex like Tau/Necron they will get hampered severly sooner or later especially at a major tournament. The competitions are just too great and these tier3 codexes are just too unforgiving even on minor mistakes.

Yes, I ran Slaaneshi Blood Angels for counts-as.

Is there a source where we can see what more of the lists were? There are several i would love to have a look at. I have read that a daemon player did pretty well with a khorne themed list. Id also love to see the ork lists as well.

jwolf wrote:
We are considering both change of point value and time limits for next year. With the improvements we have in scorekeeping and pairings (thanks, real genius!) our turnaround time for pairings has dropped from ~15 minutes to <2 seconds, so we will have more latitude for getting in that final turn as well.

Yeah the GK and DE have pretty high volume shooting now. I was thinking that it would all work out alot better with just 15 more minutes per round. If pairing takes literally 2 seconds then how about just do 140 or 145 minutes and then the next round in 10 or 5. If the max is 2 hours then even I who refuse to play anything but 2k would be willing to play something as low as 1750. Of course this would be unpopular but it would be a good idea if time couldn't be found.

Things I want just a little more time for:

1) I just want the time to relax. I did rush a bit here and there afraid games would end on time.

2) Chat just a little bit. I didn't engage my opponents in any conversation that wasn't pertinent to the game state moving forward.

3) I had one game end on time at the bottom of 5. We had 10 minutes left, my opponent was on their last legs and he really didn't want to start a new turn. If I had time I would have gotten a 30 instead of a 17(wouldn't have saved me, I shacked up with quite a few pooches at WGC). I haven't had a game end on time in a very long time.

A suggestion on RGL. I really like turn 6 RGL, roll 4+ for 7. It does the same thing as GW RGL but as someone who has had countless games end on turn 5 at major events and had to look longingly at a clock with 30 or more minutes on it then back at a table with so much fewer models then when the game started, the GW RGL sucks. Mike Walsh has been doing it at tournaments at his store and he says everyone loves it.

Blackmoor wrote:
Sean Frackowiak - Grey Knights
John Cook Chaos Marines (9x Obliterators, 2x Plague Marines, 2x Undivided, 2x DPs)- actually was Imperial Guard

I have to agree with Shinkaze above.

Random game length ending on turn 5 is crap. It is an unfortunate rule that GW has saddled us with.

hyv3mynd wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Internet loudmouths, for the most part, have a distinct lack of real-world performance to back up their words. When you meet them and play against them, you tend to notice that you know quite a few other players as good or better who aren't obnoxious about it.

+1

Then we've got guys like Ben Mohlie who also contributes to the blogosphere without insulting people, gives solid advice, and produces results on the tournament circuit. I'm sure a lot of you are familiar with him, if you arent he: Lead the ETC American Team to 5th overall their first time at the event personally representing the best results on the team, took 3rd overall at DaBoyz GT 2010, 1st overall at Boston Brawl last week, 2nd best general at ATC in May, and now in the top 3 again. If you haven't met him, the guy is always smiling and laughing. A genuine nice guy.

It's also interesting to me that Ben and John W., both American ETC members scored the second highest in sportsmanship.

Dash got the lowest sportsmanship score and several blogs reported on the drama during his 3.5 hour game during round 4. I believe he said he's not batrep'ing this event, but damn I would read that report.

Looks like a good event allthough I would have like to see a bigger spread in painting and sportsmanship. Painting from 24-29 hardly makes it even worth including.

Ben might just be the nicest guy on the planet to completely beat your face in on the table and make you walk away feeling ok, he is just that good.

Some friends and I where trying to help one of our local stores get going after failed ownership ran things into the ground. Grimwulfe (slated to play Dash at NOVA at the whiskey challenge) reached out to several area gaming clubs and players to come help us kick things off with a solid 2k event. Ben and some friends came and gave great credibility to an already tough field in the SE New England tournament scene. Ben was on table one in round three against Jeff H from Da'boyz and Ben won and was as gracious and thankful of a 40k player as I ever met.

A great guy who I personally will never be surprised to see win.

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, I have to agree.

What were the scores of the two people directly below the people at table one? Did not enforcing "dice down" screw them out of a better placing?

The answer is no. They played a full game of 40k and who won, won.

Updated list:

Shawn Lowrey -Mixed bag Dark Eldar
Alan Bajramovic -Horde Orls
Ben Mohlie -Vulcan Space Marines
Matthew Baugh – Imperial Guard
Jonathan Willingham -Space Wolves
Joseph Cherry -Mixed bag Grey Knights
Russell Adams -Sisters of Battle
Casey Christopher
Paul Murphy -Blood Angels
marc parker - Battlewagon Orks
Justin Hilderbrandt - Venom heavy Dark Eldar
Will Ferguson – Space Wolves
Michael Strange - Inquisition heavy Grey Knights
Sean Frackowiak -Grey Knights
Chandler Lee -Grey Knights (Strike Squads and Paladin Unit)
Steve Martino -Stealer Shock Tyranids
Chad Knight -Blood Angels (Mech and Mephiston)
David Light -Blood Angels (Predator/Razor spam)
Sean Williams -Blood Angels w/Mephiston
Adam Cortez – Khan/Cassius Vanilla Marines
Bradford Robinson -Blood Angels
Jeremy Yates
Andy Graham
Leslie Donaldson -Blood angels with 3 units of vanguard
Kenny Boucher -Bloodcrusher Demons
John Cook -Imperial Guard
Brian Ellis -Blood Angels
Bryce Alexander - Imperial Guard
Hank Edley - Strike Squad heavy Grey Knights
JR West - Orks
Brian Poole – Blood Angels
John Green -Scatterlaser heavy Mechdar

A major concern with giving extra time (in this case alot of extra time) is that people have real lives they need to get back to. Work and school pick up monday morning. Planes need to be caught and night-time roadtrips back home are planned on a reasonable end time.
Now you've just added 2 hours delay into the mix, especially for someone who may be near enough to the top that they may be in the running for something or those who may not want to leave until all the awards are presented and applause given.

2hrs at 2k points. That can be a tough limit even for 2 mech armies. Try either 2 hrs at 1750 points or 2.5 hrs at 2k.

As for all the time wasted on arguing rules...this was the top table. Your trying to tell us the 2 top players didn't know the rules? Or couldn't work them out in a timely manner? And did this "unfamiliarity with the rules" have any effects on the previous games (like creating a tactical advantage that gave them a win when they normally would have lost or drawn)?

If it was that much of a cluster (especially due to the players arguing) time should have been called, give them both a draw score (or even a DQ score of 0), pull them aside and tell them to act like grownups the next time.

Blackmoor wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, I have to agree.

What were the scores of the two people directly below the people at table one? Did not enforcing "dice down" screw them out of a better placing?

The answer is no. They played a full game of 40k and who won, won.

They didn't do it in the allotted time, though, like everybody else did. Or if other people didn't finish, they didn't get extra time. I just think extending the time for one table is going to be viewed as unfair, particularly when it is only done because of constant rules disputes. I've always been under the impression that being able to finish you games under the time limit was part of being a tournament player.

dkellyj wrote:

As for all the time wasted on arguing rules...this was the top table. Your trying to tell us the 2 top players didn't know the rules? Or couldn't work them out in a timely manner? And did this "unfamiliarity with the rules" have any effects on the previous games (like creating a tactical advantage that gave them a win when they normally would have lost or drawn)?

As I've said repeatedly now, there *wasn't* a bunch of rules arguments on the top table.

Dashofpepper wrote:

dkellyj wrote:

As for all the time wasted on arguing rules...this was the top table. Your trying to tell us the 2 top players didn't know the rules? Or couldn't work them out in a timely manner? And did this "unfamiliarity with the rules" have any effects on the previous games (like creating a tactical advantage that gave them a win when they normally would have lost or drawn)?

As I've said repeatedly now, there *wasn't* a bunch of rules arguments on the top table.

Darkwynn said that there was.

Darkwynn wrote:I was the head judge and I made the call for the hour extension on the game. It was simple players in the hour and half-finished only two turns and one of them held their whole army in reserve. With all the rules issues and disputes between the players I intervened. As stated our duty is to make sure games move at a pace where they can be finished. I sat at the table after making the decision and they finish the rest of their turns under an hour as I had the final say in any rules arguments or discussions. Afterwards I gave them a very clear and final warning. Letting them know this will not happen again and if it does I will be removing them from the tournament regardless.

Actually, having re-read this post I withdraw my criticism of allowing the time extension. The guy was the judge, he made a call.

Monster Rain wrote:

Darkwynn said that there was.

There was always a judge on table #1, and a couple more floating around the top row - so instead of the normal cover resolutions, etc...we always had a judge call. As far as rules disputes, we didn't have any.

There tended to be a lot of disrespect for the judges. I had a friend call a judge over for an LOS ruling. He got down and made the call.....and my friend's opponent argued with him! "No man, no way, it's less than half, no cover...."

I thought "really? Argue with the judge?"

Dashofpepper wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Darkwynn said that there was.

There was always a judge on table #1, and a couple more floating around the top row - so instead of the normal cover resolutions, etc...we always had a judge call. As far as rules disputes, we didn't have any.

Darkwynn wrote:I was the head judge and I made the call for the hour extension on the game. It was simple players in the hour and half-finished only two turns and one of them held their whole army in reserve. With all the rules issues and disputes between the players I intervened.

I'll leave it alone now, I just want to make sure to point out the discrepancy here. It would appear that someone is fibbing.

if I was allowed to continue a game to a finish, even if time was call and I was winning. I would play it out.
I don't go to events to win, I go for good games. so if a player and his opponents agreed to finish and were allowed to by the judges that is fine. I don't see how that is unfair to the other tables unless it delayed the event.

So much drama over little plastic men... lol.

Interesting winning lists! I agree; its the player, not the list, that wins it. That DE list is definitely unique!

I think that the extra time didn't matter since it didn't delay the event and this was a special case. Alot of the negativity about this would be justified if it was a random occurence for no reason or if it could happen at anytime. There were good reasons for the ruling.

Though if neither of them wanted to play anymore because they hate playing each other then I find it highly amusing that they were forced to continue.

Oh I forgot to mention I reviewed the tournament on my blog.

Spellbound wrote:There tended to be a lot of disrespect for the judges. I had a friend call a judge over for an LOS ruling. He got down and made the call.....and my friend's opponent argued with him! "No man, no way, it's less than half, no cover...."

I thought "really? Argue with the judge?"

Oh, that is part of the judge training we do. The player that needs a judge, but then argues after the call. Our training is to minimally interact with that behavior: "That's my call, proceed with the game," or something to that effect. It seems to work. And we get that every year; it's practically a given (people who don't understand LOS often have difficulty accepting the facts on the table).

I had that exact thing happen at the table this year, and afterwards the arguing guy actually stopped to listen to his opponent and understood how he was completely wrong in the situation, which works out well.

Brian,

Wolf and I are looking at times now. We might go to 135 minutes and 1850 but that is still up in the air. We need to review the data first.

No conspiracy Monster Rain. =p Nick was overseeing a lot of tables. There was quite a bit of arguing going on Table #1 during some of the games; ours had plenty of judge injection, but not for rules disputes. Feel free to ask Nick for more details. The only two "disputes" we had were mission related, not rule related.

I just wanted to say my experience was very fun and enjoyable. Never did I witness anyone arguing with judges. Everytime they were eager to jump to help and either make an immediate ruling or take the time to look up more obscure rules. All of my opponents were fun and challenging, particularly Sean Lowery, whom I had the misfortune of playing. A truely standup guy, who deserved to win. The guy even had beautiful craters for his vehicles the exact shape of their profile.

The time limit was just a little rushed I thought. I managed to finish all but one game, but a couple would not have if it hadn't ended on turn 5 anyway... There was no time for chit chat unfortunately, which I find is integral in creating a more laid back atmosphere for both players.

A special thanks to John, Nick, Thomas and everyone else there that made all of it happen. I got to meet and play Crazy Red Praetorian which was really fun. One of the few games we actually got to sneak in some chit chat about our gaming lives and I'd like to say he was a super fun opponent.

I played descent of angels with 3 predators, and my name is Casey Christopher. I believe I got 8th...

Also wanted to give a shout out to Spikey Bitz for filling a much needed hole this year. Lots of people appreciated the vendor effect, it appeared to me.

Look forward to next year.

I think the time limit is fine and the random turn length is fine aswell. If you are setting yourself up to win on turn 6 then you are taking that 33% chance of losing. All of these people jumping on the I could of or would of won time train is not neccessary.

I think 5th ed random game length is fine. Every once in a while you feel like the armies haven't properly gotten to grips, but most of the time the possibility of a turn 5 ending just forces you to play a little more aggressively.

Two hours is too short for 2000pts, though. I play fast, but some armies just move too many models and throw too many dice to make that work, except in those perfect situations where both players are highly experienced, efficient, and knowledgeable both of each other's rules and the mission.

Even if they are, that leaves NO time for chatting and being sociable unless you're both playing small mechanized armies. One of the absolute best parts of Throne of Skulls in Vegas was having 2.5hr rounds for 1500pts. You could really play a properly thoughtful and relaxed game, talking with and getting to know your opponent as you beat each other up, and not having to sprint from table to table between rounds. It made for an extremely enjoyable experience. That said, I also love getting a ton of games in a weekend. I haven't been to WGC yet, but I've been doing Adepticon for five years and that's an exhausting but wonderful marathon of gaming action.

2:15 and 1750 or 1850 should be more workable. I support that.

Spellbound wrote:There tended to be a lot of disrespect for the judges. I had a friend call a judge over for an LOS ruling. He got down and made the call.....and my friend's opponent argued with him! "No man, no way, it's less than half, no cover...."

I thought "really? Argue with the judge?"

Wow using judges for los calls, its sad that I had never thought of that. I am totally going to tell my lgs tourney judge about that. I usually never have a problem but when you do that 3rd party person would be awesome.

I've seen that a lot of places. Whether you use a formal judge or not, often having a third party check LOS is a nice easy way to resolve a disagreement if you and your opponent don't see it the same way.

mtgbob wrote:Here is a link to the DE list that got overall

http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/WargamesCon-Shawn-Lowrey-Best-Overall-Dark-Eldar.pdf

I hate to sound crass, but how did this guy win first place? I don't mean it bad, but this is such a random mish-mash of everything available in the codex. Further, I find it hard to imagine that there are enough targets to justify Incubi, 3 Wych squads, and a unit of Wracks.

Isn't the fact that he won justification enough?

There's no magical list that makes you win games. Player skill is a much larger factor.

That list is not at all random. If it looks so to you, then you need more practice.

Monster Rain wrote:Isn't the fact that he won justification enough?

There's no magical list that makes you win games. Player skill is a much larger factor.

Player skill can't account for everything. Unless I'm horribly mistaken, he has 12 Dark Lances and 1 Blaster. 6 of those Dark Lances are spread across 2 Ravagers and the Raiders will very likely be going Flat Out with Enhanced Aethersails. Haywire Grenades are nice, but I would hardly rely on them for anti-tank.

I'm curious as to what armies he faced. Also, I still find it hard to imagine that he needs 5 close combat units.

Those Wracks aren't really a close combat unit. They're a dirt cheap scoring unit/haemonc bodyguard, from the looks of them.

One advantage of having that many scoring units is that he can afford to throw a squad or two of Wyches away Haywiring important vehicles.

Mannahnin wrote:Those Wracks aren't really a close combat unit. They're a dirt cheap scoring unit/haemonc bodyguard, from the looks of them.

One advantage of having that many scoring units is that he can afford to throw a squad or two of Wyches away Haywiring important vehicles.

I suppose. Many of the missions did have KPs as well.

I'm just curious as to who he faced and how he employed the list, because I can't quite wrap my head around it. To be fair, my mentality is generally, "Shoot it until it's dead, then shoot it once more for good measure." It would just seem to me that he would be exposing very fragile units (FnP or not) to a torrent of return fire after attempting to stop an enemy tank, which is very dice-based.

A reply such as, "HE'S GOOD! THAT'S HOW HE WON!" hardly accounts for tactics, opponent's armies, dice rolls, etc. I appreciate your more serious response though.

Wolf 11x wrote:A reply such as, "HE'S GOOD! THAT'S HOW HE WON!" hardly accounts for tactics, opponent's armies, dice rolls, etc. I appreciate your more serious response though.

No one said that though.

You asked for "justification", not any of those other things. He won a tournament against a field of extremely tough competitors. That is, to me, justification.

The guy demolished Marc Parker for starters. You may not know that name, but tourney players at that level do. Marc has more GT wins than anyone else. No easy feat to destroy him.

Darkness wrote:The guy demolished Marc Parker for starters. You may not know that name, but tourney players at that level do. Marc has more GT wins than anyone else. No easy feat to destroy him.

The current Dark Eldar have a heavy advantage against Orks to start with.

jwolf wrote:

Prodigalson wrote:Jwolf, I would generally support a move downward in points to 1850 or so. I managed to finish 5/6 games in two thousand, but I tended to reserve a lot, and am a pretty quick player. My hand to hand with hydra gauntlets, re-rolls, sharnets are a little complicated, so that does slow things down as well. I also fire 45 or so splinter shots a turn, so the rolls to hit, rolls to wound and armor distribution on squads slows things down as well.

I'm not sure points down or time up or both are the answer, but I appreciate the feedback and you can be sure that after we've had a time to dig through all the round data and feedback from players we will be making some adjustments for 2012.

I had a great time, but I have to confess the only part of the event I did not like was the time limits on games. I managed to finish all but the first two games I played (had to adjust to the revised focus), but we simply stopped after turn five on all but the last game because there was not time left. There was almost never any chance of us completing a turn 6 whether we wanted to or not. To me the rush to make sure you completed everything as fast as possible detracted from the overall experience, but that's me. Also, I know you got pairings up in good time, but they were never posted with more than 10 min to get to a table, get set up, choose deployment, etc. (and I kept track of all of them). *ALL* the games lost actual playing time due to things that IMO should be completed before calling start. Personally I think all of that could be solved by dropping the points to 1850 if you are going to continue with the 7-game, 30 min break format. There are too many armies out there who just end up rolling a boatload of dice and thus take more time than smaller, more elite armies do. If I were to attend next year and the point values aren't dropped downward (or you give people more than 10 min to get everything moved/setup/etc.) then the only way I will be there is if I bring the smallest army I can.

Note that this does not mean I didn't enjoy myself, I did. However, I do think the "race to the finish" methodology leaves a bit to be desired. Some folks may like it, but I can't say I am one of them.

Cheers, Gary

Heffling wrote:

Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:What would have happened if one of the 2 players did NOT want extra time. How would it have been handled then. Let's say they took Hulk's stance that the end is the end and it's not fair for others.

This exact thing did happen, as one guy (Cheezeburger) was happy to complain about. He was furious that Dash and his opponent got to keep playing, when his game ended. But once you got the story out of him, you found out he asked a judge for extra time, the judge asked his opponent if he would like to play another turn, and his opponent said no (because he was winning, and would have gone to a draw or loss).

Sup Heff, that's not why his opponent said no. I don't think they were offered extra time though. Cheezeburger was likely incapable of finishing that game. If I had been paired against him I'd have asked a judge to DQ him before dice were rolled. I don't want to drag things down, so I'll leave it at that.

Monster Rain wrote:You asked for "justification", not any of those other things. He won a tournament against a field of extremely tough competitors. That is, to me, justification.

Wolf 11x wrote:I hate to sound crass, but how did this guy win first place?

But... I said...

You can't read my mind?

You didn't quote the whole post. And yes. Yes I can.

Wolf 11x wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Isn't the fact that he won justification enough?

There's no magical list that makes you win games. Player skill is a much larger factor.

Player skill can't account for everything. Unless I'm horribly mistaken, he has 12 Dark Lances and 1 Blaster. 6 of those Dark Lances are spread across 2 Ravagers and the Raiders will very likely be going Flat Out with Enhanced Aethersails. Haywire Grenades are nice, but I would hardly rely on them for anti-tank.

I'm curious as to what armies he faced. Also, I still find it hard to imagine that he needs 5 close combat units.

I will defend my friends list as we playtested together, first I believe you are underestimating haywire grenades and the 30 wyches. The 30 wyches would be in your face rather quickly, glancing your vehicles preventing them from shooting down his vehicles that roamed around. They are also capable of tieing up units in cc with a 4+ invulnerable save and 4+ feel no pain save thanks to the haemonculis free pain token. While you are trying to deal with his wyches he is able to claim or contest objectives easily because of his mobility.

That DE list might not looked so min/maxed compared to DashofPepper's list, but it still look pretty strong. Knowing how one's list work is very important and their ability to play a flawless game.

The more rounded lists might be referred to as "toolbox" armies, maybe.

The guys who build them (speaking of folks like Ben, and undoubtedly Shawn as well) know what they're doing, and know what each element in the army is capable of and how it helps them in different situations. They know how to use their army to counter (for example) mechanized Space Wolves or Grey Knights without it being about the simple math of "put 25+ lance weapons in your list."

I too look at lists and wonder "how did that win?" sometimes. But here's the deal.

Let's saaaaay I take nobz. Lots of nobz. Like.... 50 nobz. All have fnp, cheesy allocation tricks, etc. etc.

Now, build an army to deal with that. Got one? Good. As an example, here:

IG, couple psyker battle squads in chimeras, some S8+ template weapons and a callidus assassin from witchhunters.

Man, that IG list would demolish those orks.

But.......the ork player never gets paired against that IG player. He fights a thousand sons player round 1 and demolishes him. He fights a GK player that takes strike squads and dreadknights and isn't entirely sure what he's doing in round 2. He fights a vanilla marine player that can't hack it in round 3, and he fights a speed freek ork player in round 4, getting a tie.

Long story short, the 50 nob list never fights armies that can easily take him out, or if he does he capitalizes on their stupid mistakes. Or that IG list just happened to suffer perils on his psychic tests for both battle squads on one turn, and one of them the next turn. Then to top it all off he never can seem to get a hit with those demolisher cannons.

Good player, no BAD army list choices, good pairings, no cripplingly bad luck at the wrong time. Lots of things happen that way.

I don't know if the harmies ride with wyches in that list. I think two ride with the incubi and one rides with the stacks and archon, thus giving you one "deathstar" with str 5 power weapons and 3+/fnp on the charge and a IC hunting unit with furious charge/fnp and a huskblade. You can flat out the wyches all together and reroll their pinning test when their vehicle gets destroyed in your opponents turn. You've brought your cover with you in the form of a wreck, and now you are within 6" of your opponents main force with 30 wyches, with two hardhitters directly behind them. The PGLs are there to take the assault advantage away from your opponent while you force them to deal with 20-30 wyches in cover or the two face-raping venoms right behind them.

This is all heavily simplified, but I love this list. I've been looking for a good way to use incubi and I've finally found it, plus I have all the models!!! Lol

Those Wych squads are 9-chicks in size. He stated in the BoK video that the Haemi's rode with the Wyches as part of his standard deployment.

Now this doesn't preclude him from throwing a couple of Haemi's in with the Incubi in certain situations. Starting the Haemi's out with the Wyches and then leaving them in the Raiders after the Wyches deploy since they don't fleet would be a pretty standard tactic in my book.

Also, with a 7-game format, Mr Lowery stated that his toughest match up was against the SoB player and that he got pretty lucky on some of his matchups (Marc Parker). However, a skilled player with a balanced list makes his own luck/minimizes luck. And in a 7-game format that uses BP's, keeping your games close and getting a good matchup on day 2 can be the right mix for a tourney victory.

Marc Parker had just as much of an equal chance to win the whole enchilada as well (amongst all of the top three table players). Marc anticipated WGC would have more LOS terrain on the boards than there was, played like the champion he is but just couldn't avoid playing a great player playing his nemesis army (DE). If Marc had faced another Power Armor list in Round 7, he might of been the Overall Champion.

Would a lot of people been surprised at that result? No, discussion would have been about 'Modelling for Advantage' (Red Herring!) and thus not giving the tournament champion his due as it should always be after a big event such as this.

I doubt there would have been talk of modeling for advantage as I hear on Day 2 he switch his awesomely converted models out for standard models which negated that. On personal level on those models I'm torn. I think they look awesome but they do grant a significant advantage based on their width.

I think that if you have something that is way, way out of proportion to the standard model then having a stand-in just in case is the best bet.

blood angel wrote:I have to agree with Shinkaze above.

Random game length ending on turn 5 is crap. It is an unfortunate rule that GW has saddled us with.

+1
I hate that Ive seen so many people pull out a draw/win from a game they got their handed to them in because of the game randomly ending at turn five

Chosen Praetorian wrote:

blood angel wrote:I have to agree with Shinkaze above.

Random game length ending on turn 5 is crap. It is an unfortunate rule that GW has saddled us with.

+1
I hate that Ive seen so many people pull out a draw/win from a game they got their handed to them in because of the game randomly ending at turn five

You can keep playing 4th edition if you can find people interested in it. If you are not playing for a possible turn 5 end, and your opponent wins because of it, he played better than you.

Don't complain about it; play better. It's like the folks who complain about Dawn of War and complain about Kill Points and complain about Capture & Control. Guess what? Those rules and missions are there to force you to be flexible and come up with tactics and army lists which aren't boned by them. If my tactics or army list are boned by those rules, then that's MY failure as a player.

DarthDiggler is my tournament-playing internet brother from another mother.

That's like saying you can't have an opinion though. I can hate Capture & Control even if I win it.

It's fine if you don't like it.

The point is that its not the mission's fault if you lose.

Monster Rain wrote:It's fine if you don't like it.

The point is that its not the mission's fault if you lose.

Right. It hardly makes the mission well thought out or enjoyable though!

I actually enjoy it quite a bit.

Wolf 11x wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:It's fine if you don't like it.

The point is that its not the mission's fault if you lose.

Right. It hardly makes the mission well thought out or enjoyable though!

Sure. But by the same token, the fact that someone doesn't enjoy it or complains about it doesn't necessarily mean that it's BADLY thought out or UNenjoyable either. In my experience, in many cases those people are lazy, or simply bad players, who have failed to adapt to the mission in question, and use it being "badly-thought out" or "a guaranteed draw" as excuses to not figure out how to win, or not to adjust their army list. Whenever I'm in a tournament and my opponent comments "I hate this mission" or "Dawn of War is dumb" or "Kill points suck" I feel kind of bad for them, but I also feel kind of amused and happy because it probably means an easier win for me.

Mannahnin wrote:DarthDiggler is my tournament-playing internet brother from another mother.

Knowing both of you .. this comment is disturbing and troubling.

Mannahnin wrote:

Wolf 11x wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:It's fine if you don't like it.

The point is that its not the mission's fault if you lose.

Right. It hardly makes the mission well thought out or enjoyable though!

Sure. But by the same token, the fact that someone doesn't enjoy it or complains about it doesn't necessarily mean that it's BADLY thought out or UNenjoyable either. In my experience, in many cases those people are lazy, or simply bad players, who have failed to adapt to the mission in question, and use it being "badly-thought out" or "a guaranteed draw" as excuses to not figure out how to win, or not to adjust their army list. Whenever I'm in a tournament and my opponent comments "I hate this mission" or "Dawn of War is dumb" or "Kill points suck" I feel kind of bad for them, but I also feel kind of amused and happy because it probably means an easier win for me.

Pyrovores suck.

Since when is everything GW creates rules-wise an *inherent* positive? I'm not saying Kill Points or Cap and Control or RGL are BAD; I'm not even necessarily saying I presently don't like them. I just think arguments like "Well those are the rules and if you're a good, tactical player you'll like them and have them figured out" are a little unfair. An ENORMOUS number of players dislike some of these components of the 40k rules, and blanket counters that imply their inferiority are inherently improbable in terms of accuracy. To my eyes, it's equivalent to saying that good players who like to play by 5th edition rules and codices figure out how to fit Pyrovores competitively into lists. I think everyone pretty much went "this is dumb, I'm never using this." SOME people, who aren't idiots or bad gamers by any means, feel the same way about OTHER things GW has published 5e rules and codex-wise.

Yeah, that's an extreme example, and from a codex, but the point is GW can make mistakes, and can publish questionably "Fair" or "competitive" things ... arguments about why they ARE fair or competitive are probably better than blanket disregarding any opinion that doesn't strictly adhere to 5e. Hell, there isn't a tournament out there that does.

Also, I routinely play with and am a member of that nebulous and questionably-proof-oriented group of "GT-winning 40k players." Plenty of people in that group have won most or all of the KP, 5-6-7 RGL, C&C, etc., games they've played ... handily at that ... and yet still don't think they have merit. That's not to say they DON'T ... just that it's not simply a cadre of baddies who are espousing such a position.

<3 intended in all respects,
- Mike

MVBrandt wrote:Since when is everything GW creates rules-wise an *inherent* positive? I'm not saying Kill Points or Cap and Control or RGL are BAD; I'm not even necessarily saying I presently don't like them. I just think arguments like "Well those are the rules and if you're a good, tactical player you'll like them and have them figured out" are a little unfair. An ENORMOUS number of players dislike some of these components of the 40k rules, and blanket counters that imply their inferiority are inherently improbable in terms of accuracy. To my eyes, it's equivalent to saying that good players who like to play by 5th edition rules and codices figure out how to fit Pyrovores competitively into lists. I think everyone pretty much went "this is dumb, I'm never using this." SOME people, who aren't idiots or bad gamers by any means, feel the same way about OTHER things GW has published 5e rules and codex-wise.

This. Just because someone dislikes a mission does not mean they are incapable of evaluating it for appropriateness, good design or more importantly *fun*. I play Dawn of War because it's in the rulebook, but I think it's a pathetically designed mission personally.

Cheers, Gary

Well thats why you make up your own missions for your own tournaments like Adepticon and Nova.

Every tournament makes up their own missions, and attaches scoring and such that isn't in the rulebook, yatta yatta yatta.

There are almost no tournaments, and even fewer GT's that simply random roll book missions, apply no battle points or margins or anything, and play some games for a couple days. This includes Throne of Skulls, which also does not simply random roll book missions and play simple 40k. Tournaments are as much "base 40k" as campaigns are. AKA they aren't.

The point here is that there ARE legitimate, intelligent changes that can be made to the game to make it SUBJECTIVELY better or more fair at a tournament, or even in your basement. Arguing about why any given change or base rule is wrong or not great is ... fine. In fact, it can sometimes generate some really great conversation. Taking a stance of "STANDARD BOOK 5E 40K OR YOU'RE AN IDIOT" however, is just as wrong as when people say "KILL POINTS ARE OBVIOUSLY STUPID AND YOU JUST PLAY A BAD ARMY IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE." Guess I just don't like potentially intelligent people getting crapped on with blanket statements.

This feeling is strengthened by the fact that I've myself so many times in the past personally done just that.

MVBrandt wrote:The point here is that there ARE legitimate, intelligent changes that can be made to the game to make it SUBJECTIVELY better or more fair at a tournament, or even in your basement. Arguing about why any given change or base rule is wrong or not great is ... fine. In fact, it can sometimes generate some really great conversation. Taking a stance of "STANDARD BOOK 5E 40K OR YOU'RE AN IDIOT" however, is just as wrong as when people say "KILL POINTS ARE OBVIOUSLY STUPID AND YOU JUST PLAY A BAD ARMY IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE." Guess I just don't like potentially intelligent people getting crapped on with blanket statements.

Did anyone say that?

I'm pretty sure the main point people were making is that it isn't the mission's fault that you lose. If you're going to play the game and you want to win, you need to adapt to the missions that the game involves. Not preferring one or the missions or deployment styles or random game length doesn't isn't the issue, blaming them for an inability to win is. I also haven't seen anyone saying that individual tournaments shouldn't make up their own missions, though just because you (general you, not you ) do that it doesn't make your missions any more or less intelligent or balanced.

Monster Rain wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:The point here is that there ARE legitimate, intelligent changes that can be made to the game to make it SUBJECTIVELY better or more fair at a tournament, or even in your basement. Arguing about why any given change or base rule is wrong or not great is ... fine. In fact, it can sometimes generate some really great conversation. Taking a stance of "STANDARD BOOK 5E 40K OR YOU'RE AN IDIOT" however, is just as wrong as when people say "KILL POINTS ARE OBVIOUSLY STUPID AND YOU JUST PLAY A BAD ARMY IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE." Guess I just don't like potentially intelligent people getting crapped on with blanket statements.

Did anyone say that?

I'm pretty sure the main point people were making is that it isn't the mission's fault that you lose. If you're going to play the game and you want to win, you need to adapt to the missions that the game involves. Not preferring one or the missions or deployment styles or random game length doesn't isn't the issue, blaming them for an inability to win is. I also haven't seen anyone saying that individual tournaments shouldn't make up their own missions, though just because you (general you, not you ) do that it doesn't make your missions any more or less intelligent or balanced.

I was more targeting some of the "tone" in some responses that was a little along the lines of "I've just found that most people who object to the book missions are bad." The overarching theme of "don't blame the mission" is one I strongly agree with ... and that was sorta my point. I've won a lot of tournament and pick-up games using book missions and book RGL ... and I still haven't always agreed with them as "ideal" for the game of 40k as it is right now. So, basically, I pretty much AGREE with your point, and most of the points made here, I just didn't like some of the "Tone" I felt from some posters about WHY people don't like certain rules components, and WHAT not liking them says about who they are as players.

Fair enough.

I guess I just wanted to clarify that that type of tone certainly wasn't intended to be read into my posts on the subject.

I don't particularly care for DoW missions, but that's because they really bone my Devastators and Thunderfire Cannon.

I don't know... I've certainly heard tons of complaints about 8th edition fantasy, and participated in them. However, sometimes people complaining are going along the lines of what Mannahnin said above- i.e., they're not adapting their playstyle to the changes, and suffering the consequences.

I.e., random charge length. Maybe time to fit in more swiftstride units? Declare charges with everything in range and just accept failed charges on the units that won't fit? Etc, etc... not a reason why intelligent players can't question why this game mechanic was introduced, but certainly not something to blame losing on (which I hear often "8th ed is so random, it cost me the game...").

So, I think I can see both sides of the argument here. It's certainly not good to imply that someone's not intelligent because they don't like a mission- but intelligent players adapt, even if they don't like it, so that they can win, anyway.

hyv3mynd wrote:

Dash got the lowest sportsmanship score....

Actually, I didn't.

I got the lowest sportsmanship score out of the top tables due to David Light chipmunking my sportsmanship; short of that, I had the same as many other folks in the GT, higher than others.

I think people should be as careful with the term "chipmunking", as they are with the term "WAAC". Both get thrown around more than they deserve, imho. Grading someone very low on sportsmanship, within the confines of the sportsmanship rubric at an event, is not always chipmunking... just as playing strict RAW, going for full battle points, etc is not always (or even usually) WAAC. I don't know what the case was here, but I think that term gets far, far overused...

I also don't think you should be using someone's real name on forums. I know you say that people are aware of your real name, but that doesn't mean that others are comfortable not using a screen name. You could have simply said "Someone gave me a low sportsmanship score unfairly, that's why I have the low total" without specifying any name... that'd be a better way to do it, I think.

I also think it's fair to point out that your argument after your last event about the low sportsmanship score, was that you hadn't had a similar score at another event. Now you have, and you should be coming up with other ways of dealing with it / adapting to it than only accusing someone of chipmunking you (such as, for example, getting a judge ruling much earlier into critical rules disputes so that they don't escalate, take up a large portion of game-time, and give your opponent reason to dock your sportsmanship total- not that that was necessarily the case in that game).

MVBrandt wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Wolf 11x wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:It's fine if you don't like it.

The point is that its not the mission's fault if you lose.

Right. It hardly makes the mission well thought out or enjoyable though!

Sure. But by the same token, the fact that someone doesn't enjoy it or complains about it doesn't necessarily mean that it's BADLY thought out or UNenjoyable either. In my experience, in many cases those people are lazy, or simply bad players, who have failed to adapt to the mission in question, and use it being "badly-thought out" or "a guaranteed draw" as excuses to not figure out how to win, or not to adjust their army list. Whenever I'm in a tournament and my opponent comments "I hate this mission" or "Dawn of War is dumb" or "Kill points suck" I feel kind of bad for them, but I also feel kind of amused and happy because it probably means an easier win for me.

Pyrovores suck.

Since when is everything GW creates rules-wise an *inherent* positive? I'm not saying Kill Points or Cap and Control or RGL are BAD; I'm not even necessarily saying I presently don't like them. I just think arguments like "Well those are the rules and if you're a good, tactical player you'll like them and have them figured out" are a little unfair. An ENORMOUS number of players dislike some of these components of the 40k rules, and blanket counters that imply their inferiority are inherently improbable in terms of accuracy.

Except that I didn't say any of those things. I know you're mostly reacting to perceived tone, but if you take another look at that paragraph you quoted above, I think you'll find that I qualified my statements repeatedly, and was careful not to make any universal, sweeping generalizations at all. "Doesn't necessarily mean". "in my experience". "in many cases". "probably means".

I can certainly agree that people can legitimately criticize GW, that not EVERY person who complains about kill points is an ignoramus, that not every mission is equally "fair" or "balanced". But in my experience most of the complaints of that sort that I've heard about 5th edition missions including ones I myself made (when 5th was newer), have been driven by the factors I mentioned. People are resistant to change, and they don't like having to change habits or ways of thinking which have brought them success in the past.

I'm not calling anyone an idiot, but I will opine that many of us are lazy, and we can be resistant to change and slow to adapt to a new play environment. In some cases it may be harder to adapt than in others. For example, as a former hardcore Eldar player, I personally thought always having Random Game Length was a brilliant choice in 5th ed, because I was bored with the Guaranteed Turn 6 quadrant/objective Grab with a Fast Skimmer. OTOH some other stuff (like Dawn of War Annihilation) I had a harder time adapting to.

Does Russell Adams have a blog or frequent a forum anywhere? I'd like to hear his thoughts on why he went dominions, and without vet sgts to boot. I've never seen a 6 faith point army at this point level.

RiTides wrote:I think people should be as careful with the term "chipmunking", as they are with the term "WAAC". Both get thrown around more than they deserve, imho. Grading someone very low on sportsmanship, within the confines of the sportsmanship rubric at an event, is not always chipmunking... just as playing strict RAW, going for full battle points, etc is not always (or even usually) WAAC. I don't know what the case was here, but I think that term gets far, far overused...

I also don't think you should be using someone's real name on forums. I know you say that people are aware of your real name, but that doesn't mean that others are comfortable not using a screen name. You could have simply said "Someone gave me a low sportsmanship score unfairly, that's why I have the low total" without specifying any name... that'd be a better way to do it, I think.

I also think it's fair to point out that your argument after your last event about the low sportsmanship score, was that you hadn't had a similar score at another event. Now you have, and you should be coming up with other ways of dealing with it / adapting to it than only accusing someone of chipmunking you (such as, for example, getting a judge ruling much earlier into critical rules disputes so that they don't escalate, take up a large portion of game-time, and give your opponent reason to dock your sportsmanship total- not that that was necessarily the case in that game).

Actually, no - two events ago I got a low sportsmanship score - one of my detractors there was the same who "chipmunked" me here. The result of his action was me getting a middle of the road sportsmanship score - not a low one.

In terms of your other point...the name is part of the story, since this is the second time we've faced each other. This is the second time my sportsmanship has suffered at his hand, although this time he had a judge talk to him being unreasonable - since the judge was on our table and saw the game. The internet is a place for people to post anonymously. That doesn't extend to your real life actions not being posted on the internet. All of us have real names. Traveling to a public event to publicly participate in the event for which results will be publicly posted...tends to get your real name involved in a discussion about you. If the actions you take in real life aren't something you want reflected on the internet, then those actions should change. I doubt David cares; he made no secret about his feelings about us not getting a sixth turn, judge intervention to tell him how it was or not.

In terms of your other point...the name is part of the story, since this is the second time we've faced each other. This is the second time my sportsmanship has suffered at his hand, although this time he had a judge talk to him being unreasonable - since the judge was on our table and saw the game. The internet is a place for people to post anonymously. That doesn't extend to your real life actions not being posted on the internet. All of us have real names. Traveling to a public event to publicly participate in the event for which results will be publicly posted...tends to get your real name involved in a discussion about you. If the actions you take in real life aren't something you want reflected on the internet, then those actions should change. I doubt David cares; he made no secret about his feelings about us not getting a sixth turn, judge intervention to tell him how it was or not.

I don't agree with this at all, and names in post like this can creep up and bite you in the ass in the future. Take for example the last time you used his name in a post, the one in which you told the world that he was a loud drunk that was late to the round and slowed the game down.

It's best to keep a person's real alias out of forums.

Or you could just not do things that you would feel uncomfortable being exposed.

Good life lesson that. If you do it, say it, whatever be prepared for the repercussions of what you did. To many people think the Internet is some "I did something stupid safe zone", it's not and shouldn't be.

Neither should it be a place where you can basically sling mud around without the person necessarily being able to defend themselves. I've noticed (and I'm sure many others have) that when events get posted about on the net afterwards, usually only a small percentage of the people who were there post, and usually without all the facts. So you end up getting a slanted view, and someone's name can get unfairly tarnished.

You obviously get the side of the story from the person posting about it... whereas if you were talking about it face-to-face with people at the event, you could quickly hear both sides.

One person's "That guy chipmunked me!" can be another's "That game was horrible, and here's why". Rather than air that dirty laundry in a thread about the tournament in general, simply posting "One opponent gave me a low sportsmanship score unfairly" would be a way to address it without going into territory that (imho) shouldn't be covered in a public forum.

Regarding Sports scores being popped:
I went to a few RTTs where the TO required you to write a sentence or 2 and justify the score you gave your opponent; good or bad.
If you dinged your opponent and it was for obvious BS reasons you recieved the score you just chipmunked your opponent with.

If it was a valid issue the TO then had something specific he could take back to the offending player...sometimes it would be an action or attitude (excess cursing or making critical dice rolls behind terrain and out of sight) the player was not even aware of doig.

Regardless, it made people really think over their scores and provide an honest assessment, rather than dinging a guy they don't know (or have some drama with) while pumping up their buddy (who actually is a slow-playing dice concealing loud mouthed douche).
Something to consider.

I'm with RiTides. While in principle I like the idea of "name and shame", in practice there's usually more than one side to a story like this. And for one person to start badmouthing the other where that other can't respond is poor practice. It makes already bad situations/relationships worse, and spreads ill-will.

Mannahnin wrote:I'm with RiTides. While in principle I like the idea of "name and shame", in practice there's usually more than one side to a story like this. And for one person to start badmouthing the other where that other can't respond is poor practice. It makes already bad situations/relationships worse, and spreads ill-will.

Why would you think he can't respond? He has a Dakka account, he posts here. Don't "presume" that my side of the story is inaccurate.

Liquidice: You said, "Take for example the last time you used his name in a post, the one in which you told the world that he was a loud drunk...." Yes, I remember that thread. He posted that he was only PRETENDING to be a loud obnoxious drunk to try putting me off my guard.

I'm not sure what lesson you think I'm supposed to learn from that.

Okay, maybe he can in this case. Although we were speaking more generally about why name & shame may not be the ideal policy. In the case of situations where both parties are on the forum, not everyone is equally eager to hash this kind of disagreement out publicly in this medium. Usually it's much more easily resolved in person. And usually communication online about sensitive matters is less effective, and onlookers may only catch part of it ans draw negative conclusions about one or both of the parties involved based on getting an incomplete, out-of-context picture.

As for what lesson, how about noting that the thread in question continued to spiral unpleasantly into a trainwreck? And that the focus of the discussion about the event was lost amidst sniping and personal drama?

I'm way more for name and shame however there is another side to this as well. Even if someone's "gaming" reputatiion is unfairly accused of being a douche, one shouldn't believe everything they read on the internets and take care to form their opinions on observed merits.

I don't think it's a big deal to use someone's name in this discussion. If you choose to attend a big event like this you should know that your actions will be scrutinized here and elsewhere.

Coming into a match pretending to be drunk in order to have some sort of mental effect on an opponent is pretty douche.... its one of those lame psych out techniques that dont really work against skilled players in any game/sport.

Back to the complaining about scenarios argument, why CAN'T the mission cause you to lose?

I mean... let's assume there's a basic level of challenge to the game. A challenge you, as a good player, are consistently up to. Able to out-play your opponent, stick to the mission objectives, and succeed. Sometimes, the mission makes that difficult - the opponent puts the objective in the farthest reaches of their corner of the board and you're playing spearhead for example.

Now it's harder. Plain and simple, the MISSION has made it HARDER to win. Can you still? Yes. But now, some lucky shot [first lascannon of the game on your landraider, 6 glancing hits from bolt pistols on your raider, etc] can make what in a normal game would have been a manageable challenge into an unmanageable one. The additional difficulty of the scenario, when coupled with bad luck that just happens sometimes [and happened to happen right now, in this mission, the one you hate and is now making it so you can't recover] can in fact CAUSE you to lose.

Put in other words, same bad luck on the same turn in a DIFFERENT mission, you could have easily handled it. But with THIS mission, it's just impossible. Case of a good player getting a horrible combination of bad luck [happens, learn to adapt] in a more difficult mission [bad luck has more of an effect].

Hence I think no tournament should ever, EVER, combine capture and control and spearhead. Jury's out on combining it with Dawn of War, but in either case if they're going to make you do it, bring the objective 12" from table edges. I mean really.

Or ensure you have multiple units that can reach a potentially far away objective in 5 turns. Redundancy has been shown to be an important part of your strategy elsewhere on these boards. If one lucky lascannon shot could potentially cripple your strategy in turn one, I think you need to rethink your strategy.

I agree however that some missions are tougher for certain armies. I accept that killpoint missions as a DE player can be tough for me, however, I have decided that I'd rather bleed killpoints and attempt to destroy my opponent utterly with an overall "better" list because of MSU rather than hinder myself witha less effective lower killpoint list. That is my choice though.

I personally enjoy the fact that certain mission/deployment combinations are harder for me to deal with so it is all the more satisfying when I come out on top of those engagements.

No one complained about the missions, the majority of the players enjoyed themselves. Some missions are going to be harder for your list, obviously!

There are people out there that hate certain Missions/Deployments mostly because their armies do poorly at them.

MSU armies hate Kill Points
Deathstar armies don’t like Seize Ground.
Armies that are not very mobile hate Capture and Control

Static shooting armies do not like Dawn of War
Assault and short ranged armies don’t like Spearhead

And this is the way that balance is achieved. If you take some of the elements out of it where your army does not perform very well, that will imbalance the game.

Also if a Lascannon takes out a Land Raider and ends your hope of winning a Capture and Control mission, that is your opponent playing well when they realize that you have a poorly thought out army build that they can capitalize on and end your hope of winning.

At Wargames Con (and Adepticon as well) had multiple objectives to achieve so if you had a weakness it could be overcome by doing well in the other objectives. I don’t know if that is good or bad because it lets armies like Dark Eldar who do poorly in Kill Point missions only lose a portion of their points instead of all of them in other formats. It will be interesting to see how they do in a couple of weeks when they have strait out-of-the-book missions at the Bay Area Open.

Spellbound wrote:Back to the complaining about scenarios argument, why CAN'T the mission cause you to lose?

I mean... let's assume there's a basic level of challenge to the game. A challenge you, as a good player, are consistently up to. Able to out-play your opponent, stick to the mission objectives, and succeed. Sometimes, the mission makes that difficult - the opponent puts the objective in the farthest reaches of their corner of the board and you're playing spearhead for example.

Because as Lunchmoney said, if that's one of the basic missions of the game, you know that this is a situation you can and will encounter, and thus you should be prepared for it. As a player you need to figure out how your army will reliably get to that objective at the far end (diagonally) of the table, in 5 turns. Most, if not all, armies are capable of doing this. Outflanking, Infiltrating, Deep Striking, or simply moving with 12"/turn move units. If you have not built your army to deal with this situation then this is the consequence you face. Some army books may have a harder time building for this than others, but that's down to GW needing to get their codices updated.

I remarked on this regarding the Conflict GT in January, where I placed rather low for me (26th or 28th or so?), in part (I felt) because I fielded a list which did not feature any backfield threats; like deep striking terminators or outflanking Chosen, as I usually do. Thus when I came up against Old Shatterhands' Tau in a Spearhead Annihilation mission on a pretty open table in round 3, I knew I had put myself in that hole by not giving myself an army list capable of getting into his backfield. I only won that game because I reserved and came in far down the long table edge with most of my stuff, shortening the distance, and because he made the mistake of moving too close to my long edge, and because I got a couple of good Lash rolls to help me make assaults to get extra movement.

As Blackmoor said, certain types of army builds will have an easier or tougher time in different missions. MSU armies are awesome in Seize Ground but vulnerable in Annihilation. This presents a design challenge in balancing your list to be reliably capable of winning in any of the nine standard combinations. People who build an army which is purely MSU-d out and fast and really rocks in both Seize Ground and Capture and Control, but has a tough time in Annihilation, have given themselves that weakness, and their complaints about kill points sucking often smack of not taking responsibility for their own choices. Some of these folks, IME, are the lazy types I mentioned earlier. Folks who made deadly MSU armies in 3rd or 4th edition when the game was about VPs and those armies were ALWAYS superior, and don't want to change their tactics and lists to fit the missions of the new edition.

Mannahnin wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:

blood angel wrote:I have to agree with Shinkaze above.

Random game length ending on turn 5 is crap. It is an unfortunate rule that GW has saddled us with.

+1
I hate that Ive seen so many people pull out a draw/win from a game they got their handed to them in because of the game randomly ending at turn five

You can keep playing 4th edition if you can find people interested in it. If you are not playing for a possible turn 5 end, and your opponent wins because of it, he played better than you.

Don't complain about it; play better. It's like the folks who complain about Dawn of War and complain about Kill Points and complain about Capture & Control. Guess what? Those rules and missions are there to force you to be flexible and come up with tactics and army lists which aren't boned by them. If my tactics or army list are boned by those rules, then that's MY failure as a player.

I played against Grey knights in a tournament last month with DE and it was a table quarters game with only the one to the players rights that counted as scoring (making for two table quarters to hold). He kept two squads in reserve, he got one squad in on turn two and the other didnt come in till turn five due to bad rolls. I went first and by the middle of turn three he was tabled (due to him playing trashy paladin squads) except for that last unit in reserve. His turn five they auto come in. He deep strikes a termy squad of five guys onto my table quarter while im fanned out holding both his and mine (so at this point it's one to one). His squad is surrounded by three true born units in venoms with blasters, two ravengers, and two wych squads in raiders. We roll to see if the game ends and a 2 comes up causing a tie. I out played him at everry turn, I use target priority and good multi-assaults. Please oh wise one of the interwebs, i beg of you to explain how that was a tactical error on my part and what i shouldve done to win.
P.S. this is how Ive seen alot of scenarios go and is why random turn length is complete trash. And correct me if im wrong but didnt they do a fixed game length of six turns at Ard Boyz last year?

Chosen Praetorian wrote:

I played against Grey knights in a tournament last month with DE and it was a table quarters game with only the one to the players rights that counted as scoring (making for two table quarters to hold). He kept two squads in reserve, he got one squad in on turn two and the other didnt come in till turn five due to bad rolls. I went first and by the middle of turn three he was tabled (due to him playing trashy paladin squads) except for that last unit in reserve. His turn five they auto come in. He deep strikes a termy squad of five guys onto my table quarter while im fanned out holding both his and mine (so at this point it's one to one). His squad is surrounded by three true born units in venoms with blasters, two ravengers, and two wych squads in raiders. We roll to see if the game ends and a 2 comes up causing a tie. I out played him at everry turn, I use target priority and good multi-assaults. Please oh wise one of the interwebs, i beg of you to explain how that was a tactical error on my part and what i shouldve done to win.
P.S. this is how Ive seen alot of scenarios go and is why random turn length is complete trash. And correct me if im wrong but didnt they do a fixed game length of six turns at Ard Boyz last year?

Sometimes its better to be lucky than to be good.

thehod wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:

I played against Grey knights in a tournament last month with DE and it was a table quarters game with only the one to the players rights that counted as scoring (making for two table quarters to hold). He kept two squads in reserve, he got one squad in on turn two and the other didnt come in till turn five due to bad rolls. I went first and by the middle of turn three he was tabled (due to him playing trashy paladin squads) except for that last unit in reserve. His turn five they auto come in. He deep strikes a termy squad of five guys onto my table quarter while im fanned out holding both his and mine (so at this point it's one to one). His squad is surrounded by three true born units in venoms with blasters, two ravengers, and two wych squads in raiders. We roll to see if the game ends and a 2 comes up causing a tie. I out played him at everry turn, I use target priority and good multi-assaults. Please oh wise one of the interwebs, i beg of you to explain how that was a tactical error on my part and what i shouldve done to win.
P.S. this is how Ive seen alot of scenarios go and is why random turn length is complete trash. And correct me if im wrong but didnt they do a fixed game length of six turns at Ard Boyz last year?

Sometimes its better to be lucky than to be good.

Chosen still could've won.

How about moving those Wych boats flat out, one into each quarter, instead of trying to hold both quarters with a single squad? That way, he could've come down and contested one, but you still would've held the other.

Luck can play a huge role, but at the end of the day it's the tactics that matter most.

Unless of course he somehow straddled both table quarters with a single termie squad (despite your original post not stating this). If true, I agree, there really is nothing you can do about that. But you probably should've rolled to determine which one they were contesting...

Generally I go second in objective games - though I know DE can't always afford that luxury and if he won the roll he may have chosen you to go first.

But yup - it sucks. Game needs to be 6 turns, period.

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I played against Grey knights in a tournament last month with DE and it was a table quarters game with only the one to the players rights that counted as scoring (making for two table quarters to hold). He kept two squads in reserve, he got one squad in on turn two and the other didnt come in till turn five due to bad rolls. I went first and by the middle of turn three he was tabled (due to him playing trashy paladin squads) except for that last unit in reserve. His turn five they auto come in. He deep strikes a termy squad of five guys onto my table quarter while im fanned out holding both his and mine (so at this point it's one to one). His squad is surrounded by three true born units in venoms with blasters, two ravengers, and two wych squads in raiders. We roll to see if the game ends and a 2 comes up causing a tie. I out played him at everry turn, I use target priority and good multi-assaults. Please oh wise one of the interwebs, i beg of you to explain how that was a tactical error on my part and what i shouldve done to win.
P.S. this is how Ive seen alot of scenarios go and is why random turn length is complete trash. And correct me if im wrong but didnt they do a fixed game length of six turns at Ard Boyz last year?

So, you're playing a mission that isn't from the 5e rulebook, and is further customized even from the old "table quarters" missions of yore, and it didn't interact well with a 5e game mechanic?

And this is the fault of random game length how, again?

Janthkin wrote:So, you're playing a mission that isn't from the 5e rulebook, and is further customized even from the old "table quarters" missions of yore, and it didn't interact well with a 5e game mechanic?

And this is the fault of random game length how, again?

That is what I was going to say. You play some made up mission and it is random game lengths fault that you lost?

So if I get this right there are 2 table quarters that count for scoring? Doesn't that mean that you are contesting the one with his terminators, and you own the other giving you the win?

And here is some tactical advice for you: Paladins are not a trashy squad.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Actually, no - two events ago I got a low sportsmanship score - one of my detractors there was the same who "chipmunked" me here. The result of his action was me getting a middle of the road sportsmanship score - not a low one.

In terms of your other point...the name is part of the story, since this is the second time we've faced each other. This is the second time my sportsmanship has suffered at his hand, although this time he had a judge talk to him being unreasonable - since the judge was on our table and saw the game. The internet is a place for people to post anonymously. That doesn't extend to your real life actions not being posted on the internet. All of us have real names. Traveling to a public event to publicly participate in the event for which results will be publicly posted...tends to get your real name involved in a discussion about you. If the actions you take in real life aren't something you want reflected on the internet, then those actions should change. I doubt David cares; he made no secret about his feelings about us not getting a sixth turn, judge intervention to tell him how it was or not.

My sportsmanship vote of bad at alamo was completely justified and has already been covered.

At WargamesCon I bad voted you for what I felt was slow play. Nick argued that a turn 6 would have seen me lose worse, which I fully agree with. I lost on turn 5, I would have lost worse on turn 6. But that does not change the fact that I feel you played overly slowly, and that it negatively affected the game.

I believe, and will stand by, the pace of play in our game was slower than it should have been and caused at least 2 things:

1) In order to insure we played at least the minimum required 5 turns(or more) I felt my turns were overly rushed from turn 3 on (as I had a eye on the clock and could see time slipping away) I feel this led to worse play from me than I am capable of as I panicked that the game would end short, preventing me from getting to objectives not next to my deployment (due to slower units than DEldar). And my bad play is on me, but is a result of the time limits on the game, and given a perfect world with unlimited time I think the game would be more even/fair.

2) I feel that the pace of play in our game was directly engineered by You to cause the game to go a certain number of turns and only a certain number of turns.

Random game length fails to punish a player for risks if the game must end due to time. Also, as an army with 13 skimmers, its not really hard to make sure you can get onto, and usually double cover, all the objectives on the board as the game ends since you know beforehand (and even at the start of the game) when the turn sequence will stop.

Did you beat me in 5 turns in that game? absolutely. Would it have been worse had it gone on? sure. But on the rules for the tournament slow play is listed as an offense, and in the rules for sportsmanship voting the question asks: "My opponent actively made the game unpleasant and I would prefer not to play them again, ever." Which I feel was true. You've played at least 40 games with your dark eldar list. The mission was straight forward, and my army not too complicated to determine target priority, yet I feel your turns took an overly long amount of time. And as to not wanting to play you again, thats true, I really dont want to.

If you still think my vote qualifies as chipmunking you, whatever.

And in regards to using my real name on the internet, I would prefer people not do that when its not directly relevant to topic at hand (ie. who placed where).

You can just as easily refer to me as your 5th round opponent, or by my internet handle.

Foreigner wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:

Actually, no - two events ago I got a low sportsmanship score - one of my detractors there was the same who "chipmunked" me here. The result of his action was me getting a middle of the road sportsmanship score - not a low one.

In terms of your other point...the name is part of the story, since this is the second time we've faced each other. This is the second time my sportsmanship has suffered at his hand, although this time he had a judge talk to him being unreasonable - since the judge was on our table and saw the game. The internet is a place for people to post anonymously. That doesn't extend to your real life actions not being posted on the internet. All of us have real names. Traveling to a public event to publicly participate in the event for which results will be publicly posted...tends to get your real name involved in a discussion about you. If the actions you take in real life aren't something you want reflected on the internet, then those actions should change. I doubt David cares; he made no secret about his feelings about us not getting a sixth turn, judge intervention to tell him how it was or not.

My sportsmanship vote of bad at alamo was completely justified and has already been covered.

At WargamesCon I bad voted you for what I felt was slow play. Nick argued that a turn 6 would have seen me lose worse, which I fully agree with. I lost on turn 5, I would have lost worse on turn 6. But that does not change the fact that I feel you played overly slowly, and that it negatively affected the game.

I believe, and will stand by, the pace of play in our game was slower than it should have been and caused at least 2 things:

1) In order to insure we played at least the minimum required 5 turns(or more) I felt my turns were overly rushed from turn 3 on (as I had a eye on the clock and could see time slipping away) I feel this led to worse play from me than I am capable of as I panicked that the game would end short, preventing me from getting to objectives not next to my deployment (due to slower units than DEldar). And my bad play is on me, but is a result of the time limits on the game, and given a perfect world with unlimited time I think the game would be more even/fair.

2) I feel that the pace of play in our game was directly engineered by You to cause the game to go a certain number of turns and only a certain number of turns.

Random game length fails to punish a player for risks if the game must end due to time. Also, as an army with 13 skimmers, its not really hard to make sure you can get onto, and usually double cover, all the objectives on the board as the game ends since you know beforehand (and even at the start of the game) when the turn sequence will stop.

Did you beat me in 5 turns in that game? absolutely. Would it have been worse had it gone on? sure. But on the rules for the tournament slow play is listed as an offense, and in the rules for sportsmanship voting the question asks: "My opponent actively made the game unpleasant and I would prefer not to play them again, ever." Which I feel was true. You've played at least 40 games with your dark eldar list. The mission was straight forward, and my army not too complicated to determine target priority, yet I feel your turns took an overly long amount of time. And as to not wanting to play you again, thats true, I really dont want to.

If you still think my vote qualifies as chipmunking you, whatever.

And in regards to using my real name on the internet, I would prefer people not do that when its not directly relevant to topic at hand (ie. who placed where).

You can just as easily refer to me as your 5th round opponent, or by my internet handle.

I don't see any faults in this logic.

You accuse him of engineering slow play, but then acknowledge that he would have won by even more if the game had gone on longer. And you say that you take responsibility for bad playing, but then blame him for making you play badly because you felt you had to rush. It sounds like you're trying really hard to rationalize the bad sportsmanship score.

Danny Internets wrote:You accuse him of engineering slow play, but then acknowledge that he would have won by even more if the game had gone on longer. And you say that you take responsibility for bad playing, but then blame him for making you play badly because you felt you had to rush. It sounds like you're trying really hard to rationalize the bad sportsmanship score.

Actually, I think it sounds like he's trying to temper his complaint enough with statements about how he takes responsibility for his loss, so he doesn't come off as just a sore loser. And I don't think it's necessary either, the criteria of the sportsmanship vote here, according to him, included:

1) Slow play is an offense, he felt his opponent slow played and used a majority of the game time. Slow play isn't only defined as how many turns the game goes, but how long things take for each respective person. It's subjective as well, so if he feels Dash slow played, then it's within his right (and actually his responsibility) to accurately answer on the sportsmanship card. If everyone plays nice on sports cards and never speaks up, the system has zero purpose

2) "My opponent actively made the game unpleasant and I would prefer not to play them again, ever." This is a question that he is also intended to honestly answer, and his answer shouldn't be nitpicked and judged, it feels more like it's a "blame the victim" scenario. No one can know this but him, and he needs to answer it. Is this the first opponent to find Dash unpleasant to play?

And using your opponents full first and last name is inappropriate. Dash could have done any number of things, such as: use an internet handle, use just first name, use first name and last initial. Instead he chose to go the "lets put this guy on blast and post his full name on the internet" route. His name is on the results sheet, it isn't posted all over a forum. If he wants it all over these forums, that's for him to post, not someone else. Anything legally wrong with it? No. Is it still rude? Yea.

The tournament took place in real life, not on the internet. If people aren't comfortable with their actions being made public they should consider whether or not they should be performing those actions in the first place.

Nothing David did was shameful unless he actually did chipmunk Justin's score, and similarly nothing Justin did was shameful unless he actually intended to slow play. As usual when it comes to accusations like this, it will not and cannot be proven one way or the other. But if someone is uncomfortable with being the center of controversy they should probably not behave in a controversial manner to begin with.

Danny Internets wrote:The tournament took place in real life, not on the internet. If people aren't comfortable with their actions being made public they should consider whether or not they should be performing those actions in the first place.

Nothing David did was shameful unless he actually did chipmunk Justin's score, and similarly nothing Justin did was shameful unless he actually intended to slow play. As usual when it comes to accusations like this, it will not and cannot be proven one way or the other. But if someone is uncomfortable with being the center of controversy they should probably not behave in a controversial manner to begin with.

Did David behave in a controversial manner? It seems like he just attended an event, and answered honestly on the score sheet about the game.

Look at it this way.

If I was a "WAAC" player with a fragile MSU army going second against a shooty army that scares me, I would realize that fewer shooting turns means more survival and objective contesting for me. If I was truly "WAAC", then slow play would be a viable tactic to win this match. It's possible that "engineered slow play" was the beginning tactic, but then the dice turned the tide and brute strength was able to win without the help of slow play. Am I saying this is what happened, NO. However, it was the perception of one party that slow play was intentional.

Is it also possible that scores were "chipmunked", yes. It's happened to me so I know it happens. It's the other party's side of the story.

It is odd to me that "pro's" that travel the competitive circuit playing 57 tournament games alone this year, suddenly can only play 3 turns in 90 minutes, 5 turns in overtime, yet had no problems the rest of the weekend. Is it coincidence that an opponent claimed intentional slow play and docked sportsmanship, or justified?

FWIW, I would prefer not to see rl names and drama on forums and in batreps. I write plenty of batreps and keep rules discussions and competitive drama out of them. Readers don't need to know these things. Putting a person's full name and "chipmunked" on a forum that see's thousands of readers a day is really immature in my book.

Danny Internets wrote:Nothing David did was shameful unless he actually did chipmunk Justin's score, and similarly nothing Justin did was shameful unless he actually intended to slow play. As usual when it comes to accusations like this, it will not and cannot be proven one way or the other. But if someone is uncomfortable with being the center of controversy they should probably not behave in a controversial manner to begin with.

Having read the thread it seems to me that the only thing that Foreigner did that was controversial was happen to be paired up against someone who is the center of a storm of internet drama after every GT that he attends. There's plenty of people that win events without generating this kind of anger and resentment.

Throwing his real name around when he doesn't want it to be is straight up not cool, and frankly seems like bullying. My two cents.

Wait...didn't this happen over a week ago? Why is everyone still holding on?

Something about this reminds me of the time I forgot to bring home cookie dough for my girlfriend and she ragged on me for months...

Unholy_Martyr wrote:Wait...didn't this happen over a week ago? Why is everyone still holding on?

The trick is to hold on loosely, but don't let go.

But you're right, of course.

Okay, just making sure.

I mean some discussion is worthwhile but this discourse is bordering on laborious and trivial, if not already there.

More than that, of the few responses I have actually bothered to look at, few if any at all bring any intelligent/beneficial discussion to the forum.

Just saying as an outsider looking in.

In an event where all reasonable observers agree that 2 hours is not enough time for a full game of 2000pts, and where two new armies GK and DE seem to have rule mechanics that take more time than other codexes to play... I am not sure how anyone should blame their opponent for that.

And not all games that are slow are necessarily slow play. I find slow play due to ignorance of the game much more of an issue opposed to someone who simply has a longer phase due to their armies rules. I don't like the idea people should build 'fast play' armies to make opponents happy or suffer bad sports scores. That is basically arbitrary army comp to force players to be punished for legal builds that happen to take a little longer to play, especially when the event's game times are too short.

If everyone plays nice on sports cards and never speaks up, the system has zero purpose

The system already serves no purpose. It doesn't do what people think it does and more often than not just causes problems and drama.

I am completely baffled that people can't finish a 2k game in 2 hours. We do it regularly in club play and that's with stopping to talk to people or go grab pizza next door. Any more time is insane. It makes for uber long days that are long enough already.

If anything, the points in tournaments shouldn't be above 1500. It'd change things dramatically.

Walls wrote:I am completely baffled that people can't finish a 2k game in 2 hours.

It completely baffles me that Dash could come close to finishing his games with his army at 2000 points in 2 hours.

Again this is why sports scoring is stupid and why no other sport / competitive game / anything let's your opponent score your "sportsmanship"

Blackmoor wrote:

Janthkin wrote:So, you're playing a mission that isn't from the 5e rulebook, and is further customized even from the old "table quarters" missions of yore, and it didn't interact well with a 5e game mechanic?

And this is the fault of random game length how, again?

That is what I was going to say. You play some made up mission and it is random game lengths fault that you lost?

So if I get this right there are 2 table quarters that count for scoring? Doesn't that mean that you are contesting the one with his terminators, and you own the other giving you the win?

And here is some tactical advice for you: Paladins are not a trashy squad.

I forgot to mention that when the general of your army was killed (one of your nominated HQs) then the generals from both sides were removed from the game (so the living general could question the captured one) and the side with the general that lived got 1 point. So at the end of the game I held one objective while he contested one and had the point for my HQ making it 1 to 1. And i didnt make it up. It was made by the tournament organizer. And really? An expensive as hell 2 wound model with a 5++ non-eternal warrior isnt trashy? Have you tried playing a good guard player with Paladins? Or a dark eldar player with blaster/ravenger spam? Oh wait, let me guess. "I played them and I winz cause Im awesome and power armor is the best!" I think Ill pass on your tactical advice. And no one has answered my question about whether or not Ard boyz was a fixed 6 turns.
P.S. @Boss Gutrip I had wych squads in both corners so i had both completely held. Till he deep struck that is

'Ard Boyz has never been a fixed 6 turns except for fantasy, as far as I can remember. I was unable to attend last year's, but I went the year before and before that as well.

GW likes the random game length. They think it's "tactical" to require you to jump for objectives on turn 5 and take that risk that it'll go on to turn 6 and possibly 7 and screw you over, or do the reverse and screw you over if you hold off on grabbing depending on a 6th turn and have the game end.

I agree.....but I think it should be 6 turns, with the chance on a 4+ to go longer, or continue on a 2+ instead of a 3.

I might be completely wrong, but I thought the 40k Ard Boyz missions were 6 turns as well.

I think 2 hours is plenty of time to play a 2,000 point game, BTW.

Walls wrote:I am completely baffled that people can't finish a 2k game in 2 hours. We do it regularly in club play and that's with stopping to talk to people or go grab pizza next door.

I beg to differ.

I played against foot orks game #6. We started before time kicked off, we took shortcuts to speed up gameplay (starting our turns while the other person was still doing theirs), rolled dice as fast as possible, combined movement/running - and we got through four turns in our two hours.

This was on table #1, so we had a judge (the same judge) at our table the whole game. We had zero rules disputes, no judge calls or clarifications - it was a completely smooth game. And we got through four turns. Our judge said that we played the entire thing with superhuman speed. Both of us made mistakes in our haste.

Not all armies can be played in two hours at 2,000 points. My shooting phases take a while - I have one hell of a lot of it. Ork movement and assault takes a while.

David / Foreigner...you feel like I was slow-playing you? The reason our game took longer...why my turns took longer than yours is because there was some inequalities in how we treat each other. You wanted to see every one of my dice. Anything that landed behind a building, I had to pull out for you. Every lance caused you to get down and check LOS for cover. Measurements required double-checks on your part. Even with a judge at our table. My turns didn't take longer because I slow played you, they took longer because you forced them to. On the flip side, I sat down and relaxed while you took your turns. I trusted that you weren't cheating. I didn't double-check your dice or your movements, and accepted the calls you made on cover / no cover.

I suppose that people like me break sportsmanship. I should have given you a bad game vote because you're unpleasant to play against, and are implicitly calling me a cheater every time you do one of those things. Its pretty douchy for you to attribute your actions as my fault. Except that I never hand out bad sportsmanship scores...because I have thick skin. The crap I put up with doesn't really bother me, and I don't have trouble wading through it or giving people the benefit of the doubt.

I keep wanting to play you at tournaments, dash, but something [coughspacewolvescough] always kills my score before I can be put against you. Hopefully one of these days I'll catch a break and not have to deal with my nemesis before making it to the upper tables.

Chosen Praetorian wrote:And really? An expensive as hell 2 wound model with a 5++ non-eternal warrior isnt trashy? Have you tried playing a good guard player with Paladins?

Yep, and he barely beat me, and the Paladins were not the reason why I lost.
http://blackmoors40k.blogspot.com/2011/06/slaughter-in-space-game-3-blackmoors.html

Or a dark eldar player with blaster/ravenger spam? Oh wait, let me guess. "I played them and I winz cause Im awesome and power armor is the best!" I think Ill pass on your tactical advice.

We will just have to disagree then on how effective Paladins are.

Of course your opponent lost because he was using Paladins. It has nothing do with your opponent not using cover for a 3+ save, or the fact that he deep struck half of his army so you can destroy half of it with your entire army, and then pick off the other units that come in piecemeal from reserve.

Leenus wrote:Again this is why sports scoring is stupid and why no other sport / competitive game / anything let's your opponent score your "sportsmanship"

<broadcast mode active: we are NOT going to rehash the "sportsmanship is good/bad" discussion in this thread; it is off-topic, and it will be treated as such>

CKO wrote:I think the time limit is fine and the random turn length is fine aswell. If you are setting yourself up to win on turn 6 then you are taking that 33% chance of losing. All of these people jumping on the I could of or would of won time train is not neccessary.

The problem isn't about who wins or loses. The problem with BRB RGL is that when you spend alot of time and money to travel having games end on turn 5 is pretty weak. With the greater number of all reserves starts and MSU armies coming out of the newer books you don't get alot of game in. I want satisfaction regardless of whether I win or lose.

If 7 games is not enough for you, I dont know what is.

Dashofpepper wrote:You wanted to see every one of my dice. Anything that landed behind a building, I had to pull out for you. Every lance caused you to get down and check LOS for cover. Measurements required double-checks on your part. Even with a judge at our table.

Obviously, taken to an extreme this would make for a terrible game... but especially in a close/competitive game, I like to see my opponent's rolls, and I'll double check a LOS or a measurement anytime I'm unsure about it or didn't get a good look at it. I don't think there's anything wrong with any of that... but of course, taken to extreme it would be terrible.

To me, this is another case of which side is expressing the concern... I imagine your opponent would say he wasn't doing these things unreasonably, and only the two of you (and the judge at the table) can really know.

I also don't think that doing any of the above things in a reasonable manner is implicitly calling your opponent cheating- it's simply double-checking a measurement or a LOS, and if you're still unsure, probably getting a judge to check it. As for not marking down an opponent for sportsmanship if they deserve it... I think it does break the system when people always vote 100% for sportsmanship, usually hoping their opponent will do the same, regardless of what happened in the game... when other people are voting based on the actual rubric and what the guidelines ask you to do. I don't think having thick skin should be part of it- giving them the score appropriate to the game should happen no matter what.

RiTides wrote:

only the two of you (and the judge at the table) can really know.

Indeed. I disagree with him and the judge told him he was being unreasonable.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice....well, I may be twice a fool, but won't be thrice should we play again.

Blackmoor wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:And really? An expensive as hell 2 wound model with a 5++ non-eternal warrior isnt trashy? Have you tried playing a good guard player with Paladins?

Yep, and he barely beat me, and the Paladins were not the reason why I lost.
http://blackmoors40k.blogspot.com/2011/06/slaughter-in-space-game-3-blackmoors.html

Or a dark eldar player with blaster/ravenger spam? Oh wait, let me guess. "I played them and I winz cause Im awesome and power armor is the best!" I think Ill pass on your tactical advice.

We will just have to disagree then on how effective Paladins are.

Of course your opponent lost because he was using Paladins. It has nothing do with your opponent not using cover for a 3+ save, or the fact that he deep struck half of his army so you can destroy half of it with your entire army, and then pick off the other units that come in piecemeal from reserve.

I will agree with you there, he is a terrible player. Im just saying I think it would be way more tactical if the game was a fixed 6 turns and take out seize the initiative. And i think paladins suck because Ive played against that army(with actual good players playing it) with Guard (which resulted in a table every time), DE(the one tie and two other tables) and Orks(Ive never lost to GKs with orks but the paladins are better against boyz, Thraka is another matter) and i just never see them being worth their points. Oh well, I do understand that it is the player and not the list. They may work better for your play style and if youre doing well with them then i see why you like them.

As far as time for game play goes:

I go to Adepticon and I spend $300+ for a plane fight, $300 for a hotel room and get ready for what could be an 8 game tournament.

Then first round I get matched up against a Dark Eldar player and I blow him off of the table. We play at a reasonable speed and I also have a small army that plays fast. We hear them shouting 15 minutes left to go in the middle of my turn during the top of the 4th. Then on his turn he flies around and takes all of the objectives and just like that I am out of the tournament for no other reason than the time ran out. If the game went on turn #5 I move my HQ to the center of the table and it is over for him.

You can read the report here:
http://blackmoors40k.blogspot.com/2011/04/demonhunters-go-to-adepticon.html

Here is the picture of the last turn. He is running on fumes and I have to get my terminators to the table center to win.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2B3qegK0rC8/TaPqvYx65cI/AAAAAAAAAJo/R4lig9fusDQ/s1600/Adepticon+2011+015.JPG

I have lost more games due to time than almost any other factor. I generally play shooting armies that like to sit back and soften up assault armies before venturing out on turn #4 and #5 to get objectives. If the game goes short, then I will lose. I can post a lot of games that cost me tournaments because they went short:
Here I am at the 'Ard Boys two years ago and I am 2-0 and blowing my 3rd round opponent off of the board when time is called. The funny thing here is that the guy who won the semi-finals I beat and would have never made the semi's if I finish that game.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/250049.page

I could go on, but you get the point.

It is possible that games ending early is the reason why certain armies do better than others in tournaments. You know how people keep saying that Orks suck? Maybe they are not tournament players and play full games where they do not do so well, but if they game is ending on turn #4 they are all of the middle of the board holding objectives.

Chosen Praetorian wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:

Janthkin wrote:So, you're playing a mission that isn't from the 5e rulebook, and is further customized even from the old "table quarters" missions of yore, and it didn't interact well with a 5e game mechanic?

And this is the fault of random game length how, again?

That is what I was going to say. You play some made up mission and it is random game lengths fault that you lost?

So if I get this right there are 2 table quarters that count for scoring? Doesn't that mean that you are contesting the one with his terminators, and you own the other giving you the win?And here is some tactical advice for you: Paladins are not a trashy squad.

I forgot to mention that when the general of your army was killed (one of your nominated HQs) then the generals from both sides were removed from the game (so the living general could question the captured one) and the side with the general that lived got 1 point. So at the end of the game I held one objective while he contested one and had the point for my HQ making it 1 to 1. And i didnt make it up. It was made by the tournament organizer. And really? An expensive as hell 2 wound model with a 5++ non-eternal warrior isnt trashy? Have you tried playing a good guard player with Paladins? Or a dark eldar player with blaster/ravenger spam? Oh wait, let me guess. "I played them and I winz cause Im awesome and power armor is the best!" I think Ill pass on your tactical advice. And no one has answered my question about whether or not Ard boyz was a fixed 6 turns.
P.S. @Boss Gutrip I had wych squads in both corners so i had both completely held. Till he deep struck that is

You missed the point. The fault in your story is on the tournament organizer for designing a bad mission; not on Random Game Length.

Yes, Ard Boyz has had some fiexed 6-turn missions. Ard Boys is also infamous for often having badly-done missions.

Janthkin wrote:

Leenus wrote:Again this is why sports scoring is stupid and why no other sport / competitive game / anything let's your opponent score your "sportsmanship"

<broadcast mode active: we are NOT going to rehash the "sportsmanship is good/bad" discussion in this thread; it is off-topic, and it will be treated as such>

I love how that my comment is "off topic" yet a good several pages of this thread are related to sports scores given at WargamesCon. The data from WargamesCon seems to only show that sports creates drama and not actually result in more gentlemanly play (example, Dash game). But flex that mod muscle.



As for the cap on timed games, I think that tournament organizers should take more of "case-by-case" basis approach to the few games that go over time. It is a flawed view to believe that games can be fairly finished in a certain time limit. One cannot accurately track the time an opponent is using per game, so there's no way to know if someone used 50% of the time or 90% of the time. Because players have to act in both turns, there's nothing stopping the other player from rolling those armor saves a bit slower / checking line of site / etc.

At big events, not all the results need to be in exactly at the X hour mark, as the results take time to enter. If a few games need some extra time to finish, why not give it to them? By the time they finish, the backlog of results entering will likely be at the point where these games can be processed. The counter argument is that people will take longer, knowing they could potentially have more time. However, if you leave it on a case-by-case basis, as determined by judges, people still have to play swiftly, as there is no guarantee they will get to play "overtime." This mechanic leaves players no worse off (they are still bound by the time limit in the worst case), but gives them the extra time to properly finish a game if the judge deems so. It happens occasionally now, but it should definitely become more of a standard.

If a game is on turn 3 when time is called, there's probably no reason to let it continue, as it's too far behind. Sometimes that happens. But it solves the issue of games on top tables ending at turn 5, when only another 20 or 30 minutes is needed to finish turn 6 or 7. There's nothing satisfying about the game being ended short, when it could be finished without slowing down the tournament.

Sports scores had no effect on the scoring for Best Overall or Best General at WGC. Sportsmanship scoring was used to determine the best Sportsman and the Golden Goat (player with the most evil army with a great sports score, determine strictly by Goatboy, who is infamous for such lists and outcomes).

Time limits will increase for next year's WGC; strange lists and unfamiliar opponents increase the time for most players, and the two newest codices eclipse all the previous codices for adding complexity to the game.

Danny Internets wrote:The tournament took place in real life, not on the internet. If people aren't comfortable with their actions being made public they should consider whether or not they should be performing those actions in the first place.

Nothing David did was shameful unless he actually did chipmunk Justin's score, and similarly nothing Justin did was shameful unless he actually intended to slow play. As usual when it comes to accusations like this, it will not and cannot be proven one way or the other. But if someone is uncomfortable with being the center of controversy they should probably not behave in a controversial manner to begin with.

These are private events, they are organized privately and you need to pay to get in, with limited access and people can be ejected at will. That's not public. Using peoples actual names on internet forums is a massive forum faux pas, and just because they were at a tournament doesn't mean it's supposed to then be broadcast just because one person thinks it's a fun little way to needle at someone, because lets be honest, that's all that is.

To Leenus: I don't think players should be given extra time... but that's just my view. It's too subjective otherwise to do it "case by case". Either there's a hard time cap or there isn't.

If someone is slow-playing, the TO should be able to enforce pretty much any penalty they want. Otherwise, it's up to the players to fit the game in... and the tournament organizers to create a format that allows people to finish their games (perhaps a slightly lower point level, or slightly longer game times, than what was done here).

Jwolf,

Glad you guys did it that way. That is an EXCELLENT mechanic! Hopefully more tournaments will follow in your footsteps with that regards.

Leenus,

What we found is that the winning players had about the same Sportsmanship scores as in past years, but the variation in the field was much greater (although not all that great, our "worst" sports scores were equivalent to an average of good games for all 7 matches), so people might have been more honest in their scoring.

But that could be a faulty conclusion, as we have only the one dataset under the new system, and there were also a lot more incomplete games (and there is some degree of correlation with sports scores and incomplete games, though certainly not 1:1). We'll see what the results look like over the next few years; by 2015 or so I think I'll be able to speak with confidence about the validity of sports scores at WGC when sports is not related to overall scoring.

In previous years, there was a deviation of 4 points of sportsmanship scoring (with a rounds being worth 47 battlepoints) in the top 30 participants, with most of the participants being in the middle, one or two 2 points up, and one or two 2 points down. And the rest of the field had little to no variation as well.

All that said, aggressively bad sportsmanship faced the same opportunity this year as in previous years, namely a chance to get to know me better under unpleasant conditions. While we discussed a few rounds with players and issued a few cautions, we had no players who had to have the bad talk with me this year, which is awesome.

All of us over at The Hogs of War had a great time. We will be returning next year.