Everyone is making comments about Aaron's list at the Adepticon finals but the fact is that there is very little oversight of any lists at GTs.
With most people not using army builder anymore (and even then army builder has some issues) and with the amount of formations and how complicated lists are these days there are bound to be a lot of mistakes. Heck, most people do not even own the codexes that they are using for their armies.
First off, most GTs do not even require you to have a copy for each opponent you play against so there is no way to keep a list and check it after the tournaments to see if it is correct. Some lists are hastily scrawelled on a piece of paper a few moments before the tournament begins so there is no wonder that there are mistakes, and there is absolutely zero list checking.
Here is an example of the one list that I lost to at the LVO in January:
My phone battery died after this picture so I can't show you how really bad this list was. No points listed, just the number of models. He also had no transports listed so I asked him if his army is walking, and he informed me that the squads had rhinos, razorbacks and drop pods, but they were just not listed on his sheet.
Frontline Gaming does not even collect an army list for their events so even after the tournament there is no way to check to see if mistakes were made.
If someone wanted to, they can play with a different list each round, or be over a lot of points or have illegal lists, and no one would ever know.
How can we fix this? Is there a way people can upload there lists to a database prior to a tournament so they can be reviewed by the public? At the bare minimum you should have to turn in a list when you register for the event so if there is an issue later on there is a hard copy. Also tournaments should require players to bring a list for each of their opponents. That way you can check that what is on the table matches what is on the lists, and after the tournament you can check it for accuracy for points and legality.
We force everyone to send in the list digitally before the tournament. Everyone who does not do so until a fixed date is automatically eliminated from the tournament and matches will be rearranged accordingly, any entry fee will not be paid back. We then organize the lists and in every match give the list to the opponent, thus everyone is always ensured to have the enemy's army list.
You must play the army list you registered with, zero exceptions. If you forget to bring a model, you may not proxy it, if you accidentally bring a different model, you may not proxy it either. If you get caught fielding an illegal army (i.e. play a different army than listed), then the match is counted as a loss and if you cannot field the original army with the models you brought, you are eliminated from the tournament and if necessary, a judge will jump in to fill in the empty spot and play the game.
We make zero exceptions on this one and are extremely strict - not only because it's about cash in some tournaments, but also because, as you perfectly stated, having an army list is the bare minimum you should expect from a participant in a tournament. TOs who don't even enforce that basic rule should be ashamed of themselves.
After doing a quick bit of research, Adepticon and Nova Open do require a printed list for each of your opponents and one to turn in to the event organizers.
The BAO/LVO has nothing about bring any lists, or if it should be printed or not.
I will say that a common annoyance I run into is that only 1/3 or so of my tourney opponents actually have a spare list to give out even though the tourney rules specify to bring one for each opponent. Admittedly not a huge deal though, could be worse.
niv-mizzet wrote: I will say that a common annoyance I run into is that only 1/3 or so of my tourney opponents actually have a spare list to give out even though the tourney rules specify to bring one for each opponent. Admittedly not a huge deal though, could be worse.
Take a picture with your cell phone. That's what I do in such instances as I often do battle reports.
We take all copies of the list and stamp each, so players can't swap in new lists after check in. They do get reviewed, but it's a slow and painful process. The big problem is larger events aren't going to punish someone who spent thousands on army and travel just because they "forgot" to turn their list in or needed to change it last minute. So any rule is kind of a paper shield.
MVBrandt wrote: We take all copies of the list and stamp each, so players can't swap in new lists after check in. They do get reviewed, but it's a slow and painful process. The big problem is larger events aren't going to punish someone who spent thousands on army and travel just because they "forgot" to turn their list in or needed to change it last minute. So any rule is kind of a paper shield.
Why not? They managed to handle their hotel and travel arrangements, why can't they be expected to handle their tournament arrangements?
MVBrandt wrote: We take all copies of the list and stamp each, so players can't swap in new lists after check in. They do get reviewed, but it's a slow and painful process. The big problem is larger events aren't going to punish someone who spent thousands on army and travel just because they "forgot" to turn their list in or needed to change it last minute. So any rule is kind of a paper shield.
Why not? They managed to handle their hotel and travel arrangements, why can't they be expected to handle their tournament arrangements?
For one thing? Sudden rules\format changes, like the LVO had, can change what people want to\are allowed to bring. Really, it depends on what date you require the lists to be brought in by, and if you expect format\FAQ changes right before the event.
MVBrandt wrote: We take all copies of the list and stamp each, so players can't swap in new lists after check in. They do get reviewed, but it's a slow and painful process. The big problem is larger events aren't going to punish someone who spent thousands on army and travel just because they "forgot" to turn their list in or needed to change it last minute. So any rule is kind of a paper shield.
Why not? They managed to handle their hotel and travel arrangements, why can't they be expected to handle their tournament arrangements?
For one thing? Sudden rules\format changes, like the LVO had, can change what people want to\are allowed to bring. Really, it depends on what date you require the lists to be brought in by, and if you expect format\FAQ changes right before the event.
Im sure if everyone knew about the Skatach moving 18" it would have been in more lists and easier to prepare against.
Im sure if everyone knew about the Skatach moving 18" it would have been in more lists and easier to prepare against.
Did anyone ever produce chapter and verse on this???
Automatically Appended Next Post: I recently played in a GT where the winner presented opponents with a 12-page list of Harlies/Corsairs/CWE which was impossible to digest in the short time at the start of each game. When the list was published it became apparent that it was not only illegal, but that he had used vaporware wargear and played fast and loose with the Corsair and Harlie rules in every game. This was brought to the attention of the TO who, upon conferring with Frontline decided not to change prizes or ITC points.
Uhm...if any TO catches someone cheating and the decides to not act upon it, then you are an absolutely terrible TO and a shame for all other proper TO out there. /If/ what you say is true.
The game simply doesn't function for a competitive format without modifications, modifications that event organizers largely have not wanted to impose.
The game makes no pretence of balance, and the rules for playing a game are basically an RPG holdover for sandbox imagination play with toy soldier collections, as opposed to a coherent ruleset for a tactical engagement game.
TO's need to have standards set out for army lists, and they need to review such army lists. To make this possible with limited resources, ultimately I think that detachment and allies allowance are going to have to be restricted and limited to reduce the amount of possible mistakes, loopholes, unintended synergies, and sheer volume of work to go through.
Bringing a fully detailed and printed army list for opponents to see, and having it reviewed before the event by TO's, used to be standard operating procedure for a reason.
Blackmoor, why didn't you bring your opponent's lack of a list to our attention at the event instead of posting it here on Dakka where nothing can be done about it? You have a responsibility as a player to inform a judge if there's an issue with your opponent's list. We can't be everywhere and do everything, obviously, and if you don't let us know there's a problem how can we possibly fix it?
Some people just don't know any better, or it's their first GT, or whatever. We had a gentleman come to the BAO with no list at all, lol, he had it all in his head. We had him write one out of course, but some folks just aren't aware of the protocol.
There is a list requirement for the LVO, of course, there always has been. No one reads the dang policies anyway, lol.
@SIgavtr
Your suggestion only works in a vacuum, it doesn't work in practice. You aren't going to tell someone they have to go home or can't play because they didn't submit a list, that's silly. These events are about having fun, not imposing some draconian policy that would cause people to get (justifiably) incredibly upset and have a terrible experience.
@Ravenous D
That was a last minute rules question submitted by an attendee about the Skatach, and our TO staff answered the question. It was hardly a policy statement. When you're under the gun trying to get everything ready for the event and you're getting bombarded with last minute rules questions, the TOs have to make a call so people can finalize their lists.
@Coldsteel
Are you seriously implying that I would try to influence a TO help a teammate? If you are, you are way out of line. That is extremely offensive, on par with me spreading lies about you that you are unethical without a shred of evidence to support the claim.
The TO in question reached out to me because 3 of the top 5 armies had some type of list error and asked for some advice on how to handle it. I told him to do what he felt was best, to alert the players in question as to their mistake (if there was one) but that he couldn't go back in time and change what happened. These types of errors occur frequently in 7th ed as this edition is so crazy. It's easy to goof, we all do it. At the LVO 2015 I ruled against our team captain, InControl, to cause him to lose a game as it was the right call to make. I would never, ever, show favoritism and you implying that I would seriously pisses me off. If you want to be a part of the tournament community, you need to think about how your words in these matters reflect on you and will impact your reputation, because slandering others is a low class move.
And the fact that you keep asking for prize money and points to be given to you despite losing the game, makes you look even worse. Dude, you lost a game of 40k, big deal, get over it. Stop insinuating that everyone is out to get you, or cheated you, or whatever, it's low class.
@Thread
So, we agree that list collection and verification is important. No one wants to play against a list that has errors, if it's intentional or not. However, checking every list in a 300+ event is silly, it won't fix much. Adepticon collected lists and they still missed Aaron's list errors. It happens.
So, we've been working on a solution with Best Coast Pairings to collect lists digitally either before or during a event to post up on line for crowd sourced verification. It's the only realistic way to do it without list building software that automatically verifies it. That way not only will create excitement seeing who is playing what, but it also provides a way to catch errors prior to an event starting.
Having all players turn in lists a week or so before the tournament and posting them online for other players to spot any mistakes is a really good way of weeding out illegal lists. Crowdsourcing is the way to go here.
I run tournaments that have 40-50 players, so I can manage it by just having players e-mail me their lists and copying and pasting them on a forum. For an american style 200+ player GT that would be way too much work, but it could probably be automated into a website where you submit a list and could only edit it if the TO approved the changes (usually only to correct mistakes).
As the OP noted, I think public review is the only feasible advance review mechanism at the moment. Post everything up on a website/DropBox/something beforehand, and let anybody who cares to bother take a look and note problems. This oversight has always taken up a lot of TO time, but I think the game is just too complicated now for one or a couple individuals to accurately do all the review. There are so many source books, formations, etc., that it's not realistic to ask most TOs to be on top of all of it in the same way that a community as a whole can be.
Public advance review would also at a minimum essentially force typed lists. Commenters additionally then also note lists that are so fast & loose as to be useless for someone unfamiliar with the faction. That's typically a major shortcoming even with a good advance review: There's limited oversight that what hits the table is what's actually in the submitted lists. If an opponent hands me an undetailed, casual list for a faction I barely know, it can be pretty hard for me to tell exactly what I'm supposed to be looking at. Pushing for detailed lists would help with that.
Note that this only works if the TO prints and hands out lists, as otherwise the player could submit one list for review and bring another to hand out. Even if mismatches at the top of the ranks might get caught eventually, it's vastly better to prevent problems as there's limited ability for recourse once you're into the event itself (you can dock prizes, etc., but what about all the affected opponents?).
MVBrandt wrote: Reece you are obviously as much of a colluding cheater as I am
I literally laughed out loud. Nice one.
My one and only suggestion for this would be for the top lists at the end of day one to be combed through for errors to insure those players moving on to day(s) 2/3 are playing lists that are above board. As a side, and really unrelated note, all those players playing for top spots should also be using dice that are provided for them by the GT. Just my $.02 I don't run events I just play in them so take it for what you will.
So, we've been working on a solution with Best Coast Pairings to collect lists digitally either before or during a event to post up on line for crowd sourced verification. It's the only realistic way to do it without list building software that automatically verifies it. That way not only will create excitement seeing who is playing what, but it also provides a way to catch errors prior to an event starting.
This is an interesting solution, I'm very curious as to how it will work out, kudos for thinking out of the box.
Uh I don't know what to say about people who yell at TOs about cheating lists - with maybe the obvious exception of if it's their best friend or whatnot.
Usually there is 1, maybe 2, people at a 64+ tournament who might have the knowledge needed to actually parse lists from every codex and properly check them without blowing multiple days of back checking. At the smaller ones, it's likely there's no one with that deep of a knowledge pool.
Look I've given Reece and others grief about other things. But you have to remember this is a game. And your TO's aren't being paid something to do this. They do this because they're a part of the game's environment and want to help steward it for you. Now, if they make a mistake and give a thumbs up to someone's list ahead of time, there is the obvious problem on how to rectify this. Clearly you have a rules violation now, but also you DID say yes to this person ahead of time, they built an army around it, and you can't just pick up another army on the fly going into a major tournament you (most likely) traveled for.
TOs are happy to enforce their will when they think/know they are right. But they're also human and they're not about to cut off someone who has spent significant time/money/vacation hours to participate because of a mistake made by both parties. They will try and get inventive and work with the player on a face saving method, but you're out of your mind if you think they're going to disqualify that person if the list was already looked at and ruled on ahead of time by tournament staff.
As for those who show up with broken lists and didn't ask ahead of time, well sucks to be them and that really is part of the deal. The lesson for everyone should be to get your list checked out WELL IN ADVANCE. Especially if you have a questions. These big tournaments don't come out of the blue, you can send in questions for months and still get a refund if you don't like your answer. So do it and get the same advantage Aaron got because a rule call went your way. Or don't, but at least you won't lose the tournament because you bought an illegal list. Either way Aaron ran an approved list, he did his due diligence ahead of time, and doesn't deserve to be kicked for it.
Anyway, just my .05 cents (One too many paragraphs for .02 cents) but let's all try and calm down about this. It was a bad call, but any one moment of bad rolling could have swept this list back out to sea and we wouldn't even have this conversation.
Your suggestion only works in a vacuum, it doesn't work in practice. You aren't going to tell someone they have to go home or can't play because they didn't submit a list, that's silly. These events are about having fun, not imposing some draconian policy that would cause people to get (justifiably) incredibly upset and have a terrible experience.
It has been standard practice at our bi-annual cash prize and the annual Grand Tournament for over 4 years now. So far, we only had 2 cases of people not submitting lists in time and who were, subsequently, denied to attend. In one case, said person didn't show up, in the other case, the other person showed up, apologized and asked if we could make an exception we did not do. We offered him to pay his entry fee back if he instead of playing would support the rest of the team and he accepted. He helped out for a few hours and then played with other guests at a side table.
Granted, we don't have as many attendees as nation-wide tournaments do, clocking in at 30-40 attendees. The feedback we get, however, is really positive and people especially appreciate us handing out (laminated) lists for each match on each table in order to avoid confusion or cheating.
Be advised that we don't just quietly wait until the list deadline is over. The deadline usually is 1 day before the event and we send out 2-3 mails remembering people to send in their lists on time, the last one 24h before the deadline.
I have lost many games of 40K and will lose many in the future. I have not asked for any money or points as it relates to the cheating in question. Perhaps you are confusing me with another player. You just need to know that the way things went down looks very suspicious. This is by your choice... you had input in the resolution and chose a position which supported a cheating teammate. Own it. I've been told that warnings have been given to other regional TOs about the player(s) in question, so that should help. And it's good to have a forum like this where tournament players can share experiences and hopefully be better prepared in the future. Thanks for all you do, and thanks to GW for this great hobby which we love!
I suppose that cheating is a natural consequence of the higher stakes involved at some of these tourneys. At your FLGS it's beer and pretzels, maybe some pride. In bigger events it's cash, prizes, ITC points, maybe even a shot at the ETC. The loose (and exhaustive) rules and 'pressure' lead us to push the envelope in list construction and rules interpretation. But it's just toy soldiers.
@Reece: Forgot to add an important piece of info, we are playing 5th, not 7th and KoW, so list building is FAR less complicated and thus easier to look over.
What still baffles me, however, is that you, as the TO, take responsibility for the players's lists. Why? Make it clear that everyone is reponsible for his respective list and should it contain errors, then the player is to fully take the blame for it. It's much less hassle for you and it's shifting responsibility to where it belongs: the player. Playing with an illegal list could yield to immediate disqualification and elimination from all ranks with other players stepping up. It's your tournament, naturally, I am just curious and confused as to why you guys take the blame for other people's faults.
OverwatchCNC wrote: As a side, and really unrelated note, all those players playing for top spots should also be using dice that are provided for them by the GT. Just my $.02 I don't run events I just play in them so take it for what you will.
Again unrelated, but I agree with this 100% and think it's something that needs to be addressed. I'll admit that I'm probably being paranoid, but whenever I see my opponent using non-homogenous dice part of me assumes they're cheating, even unconsciously Why? Because at some point you bought enough dice for this game or pillaged 25 games of Risk, so why are there 3-4 dice from 5 completely different sets/sizes there? Maybe you picked 5 from your set of gray dice cause they roll a lot of 6s, and 4 from the red ones cause they always work for your leadership tests. Manufacturing isn't perfect, and an individual dice within a set can be unbalanced leading you to believe they are "lucky"; or perhaps you are more malicious and picked the "good ones" out of each set. Either way, it's something that doesn't help goodwill between players if someone is rolling hot for an entire game and if someone is cheating it's almost impossible to catch cause they'll play a different player every time.
I'll add that I don't like Monopoly/Risk dice because it's hard to roll large numbers of them and square edges make it easier to throw a dice trying to achieve a specific result (I'd personally prefer the 36-packs of small chesex dice). Also, it's really, really confusing when some dice have an alternate symbol for the "6" and others have it for the "1"; some dice have both and when you're rolling 20+ at a time it's super confusing especially with mixed sets.
Your suggestion only works in a vacuum, it doesn't work in practice. You aren't going to tell someone they have to go home or can't play because they didn't submit a list, that's silly. These events are about having fun, not imposing some draconian policy that would cause people to get (justifiably) incredibly upset and have a terrible experience.
It has been standard practice at our bi-annual cash prize and the annual Grand Tournament for over 4 years now. So far, we only had 2 cases of people not submitting lists in time and who were, subsequently, denied to attend. In one case, said person didn't show up, in the other case, the other person showed up, apologized and asked if we could make an exception we did not do. We offered him to pay his entry fee back if he instead of playing would support the rest of the team and he accepted. He helped out for a few hours and then played with other guests at a side table.
Granted, we don't have as many attendees as nation-wide tournaments do, clocking in at 30-40 attendees. The feedback we get, however, is really positive and people especially appreciate us handing out (laminated) lists for each match on each table in order to avoid confusion or cheating.
Be advised that we don't just quietly wait until the list deadline is over. The deadline usually is 1 day before the event and we send out 2-3 mails remembering people to send in their lists on time, the last one 24h before the deadline.
I think a lot of this depends on the scale of the event. For events that are local, or at least a reasonable distance you can maybe make this work. At smaller events it is also far easier to check lists. Back when I used to run a lot of 40k events I would ask for and check lists for all attendees, with little difficultly, but that was for 20 or so people not 200. But at an event like NOVA or LVO where maybe someone has flown in from say a different country for a bunch of money, and paid for a hotel and a convention pass to play your 3 day event, are you really going to tell them. Sorry go home? That is terrible for buissiness.
It's not just terrible for business, it's extremely difficult to do if you're a decent human being. And enough mistakes are genuine that you cannot fairly try and decide who is or isn't being genuine.
This isn't MTG. The people who run these events do so often at a monetary loss and almost exclusively for love of the hobby, charity, and/or to give their peers a fun time. Talk of telling people to get out of your tournament (sorry for languagebypass) because they screwed up is basically a non starter.
MVBrandt wrote: It's not just terrible for business, it's extremely difficult to do if you're a decent human being. And enough mistakes are genuine that you cannot fairly try and decide who is or isn't being genuine.
This isn't MTG. The people who run these events do so often at a monetary loss and almost exclusively for love of the hobby, charity, and/or to give their peers a fun time. Talk of telling people to fvck right off because they screwed up is basically a non starter.
a good poast. Tabletop gaming aims to be more inclusive than exact.
Crowd sourced list verification is the only method I've thought up that could work in this instance; have talked about this a bunch.
Not only do you leverage the people watching events, but you also engage people and provide record keeping digitally as well.
The trick though, is it's not as easy as it might seem at first blush. Without some key pieces, you can easily turn the error checking into more of a burden than a boon, as a lot of folks will probably review lists incorrectly. Gotta eliminate the chaff in order to get accurate reviews.
We always check lists and try to have 100% verified before the first game.
At one event I saw almost every Chaos Space Marine list was incorrect because Army Builder was wrong.
At another, someone was caught hacking the AB files to get extra points for their Eldar force.
Not only is checking lists a simple affair, it makes sure the staff are knowledgeable about the latest rules which helps with and questions about rules.
I have seen numerous posts over the past few years that very large events cannot handle the staff requirements. Either get more staff or find a way to fix things.
I use a large bonus point category for turning your list in early and in the proper format (typed out like it appears in the codex and not some 3rd party app). It encourages players to get them in ahead of schedule and take some pressure off the organizers.
Edit>>
We also follow GW's old policy for illegal armies/rules, we have a house army available for a player to use.
I have seen numerous posts over the past few years that very large events cannot handle the staff requirements. Either get more staff or find a way to fix things.
This is not a serious proposal. Many staff are volunteers, and most participants aren't willing to pay additional entry fees required for this staffing.
I brought copies of each list I played in the 30k tournaments at AdeptiCon and gave them to my opponents, as we were told to do. Half of the people did not, but we played anyway and had a good time.
These were generally narrative events with a much more laid back group of players than the 40k championship.
For that style event, you should really stick to the "Bring lots of copies of your list" rule and stick to it.
Just my 2 cents from an inexperienced, greenhorn tournament player.
I have seen numerous posts over the past few years that very large events cannot handle the staff requirements. Either get more staff or find a way to fix things.
This is not a serious proposal. Many staff are volunteers, and most participants aren't willing to pay additional entry fees required for this staffing.
I agree with axisofentropy. There simply is no way to verify that many lists. We heard the team tournament announcement that 450 players where there. How many people do you need to review lists quickly and accurately for that kind of turnout, Tironum?
I have seen numerous posts over the past few years that very large events cannot handle the staff requirements. Either get more staff or find a way to fix things.
This is not a serious proposal. Many staff are volunteers, and most participants aren't willing to pay additional entry fees required for this staffing.
Its not a terrible proposal. As long as checking lists didn't disqualify me from playing, I'd be happy to volunteer a little bit of time to check through lists. It could actually be a hybrid to Reecius' crowd sourced idea. Have a pool of 10-20 experienced players and send them each 5-10 lists to check. It wouldn't take them long, they could flag lists that look wrong for closer scrutiny by a judge and it would reduce the burden on the TO.
I have seen numerous posts over the past few years that very large events cannot handle the staff requirements. Either get more staff or find a way to fix things.
This is not a serious proposal. Many staff are volunteers, and most participants aren't willing to pay additional entry fees required for this staffing.
It is not hard and does not require additional entry fees. It does however require the staff to be knowledgeable of the releases and take a few minutes to interact with a paying customer. Saying that we have too many players and cannot be bothered to give an individual some time is a joke.
Look at how many times players show up with an incorrect lost or unpainted/unassembled models. If you will not enforce rules, how do you expect players to follow them.
The "get more staff" suggestion isn't an easy one to just do. NOVA's volunteer roll, for example, is about 170 names long. At the end of the weekend, most of them can't even walk straight without falling asleep. When you have a volunteer for every 10 or 11 attendees, and it's still not enough to pre-check every list from every single organized play event across a massive con, it's not that easy to just 'go get moar!'
That's also a relevant component of these events. NOVA, LVO, AdeptiCon, etc., are majority NOT 40k (well, I don't know for sure with LVO, they have a truckton of 40k players!), yet most of their stuff is still organized play, so it's not as if all the volunteers are sitting about fixated on 40k events to the detriment of all others.
Also, again, it's very much NOT about hardcore enforcing rules and hyper competition and get it right and all that. You enforce every rule that you know gets violated, b/c rules are important and fairness is important, but there's a limit to how restrictive and dispassionate and "RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH" you want to get with an event, especially when folks pay thousands of bucks to be there and enjoy themselves.
EDIT - tweaked first sentence, which was originally unfair/too dismissive
Public review isn't the only way to check lists. It's easy enough to enter point values for each model into a database, then you can just automate a cross reference that would take all of a couple seconds to verify every list in the tournament. You could whip up an excel spreadsheet to do this before lunch.
slip wrote: Public review isn't the only way to check lists. It's easy enough to enter point values for each model into a database, then you can just automate a cross reference that would take all of a couple seconds to verify every list in the tournament. You could whip up an excel spreadsheet to do this before lunch.
This might have been a sarcastic comment, and if so ignore my comment. But otherwise: This is obviously extremely difficult to do for 40k at this point, almost impossible. Even just the array of models available now is staggering, then the wargear, then other upgrades. Then you have formations like the ever popular Gladius that completely change how points work for a large number of models. And all of that is just summing points, well before you even start considering legal force organizations, squad composition, etc.. I assume a big part of why Army Builder and such have seem to have become much less popular the past few years (at least, that's been my observation in my group/at my small events) is because none of the tools could keep up. Could it all theoretically be automated? Sure. But the effort would be very consuming, to the extent that it would be tough for anyone but GW to support commercially (even if GW legal left them alone), and the community as a whole has lagged at it of late (I believe).
slip wrote: Public review isn't the only way to check lists. It's easy enough to enter point values for each model into a database, then you can just automate a cross reference that would take all of a couple seconds to verify every list in the tournament. You could whip up an excel spreadsheet to do this before lunch.
This might have been a sarcastic comment, and if so ignore my comment. But otherwise: This is obviously extremely difficult to do for 40k at this point, almost impossible. Even just the array of models available now is staggering, then the wargear, then other upgrades. Then you have formations like the ever popular Gladius that completely change how points work for a large number of models. And all of that is just summing points, well before you even start considering legal force organizations, squad composition, etc.. I assume a big part of why Army Builder and such have seem to have become much less popular the past few years (at least, that's been my observation in my group/at my small events) is because none of the tools could keep up. Could it all theoretically be automated? Sure. But the effort would be very consuming, to the extent that it would be tough for anyone but GW to support commercially (even if GW legal left them alone), and the community as a whole has lagged at it of late (I believe).
You are vastly over estimating how difficult it would be. Yes, entering all the point values would be time consuming. I've created similar databases for concrete compression strength test cylinders that encompass statically relevant quantity testing of multiple physical properties of every product offered by every company in an entire bidding process to verify that your structure will in fact stay upright, for every single structure that goes up in my city that uses concrete. (All of them.) The other maybe hard part is getting the entrants to adhere to a basic submission forum, which would greatly streamline the process and could be neatly imported into the database. I've done reports on over a thousand individual cylinders using these databases on a good day.
That was tough. Coming up with a database for dinky models and basic arithmetic is child's play. You don't even need to use calculus or imaginary numbers or worry about municipal, environmental, fire, and safety code. Whether you want to pay someone what it's worth to do it is a whole nother matter, and I guarantee is what the problem is with army builder. (Gotta remember, maintenance costs $$$) There's no unit that couldn't be totally accounted for with a relatively simple IF/AND statement and 40k point values don't change nearly as much as construction contract stipulations do.
But yeah, I'm sure GW's legal team would want to have words with you at some point. Getting their okay would be even more time consuming and expensive. (Ugh, they'd probably make you rent a license for the finished product too.)
The contract and price is pretty reasonable. The GW legal team component isn't going to happen, even though you could do it without using any formal unit / etc. names on the public-facing side of it, and thus avoid any pitfalls. It is a nice dreamy suggestion, though! Maybe somebody with the chops will do it, if it is that simple to do, at that reasonable a rate.
MVBrandt wrote: The contract and price is pretty reasonable. The GW legal team component isn't going to happen, even though you could do it without using any formal unit / etc. names on the public-facing side of it, and thus avoid any pitfalls. It is a nice dreamy suggestion, though! Maybe somebody with the chops will do it, if it is that simple to do, at that reasonable a rate.
Beyond the legal stuff, it would be *literally* impossible to do this in a simple excel sheet.
I started typing out some examples of why it would be so, but I think it's pedantic at this point. Can't be done.
With a crowd-source solution, there's going to be 2 major areas that present a challenge:
1. How do you get the lists submitted? Ideally, they would upload a pdf or image via some website, but this will require profiles/accounts. What about walk-ins/last minute sign-ups? You'll also need an on-site method; maybe they can send you a list digitally at the reg desk, maybe you have a kiosk where they can enter it, or maybe you have a scanner and upload it to their account for them. Lots of options, all with challenges.
2. How do you weed out the wrong/malicious reviews from the accurate ones? I see this going a certain way, but others may have additional ideas. First, every list has two things: a crowd score and an official score. Crowd score is the % correct it looks, based on the go/no-go of everyone looking at the list. The official score is the judge-verified version (granted that judges make mistakes also). With this data, I think you get some critical pieces. First, you get a pretty good idea of when a list hits a certain threshold, it needs to be officially reviewed. And second, you can start tallying who the "good" public reviewers are, assuming they have an account also. With that info in mind, you can reward good reviewers, or just value their review higher, etc.
I may be making this too complicated, but who knows. You could just have anonymous reviews and trust the community to be respectful
I wanted to give a shout out to Best Coast Pairing, Torrent of Fire, and any other groups that, as self respecting independent contractors, have in fact realized:
- There are problems in running tournaments (such as scoring and list verification);
- There is a market to pay for that problem to be solved;
And have or are engaged in the entrepreneurship to see if the market can support addressing the problem. These products don't all work well for my events (which tend to be heavily narrative and use varied scoring and other mechanisms), but I've tried to or have used some of them, I'm glad they work for many users, and it's cool for people to take that step rather than just railing on a message board. Thanks!
chipstar1 wrote: With a crowd-source solution, there's going to be 2 major areas that present a challenge:
1. How do you get the lists submitted? Ideally, they would upload a pdf or image via some website, but this will require profiles/accounts. What about walk-ins/last minute sign-ups? You'll also need an on-site method; maybe they can send you a list digitally at the reg desk, maybe you have a kiosk where they can enter it, or maybe you have a scanner and upload it to their account for them. Lots of options, all with challenges. 2. How do you weed out the wrong/malicious reviews from the accurate ones? I see this going a certain way, but others may have additional ideas. First, every list has two things: a crowd score and an official score. Crowd score is the % correct it looks, based on the go/no-go of everyone looking at the list. The official score is the judge-verified version (granted that judges make mistakes also). With this data, I think you get some critical pieces. First, you get a pretty good idea of when a list hits a certain threshold, it needs to be officially reviewed. And second, you can start tallying who the "good" public reviewers are, assuming they have an account also. With that info in mind, you can reward good reviewers, or just value their review higher, etc.
I may be making this too complicated, but who knows. You could just have anonymous reviews and trust the community to be respectful
I think you could do a hybrid. Require early submission of lists (approximately 15 to 30 days before the event, whatever your cutoff for new materials is). Have a volunteer pool of experienced players (say approximately one per every 10 players anticipated) vet the lists and flag any lists with issues for a judges review. Last minute entrants could then be outsourced to reviewers if time permits or reviewed by a judge day off. As long as reviewing lists doesn't disqualify someone from playing, I'm sure you could get plenty of people to help out.
slip wrote: You are vastly over estimating how difficult it would be. Yes, entering all the point values would be time consuming. I've created similar databases for concrete compression strength test cylinders that encompass statically relevant quantity testing of multiple physical properties of every product offered by every company in an entire bidding process to verify that your structure will in fact stay upright, for every single structure that goes up in my city that uses concrete. (All of them.) The other maybe hard part is getting the entrants to adhere to a basic submission forum, which would greatly streamline the process and could be neatly imported into the database. I've done reports on over a thousand individual cylinders using these databases on a good day.
That was tough. Coming up with a database for dinky models and basic arithmetic is child's play. You don't even need to use calculus or imaginary numbers or worry about municipal, environmental, fire, and safety code. Whether you want to pay someone what it's worth to do it is a whole nother matter, and I guarantee is what the problem is with army builder. (Gotta remember, maintenance costs $$$) There's no unit that couldn't be totally accounted for with a relatively simple IF/AND statement and 40k point values don't change nearly as much as construction contract stipulations do.
But yeah, I'm sure GW's legal team would want to have words with you at some point. Getting their okay would be even more time consuming and expensive. (Ugh, they'd probably make you rent a license for the finished product too.)
I'm sure others here have worked with similar databases (I have), so throwing out big resume phrases like: "concrete compression strength test cylinders that encompass statically relevant quantity testing of multiple physical properties of every product offered by every company in an entire bidding process to verify that your structure will in fact stay upright" (which is just a fancy way of saying you had a spreadsheet that compared data against other numbers) doesn't make you any smarter than anyone else. I'm telling you it's not the same. It's probably possible, but the data entry would be a nightmare; because the problem isn't adding points, it's determining legal army construction which takes more than IF/AND statements.
chipstar1 wrote: With a crowd-source solution, there's going to be 2 major areas that present a challenge:
1. How do you get the lists submitted? Ideally, they would upload a pdf or image via some website, but this will require profiles/accounts. What about walk-ins/last minute sign-ups? You'll also need an on-site method; maybe they can send you a list digitally at the reg desk, maybe you have a kiosk where they can enter it, or maybe you have a scanner and upload it to their account for them. Lots of options, all with challenges.
2. How do you weed out the wrong/malicious reviews from the accurate ones? I see this going a certain way, but others may have additional ideas. First, every list has two things: a crowd score and an official score. Crowd score is the % correct it looks, based on the go/no-go of everyone looking at the list. The official score is the judge-verified version (granted that judges make mistakes also). With this data, I think you get some critical pieces. First, you get a pretty good idea of when a list hits a certain threshold, it needs to be officially reviewed. And second, you can start tallying who the "good" public reviewers are, assuming they have an account also. With that info in mind, you can reward good reviewers, or just value their review higher, etc.
The upload issue is not a huge deal. It could be addressed in a bunch of different ways technically. On the whole the software to support human peer review is not trivial to do well, but not terribly complex either. By far the biggest issue is just getting or enabling people with the skills to allocate the moderate amount of time needed to do it right/robustly.
Beyond that, the design of the mechanisms rather than their implementation is not obvious, like you talk about in the second point. I don't have super concrete thoughts on this. But one place to look for ideas are the better academic conferences and journals enabling public peer review. I'm not really in tune with the current state of that world, but there are a lot of people thinking about and working on approaches to solving very similar problems. For example, a long time ago, SIGMOD (a prestigious conference about database research) had organizers do quick triage on paper submissions to weed out obviously inadequate or inappropriate submissions (too many/too few pages, unacceptable formatting, etc). The surviving PDFs then all got posted to a website that served them up on their own pages. On those pages people could post comments and have a discussion raising questions or objections and debating the merit. Groups of organizers then took those comments into account in deciding whether or not to accept each paper to the conference. That seems like exactly what would be useful here, enabling judges to quickly approve non-controversial lists while homing in on lists with potential problems based on comments or some other community flag, much like chipstar1 is describing.
The upload issue is not a huge deal. It could be addressed in a bunch of different ways technically. On the whole the software to support human peer review is not trivial to do well, but not terribly complex either. By far the biggest issue is just getting or enabling people with the skills to allocate the moderate amount of time needed to do it right/robustly.
Beyond that, the design of the mechanisms rather than their implementation is not obvious, like you talk about in the second point. I don't have super concrete thoughts on this. But one place to look for ideas are the better academic conferences and journals enabling public peer review. I'm not really in tune with the current state of that world, but there are a lot of people thinking about and working on approaches to solving very similar problems. For example, a long time ago, SIGMOD (a prestigious conference about database research) had organizers do quick triage on paper submissions to weed out obviously inadequate or inappropriate submissions (too many/too few pages, unacceptable formatting, etc). The surviving PDFs then all got posted to a website that served them up on their own pages. On those pages people could post comments and have a discussion raising questions or objections and debating the merit. Groups of organizers then took those comments into account in deciding whether or not to accept each paper to the conference. That seems like exactly what would be useful here, enabling judges to quickly approve non-controversial lists while homing in on lists with potential problems based on comments or some other community flag, much like chipstar1 is describing.
The peer review part is a really great idea. In fact, for peer/abstract review, I bet there are pre-built Wordpress plugins (what FLG, NOVA, etc's websites are running on) to do just that. That is a really great idea! Reece/Mike/Others, probably worth investigating this.
I do have an idea but it would take some time to do, furthermore I'm not sure the legal grounds.
Create an open source webpage that lets you build army lists. Make everyone use that tool to create their lists. The lists will be linked to a unique number.
The player would turn that number in, the event would then print their lists for them.
You would of course need some sort of peer review checking of the army files.
Rynner wrote: I do have an idea but it would take some time to do, furthermore I'm not sure the legal grounds.
Create an open source webpage that lets you build army lists. Make everyone use that tool to create their lists. The lists will be linked to a unique number.
The player would turn that number in, the event would then print their lists for them.
You would of course need some sort of peer review checking of the army files.
I was actually just about to type up something similar.
This is an ideal and workable solution. Fantasy Flight Games has something similar for their Living Card Games where you can put up a deck list and have people comment on it. Obviously, dealing in Detachments/Formations/Decurions is a little more complex, but nothing a halfway decent database designer can't do. I know. I design financial industry software for a living. If you thought 40k was complicated, try wading through all the financial industry regulations that have been put into law in the last ten years.
So...
1. Set up a website that has an army list builder interface (obviously the most complex part, but very doable). Allow users to register and store their army lists electronically. Lists are systemically checked for legality each time they are saved and get flagged as either legal or illegal.
2. Allow tournament organizers to set up "event pages" on this website.
3. Users can sign up for an event and systemically "attach" the list that they'll be using to the event by choosing from a drop down of their existing legal lists. Users are required to "lock in" their lists at least, I don't know... 12 hours before the event's start.
4. Add a comments system for list/event review as well as an area for providing feedback for the integrity of the army list builder interface and you're golden.
5. For Phase 2, go crazy. Make an iOS or Droid app to act as a view only. Heck, tie it into the event and use it to track dead units on both your list and your opponents. Wouldn't be that hard to do.
Now, obviously this would cost time and money. The FFG LCG one works well because it's administrated by FFG. GW might need to be involved with the above, but it would be glorious if done correctly. Biggest two issues I see are that you'd need access to GW's IP and I'm not sure that there is much of a revenue stream. I'm envisioning something free and ad supported, but with "premium options" that allow you to schedule events or whatever. I'm just throwing out ideas right now.
Rynner wrote: It would need to be community supported software I think. I.E. A bunch of us who want to see this thing exist would need to collaborate on it.
I'm a web developer for a living and would be interesting in partnering up with a few people who want to make this a reality.
I don't think we (as a community) would be able to use GW's unit data. Coding an army list builder is one thing. Populating it with actual units is another. I'd love to be a part of something like this, but I just don't see getting a blessing from GW.
Rynner wrote: It would need to be community supported software I think. I.E. A bunch of us who want to see this thing exist would need to collaborate on it.
I'm a web developer for a living and would be interesting in partnering up with a few people who want to make this a reality.
I don't think we (as a community) would be able to use GW's unit data. Coding an army list builder is one thing. Populating it with actual units is another. I'd love to be a part of something like this, but I just don't see getting a blessing from GW.
The big legality is when you start listing out points values and special rules. That's when GW gets their lawyers whipped up into a frenzy. And that's why all of the army building applications rely on user-submitted files, for a deferral of responsibility on who is actually impinging on GW's IP.
The big legality is when you start listing out points values and special rules.
Points values and the names of special rules are fine. Listing the effects of those special rules and/or wargears are not.
Not like you'd want to include those anyway. It's a simpler and better design to not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rynner wrote: It would need to be community supported software I think. I.E. A bunch of us who want to see this thing exist would need to collaborate on it.
I'm a web developer for a living and would be interesting in partnering up with a few people who want to make this a reality.
I'm not sure why this would take more than one weekend from one person.
Top lists are generally reviewed by judges, I am pretty sure that if someone actually won prizes at an event like LVO/BAO/Adepticon/ect with an illegal list (or not having one) that they would likely be properly disciplined for it much like what happened at feast of blades
The big legality is when you start listing out points values and special rules.
Points values and the names of special rules are fine. Listing the effects of those special rules and/or wargears are not.
Not like you'd want to include those anyway. It's a simpler and better design to not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rynner wrote: It would need to be community supported software I think. I.E. A bunch of us who want to see this thing exist would need to collaborate on it.
I'm a web developer for a living and would be interesting in partnering up with a few people who want to make this a reality.
I'm not sure why this would take more than one weekend from one person.
Point values are definitely NOT ok. A lot of forums (maybe even this one?) don't even allow the posting of point values for units or wargear because of notices from GW.
And again, a gross underestimation of how long it would take to do something like this. I think this is a MUCH LARGER task than anyone realizes. It is definitely not a weekend.
Point values are definitely NOT ok. A lot of forums (maybe even this one?) don't even allow the posting of point values for units or wargear because of notices from GW.
'Definitely' is possibly a little strong.
A lot of forums (including this one) don't allow the posting of individual points costs in order to avoid potential legal issues. Whether or not it would actually be an issue is another matter entirely.
So long as full rules aren't posted, so that players would still require a rulebook and codex to actually use whatever list is generated, it would probably (note: not a lawyer) be fine. Forum owners just like to stay firmly on the path of least resistance, and not have to face the potential of warding off legal complications if they can be easilt avoided.
whembly wrote: What would the tournament play say to the idea that you must submit a list generated from:
Army Builder
-and/or-
Battle Scribe
???
The onus would be that the community would be more involved to vetting the dataset as "accurate" and updated in timely fashion.
I would imagine that would lose a lot of players. Is Army Builder still a subscription service? If so, then for a lot of players that would mean Battlescribe... and the Battlescribe list format is horrible.
Point values are definitely NOT ok. A lot of forums (maybe even this one?) don't even allow the posting of point values for units or wargear because of notices from GW.
'Definitely' is possibly a little strong.
A lot of forums (including this one) don't allow the posting of individual points costs in order to avoid potential legal issues. Whether or not it would actually be an issue is another matter entirely.
So long as full rules aren't posted, so that players would still require a rulebook and codex to actually use whatever list is generated, it would probably (note: not a lawyer) be fine. Forum owners just like to stay firmly on the path of least resistance, and not have to face the potential of warding off legal complications if they can be easilt avoided.
whembly wrote: What would the tournament play say to the idea that you must submit a list generated from:
Army Builder
-and/or-
Battle Scribe
???
The onus would be that the community would be more involved to vetting the dataset as "accurate" and updated in timely fashion.
I would imagine that would lose a lot of players. Is Army Builder still a subscription service? If so, then for a lot of players that would mean Battlescribe... and the Battlescribe list format is horrible.
Once someone masters the art of herding stray cats, that person should be the one to advise the gaming community on how best to deal with army list submission and review.
Honestly, there are just too many factors and variables in play for this to go off without a hitch.
You need enough competent staff or volunteers from the event, to manage 60-160+ army lists.
You need them to be able to do this in a reasonable window not too soon and not too late before the event starts.
You need players to cooperate with submitting lists on time.
If all you want to do is make sure the points add up to less than X amount, sure, thats easy enough to do in a weekend...
But 90% of army validation is more than adding points together.
Think about things like...
- up to 3 models may swap either their (A or B) for one of (x, y, or z)
- you may take one (a or b) for every 10 models in the unit
- the model may take one of (x, y or z) unless it takes A. if it takes A it may take one of (u, v, w)
- This model may take A unless it is from faction supplement X, in which case it can take B.
- Formation A is made up of 1-4 X's and 0-4 Y's. Formation B is made up of 1-8 Formation (A, B, C, D) for every formation E
- Upgrade X costs 10pts for unit A but 20pts for unit B
- ...
The code base behind ArmyBuilder and Battlescribe is tens of thousands of lines of code - not something that can be replicated easily in an excel sheet.
mortetvie wrote: Once someone masters the art of herding stray cats, that person should be the one to advise the gaming community on how best to deal with army list submission and review.
Honestly, there are just too many factors and variables in play for this to go off without a hitch.
You need enough competent staff or volunteers from the event, to manage 60-160+ army lists.
You need them to be able to do this in a reasonable window not too soon and not too late before the event starts.
You need players to cooperate with submitting lists on time.
You need the stars to align just right.
You need to hope the Stock Market doesn't crash.
Why do I have the feeling that posts like this are telling players to bring whatever they want and write down whatever they want because no one will check anything so let's all play over points and with made up stuff.
chipstar1 wrote: Crowd sourced list verification is the only method I've thought up that could work in this instance; have talked about this a bunch.
Not only do you leverage the people watching events, but you also engage people and provide record keeping digitally as well.
The trick though, is it's not as easy as it might seem at first blush. Without some key pieces, you can easily turn the error checking into more of a burden than a boon, as a lot of folks will probably review lists incorrectly. Gotta eliminate the chaff in order to get accurate reviews.
I could see this:
Each player sets their list down with their appropriate codecies, books, downloadsc, etc. TOs would have pre-asked a group of the attendees to spend some time (10 minutes?) reviewing, either before Round 1 and/or after Round 2. Can't review your own. Each list gets reviewed by a pair of participants to walk through the build's points. IMHO, this seems workable at 60 players and under.
100+ events should remain on Honor System for the simple logistics.
I'm a Table 80 or 90 guy at the LVO & BAOs and we are a fun group once Round 3 hits. We all love each other after Round 4.
Once the Top 8 (or whichever Top) are set, *that* is an easy check for the TOs, and maybe those Top 8 players too.
NOVA definitely has the strongest initial list-checking component of any of the major tournaments; their TO and head judge (Neil and Phil) check lists as they're handed in, and while there's only time for a cursory check in that timeframe, they're at least two people qualified to catch the most obvious problems.
At check in, you're required to have the published number of lists with you (one for the tournament, one for each opponent). Each list is stamped by the TO to prove it's the same list that was presented at check in. That alone solves most of the problems mentioned in this thread (garbage hand-written lists, not having enough lists, switching lists, etc).
As someone stated earlier in the thread, there's really only about two people involved in most tournaments that have any capability to check lists in a reasonable timeframe without having to cross-reference a dozen books. Even the idea of "crowdsourced" listchecking is pretty much a mess--there's no way I'd trust 50%+ of the 40k community to weigh in correctly on whether or not a list is legal. During the finals at LVO, the stream chat was an absolute spam of people claiming the Eldar list was illegal, because they'd never heard of a Pale Court.
DJ3 wrote: ... Even the idea of "crowdsourced" listchecking is pretty much a mess--there's no way I'd trust 50%+ of the 40k community to weigh in correctly on whether or not a list is legal. During the finals at LVO, the stream chat was an absolute spam of people claiming the Eldar list was illegal, because they'd never heard of a Pale Court.
Well, you don't leave it up to the Internet. Yer maximizing the potential for stupidity there.
But if the IA Pale Court book was sitting under Harrison's list, along with the other books, then the attendees *at the venue*, could take a couple minutes on it at the end of Round 6, before the Top 8 square off.
mortetvie wrote: Once someone masters the art of herding stray cats, that person should be the one to advise the gaming community on how best to deal with army list submission and review.
Honestly, there are just too many factors and variables in play for this to go off without a hitch.
You need enough competent staff or volunteers from the event, to manage 60-160+ army lists.
You need them to be able to do this in a reasonable window not too soon and not too late before the event starts.
You need players to cooperate with submitting lists on time.
You need the stars to align just right.
You need to hope the Stock Market doesn't crash.
Why do I have the feeling that posts like this are telling players to bring whatever they want and write down whatever they want because no one will check anything so let's all play over points and with made up stuff.
Probably becauase you read things between the lines that simply are not there...
All I was saying is that ensuring every list is kosher is no small task for a TO so we should cut them some slack. I tried to use sarcasm and humor but apparently that automatically means someone is condoning illicit conduct?
DJ3 wrote: Even the idea of "crowdsourced" listchecking is pretty much a mess--there's no way I'd trust 50%+ of the 40k community to weigh in correctly on whether or not a list is legal.
The way I do this in our tournaments (40-50 players, so relatively small) is that the crowd only points out possible problems after checking the lists, as the TO I'm the one who actually makes the decisions on legality. There are "false reports", but by no means so many that it would make the system "a mess". Then again, smaller tournaments.
In practice, it goes like this: The lists are sent to me via e-mail, after which I publish them on a forum. People who are attending the tournament look through the lists and if they see something they think is a mistake they post on the topic and tell what they found. Quite often the player whose list was commented on is also following the topic and will post their point of view on the issue. If not, I'll send them an e-mail asking for a correction. When an actually illegal list is spotted (most comments are usually on stuff like "warlord not marked"), the player has the opportunity to alter the list to make it legal. We don't have written rules about this, but it's generally understood that you should alter the list as little as possible to make it legal, even if that means it's not quite as optimized anymore.
The biggest problem with this approach is actually getting players to submit their lists when asked to. Some TOs around here practically disqualify anyone who hasn't submitted their list by the deadline, by giving them a battlepoints penalty that's so heavy that it's almost the same as saying "your points are not counted at all". I don't like doing that, and I've been very happy to notice that once people get used to the practice, everyone actually sends in their list within a day or so of the deadline (and most of them before the deadline, like they should). I don't even send out any reminders by e-mail unless someone has missed the deadline. I do post reminders on the forums, though.
The tournament community in Finland is pretty small, and if anyone had pulled shenanigans like played a different list from the one they submitted, I'm sure I'd have heard about it. It would be easy to prevent this by printing everyone's lists and handing them to the players before the first round, but like I said, haven't seen a reason to do that. Plus ink cartridges are so damn expensive...
Every year for the last three years I have personally gone over every single list for the DaBoyz GT in upstate NY. It's a really *#(@!y process to go over 100+ lists but in those three years we've only had 2 issues. We also require 7 copies of their lists. One for each of their 5 opponents, a judge list, and a list for them to hold onto.
To say that there is "very little oversight" of lists at GT's is sort of an insult to those GT's that put in so much work.
DJ3 wrote: Even the idea of "crowdsourced" listchecking is pretty much a mess--there's no way I'd trust 50%+ of the 40k community to weigh in correctly on whether or not a list is legal.
The way I do this in our tournaments (40-50 players, so relatively small) is that the growd only points out possible problems after checking the lists, as the TO I'm the one who actually makes the decisions on legality. There are "false reports", but by no means so many that it would make the system "a mess". Then again, smaller tournaments.
In practice, it goes like this: The lists are sent to me via e-mail, after which I publish them on a forum. People who are attending the tournament look through the lists and if they see something they think is a mistake they post on the topic and tell what they found. Quite often the player whose list was commented on is also following the topic and will post their point of view on the issue. If not, I'll send them an e-mail asking for a correction. When an actually illegal list is spotted (most comments are usually on stuff like "warlord not marked"), the player has the opportunity to alter the list to make it legal. We don't have written rules about this, but it's generally understood that you should alter the list as little as possible to make it legal, even if that means it's not quite as optimized anymore.
The biggest problem with this approach is actually getting players to submit their lists when asked to. Some TOs around here practically disqualify anyone who hasn't submitted their list by the deadline, by giving them a battlepoints penalty that's so heavy that it's almost the same as saying "your points are not counted at all". I don't like doing that, and I've been very happy to notice that once people get used to the practice, everyone actually sends in their list within a day or so of the deadline (and most of them before the deadline, like they should). I don't even send out any reminders by e-mail unless someone has missed the deadline. I do post reminders on the forums, though.
The tournament community in Finland is pretty small, and if anyone had pulled shenanigans like played a different list from the one they submitted, I'm sure I'd have heard about it. It would be easy to prevent this by printing everyone's lists and handing them to the players before the first round, but like I said, haven't seen a reason to do that. Plus ink cartridges are so damn expensive...
I have to fully agree that this is the best way to enforce lists. But, I am a GT attendee not a TO. The last major event I attended was ATC 2015, an event with over 200 players in attendance for the 40k event alone. Lists were due several weeks in advance, and were then vetted by the TOs, before being posted online. I can tell you that one of the lists I sent in was wrong, within 24 hours I was corrected, so we sent in a list that was almost identical. (We had put a ResOrb on a cryptek by accident, and then had to add a new wargear piece). After that, all of the lists were posted online. While I was getting ready for the event, my team and I were reading through all of the lists, and I noticed one that was illegal (three detachments in a two-detachment format). So, I emailed the TO to clarify the format, and was informed that it was an illegal list. That player was then contacted and forced to resubmit a list as close to the original as possible. In the end, he complied and there were no other problems that I was aware of.
The point is, everyone makes mistakes. TOs aren't perfect, and combing through 100 or 200+ lists is pretty damn hard with limited staff members. But, once every list is submitted, I think it's fair to post them online in a public forum to be read. The community knows who some of the "famous" national players are, and can look at their lists. And then some imperfections were caught and fixed. And most GTs wont have 200 lists, making it easier to check.
Yes, and that's what baffles me. What is wrong with retroactively punishing a player? If you, as a TO, don't punish a player who is proven to be a cheater for having a wrong list afterwards, then you send everyone the message "Try your luck, maybe we don't catch you!". That is horrible and downright wrong.
If a player is found guilty of cheating, ban him and strip him from all rewards. End of discussion. Not punishing a player who played with a wrong list is you, as a TO, publicly disrespecting all proper players at your tournament and, long story short, you accepting cheating as a part of your tournament. That's bad.
A good start IMO (and a repeat suggestion from earlier) is to go over any list in contention for ANY prize with a fine tooth comb before that last round starts. A 450 person tourney may not have the staff necessary to go over evey list in this current age of Stupidhammer army composition but they certainly SHOULD have the amount to go over the top 16 on the final day (and who ever is in the running for individual prizes) if they're adequately staffed.
Let's be honest.. .in a large tourney, almost no one cares if the 64th placed guy had an illegal list except maybe the 65th placed guy or one of the few folks who lost to him but an illegal army winning any sort of prize should be an embarassment to everyone running that tourney. Avoid the internet and local drama... check any list that might be rewarded.
warboss wrote: A good start IMO (and a repeat suggestion from earlier) is to go over any list in contention for ANY prize with a fine tooth comb before that last round starts. A 450 person tourney may not have the staff necessary to go over evey list in this current age of Stupidhammer army composition but they certainly SHOULD have the amount to go over the top 16 on the final day (and who ever is in the running for individual prizes) if they're adequately staffed.
Let's be honest.. .in a large tourney, almost no one cares if the 64th placed guy had an illegal list except maybe the 65th placed guy or one of the few folks who lost to him but an illegal army winning any sort of prize should be an embarassment to everyone running that tourney. Avoid the internet and local drama... check any list that might be rewarded.
This. No player in the top 16 should be using an illegal list, no excuses.
A few years back my FLGS had this same type of tournament issue. To Start the TO was part of a local game club that helps support the store.
Problem was club members showed up with the same type of poor lists and primed black miniatures with "proxies" I feel all was allowed because the TO was wearing
the same club shirt as the offenders. Their defense was they don't want to alienate newer players..
I played a club guy with the bad list but worse his writing was chicken scratch; He didn't assign units to drop pods that I could tell ..
And the drop pods were allowed to land on top of buildings. It was allowed because I didn't Identify what type of terrain the building was before the game..
We complained to the store owner and nothing was really done.. Sad truth is the owner is very good about supporting games with prizes.
But after repeated debacles like this; many people don't attend any tournament ran by the members of the "club".
Now 40k is about dead with only the "club" players left and most people have moved to different games.
I have seen numerous posts over the past few years that very large events cannot handle the staff requirements. Either get more staff or find a way to fix things.
This is not a serious proposal. Many staff are volunteers, and most participants aren't willing to pay additional entry fees required for this staffing.
Its not a terrible proposal. As long as checking lists didn't disqualify me from playing, I'd be happy to volunteer a little bit of time to check through lists. It could actually be a hybrid to Reecius' crowd sourced idea. Have a pool of 10-20 experienced players and send them each 5-10 lists to check. It wouldn't take them long, they could flag lists that look wrong for closer scrutiny by a judge and it would reduce the burden on the TO.
while not anywhere on the scale of adepticon im playing in a tournament in Cambridge, Ontario (Canhammer and 40 players) at the end of April, lists had to be in at the end of march, than each team (its a team event), gets to check 3 teams lists (12 total lists) for errors before the tourney begins. It was very easy to handle and unless people are sleeping at the wheel, should be error and drama at the event free.
The early crowd sourcing is an imperfect option as well though.
Say all lists were posted 2 weeks ahead. And an illegal list is found. How much does that person get to change their list now that they've seen the entire rest of the field?
It's not feasible to reliably check 200+ lists. Checking the top 16 or so is more feasible. But by then the illegal list has already played 4-5 games and knocked out as many people.
IMO, each round everyone should have to sign a copy of their opponent's list evidencing that they reviewed it and they that agreed to play it as presented. Then if an error is found late in the tournament, the error is explicitly on the prior the prior 4-5 opponent's. Then for a champs bracket when things are checked in more detail offending models can be pulled and the tournament can proceed.
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote: The early crowd sourcing is an imperfect option as well though.
Say all lists were posted 2 weeks ahead. And an illegal list is found. How much does that person get to change their list now that they've seen the entire rest of the field?
It's not feasible to reliably check 200+ lists. Checking the top 16 or so is more feasible. But by then the illegal list has already played 4-5 games and knocked out as many people.
IMO, each round everyone should have to sign a copy of their opponent's list evidencing that they reviewed it and they that agreed to play it as presented. Then if an error is found late in the tournament, the error is explicitly on the prior the prior 4-5 opponent's. Then for a champs bracket when things are checked in more detail offending models can be pulled and the tournament can proceed.
Not bad. The only problem is the idea that int he final rounds an offending player simply modifies their list to make it legal. That's bull imo. Lists for the top 16-32 should be checked, if an error is found in a players' list they are removed from the running. Put them at 17th or 33rd bump everyone up and the tournament continues. The offending player should still be allowed to play, but not contend for a prize or top spot.
Potentially, Battlescribe could fill this niche (business plan)?
They could bundle list verification across multiple games along with automatic pairings, rankings etc. Flat fee paid by TO. Subsidised by entry fees. All above board. All online. Yoi put yoir lost into tje program. Opponent can verify its validity and check units etc. Database Searchable by army or name for subscribers with stats by player or list or unit. Poof! money please.
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote: The early crowd sourcing is an imperfect option as well though.
Say all lists were posted 2 weeks ahead. And an illegal list is found. How much does that person get to change their list now that they've seen the entire rest of the field?
It's not feasible to reliably check 200+ lists. Checking the top 16 or so is more feasible. But by then the illegal list has already played 4-5 games and knocked out as many people.
IMO, each round everyone should have to sign a copy of their opponent's list evidencing that they reviewed it and they that agreed to play it as presented. Then if an error is found late in the tournament, the error is explicitly on the prior the prior 4-5 opponent's. Then for a champs bracket when things are checked in more detail offending models can be pulled and the tournament can proceed.
Not bad. The only problem is the idea that int he final rounds an offending player simply modifies their list to make it legal. That's bull imo. Lists for the top 16-32 should be checked, if an error is found in a players' list they are removed from the running. Put them at 17th or 33rd bump everyone up and the tournament continues. The offending player should still be allowed to play, but not contend for a prize or top spot.
The don't modify it. The judge just pulls models until the illegal portions are removed and the player plays down in points. That's what Adepticon did.
The hard part about really punitive things like disqualification or removal of prize support (as has been noted my Mike Brandt and Reece) is that attendees (who are customers that the convention needs) pay many hundreds of dollars to attend and will have an EXTREMELY negative experience if you kick them out for what are likely honest and often trivial mistakes. That person and anyone they came with are likely to never come back. Not to mention the angst that that creates on potential attendees that now worry their entire weekend is dashed because of a 1 point screw up.
Disqualification is the nuclear option. It's in the judge's tool set, but it's a means of last resort.
Forcing people to sign away their right to complain 1) increases the chances that errors are found early and 2) allows people to still compete after errors are found.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doktor_g wrote: Potentially, Battlescribe could fill this niche (business plan)?
They could bundle list verification across multiple games along with automatic pairings, rankings etc. Flat fee paid by TO. Subsidised by entry fees. All above board. All online. Yoi put yoir lost into tje program. Opponent can verify its validity and check units etc. Database Searchable by army or name for subscribers with stats by player or list or unit. Poof! money please.
The problem is that Battlescribe is far from perfect. Aaron Aleong's list was pointed correctly in Battlescribe and Army Builder.
Those two programs can't even get the points correct 100% of the time. Much less support the extra army building rules for ITC, Adepticon, and NOVA.
Sigvatr wrote: Yes, and that's what baffles me. What is wrong with retroactively punishing a player? If you, as a TO, don't punish a player who is proven to be a cheater for having a wrong list afterwards, then you send everyone the message "Try your luck, maybe we don't catch you!". That is horrible and downright wrong.
IMHO nothing. This is what I do at my events, and I've had to do it a few times, including at a GT. If a list violation is found during the event, and they have been. I pull the player aside and review the issue. I explain to them that they have an illegal list and why. I tell them that all of their previous battle scores will be set to 0 and I give their previous opponents the smallest winning score allowable (if it would be better than their existing results). I give their current opponent the option to take a concession, or allow the player to modify their list and continue the game. They can continue to play with the modified list, but cannot win non-raffle prize support, and only if they apologize to all of their previous opponents for the error.
I don't like what this may mean to a previous player who lost to an illegal list, but it is at least an acknowledgement of wrong doing.
In fact, I lost to a player in round 1 of a large GT in February. I found out about it from a friend after the end of Day 1. Had he not told me, I would have never found out. There was no recognition of the issue from the TOs until I inquired. The response was, "you should have checked his list, we can't check them all." While I agree with the fact that it is impractical to check lists for large events in advance, this event did not allow for adequate time for opponents to check each others lists. Someone who spends time and money to attend a competitive event and loses chance to win due to an opponents illegal list should receive an acknowledgement and apology, if nothing else.
If a player is found guilty of cheating, ban him and strip him from all rewards. End of discussion. Not punishing a player who played with a wrong list is you, as a TO, publicly disrespecting all proper players at your tournament and, long story short, you accepting cheating as a part of your tournament. That's bad.
I agree that a TO needs to make an example of players who bring illegal lists, but I feel that their are strong ways to do this that still foster inclusiveness, but make it clear that the player has lost all real chance of victory and prize support. Public flogging is not really a good solution, but public apology is a good lesson.
Crimthaan wrote: Every year for the last three years I have personally gone over every single list for the DaBoyz GT in upstate NY. It's a really *#(@!y process to go over 100+ lists but in those three years we've only had 2 issues. We also require 7 copies of their lists. One for each of their 5 opponents, a judge list, and a list for them to hold onto.
To say that there is "very little oversight" of lists at GT's is sort of an insult to those GT's that put in so much work.
As someone who plays in Upstate NY, and wants to go to Da Boyz this year, thank you.
Crimthaan wrote: Every year for the last three years I have personally gone over every single list for the DaBoyz GT in upstate NY. It's a really *#(@!y process to go over 100+ lists but in those three years we've only had 2 issues. We also require 7 copies of their lists. One for each of their 5 opponents, a judge list, and a list for them to hold onto.
To say that there is "very little oversight" of lists at GT's is sort of an insult to those GT's that put in so much work.
As someone who plays in Upstate NY, and wants to go to Da Boyz this year, thank you.
Do we have a signup for that tournament yet? I may go to that
punchdub wrote: Public flogging is not really a good solution, but public apology is a good lesson.
I dunno. If someons did the flogging ... and maybe someone else just stood there wearing a leather vest, hood and arm bands for intimidation's sake ....
Would that work?
Issuing a public apology now:
Sorry, folks. I stepped over the line with names and such.
warboss wrote: A good start IMO (and a repeat suggestion from earlier) is to go over any list in contention for ANY prize with a fine tooth comb before that last round starts. A 450 person tourney may not have the staff necessary to go over evey list in this current age of Stupidhammer army composition but they certainly SHOULD have the amount to go over the top 16 on the final day (and who ever is in the running for individual prizes) if they're adequately staffed.
Let's be honest.. .in a large tourney, almost no one cares if the 64th placed guy had an illegal list except maybe the 65th placed guy or one of the few folks who lost to him but an illegal army winning any sort of prize should be an embarassment to everyone running that tourney. Avoid the internet and local drama... check any list that might be rewarded.
This. No player in the top 16 should be using an illegal list, no excuses.
Here comes a major problem that happened with FOB
when it is made clear that someone cheated, demands for refunds or redos can be made. If I found out an opponent who I lost too cheated purposefully? You bet your ass im gonna make a fuss about it.
warboss wrote: A good start IMO (and a repeat suggestion from earlier) is to go over any list in contention for ANY prize with a fine tooth comb before that last round starts. A 450 person tourney may not have the staff necessary to go over evey list in this current age of Stupidhammer army composition but they certainly SHOULD have the amount to go over the top 16 on the final day (and who ever is in the running for individual prizes) if they're adequately staffed.
Let's be honest.. .in a large tourney, almost no one cares if the 64th placed guy had an illegal list except maybe the 65th placed guy or one of the few folks who lost to him but an illegal army winning any sort of prize should be an embarassment to everyone running that tourney. Avoid the internet and local drama... check any list that might be rewarded.
This. No player in the top 16 should be using an illegal list, no excuses.
Here comes a major problem that happened with FOB
when it is made clear that someone cheated, demands for refunds or redos can be made. If I found out an opponent who I lost too cheated purposefully? You bet your ass im gonna make a fuss about it.
The players shouldn't have to make a fuss. There should be a clear cut protocol in place for the top 16/32 of an event that states lists will be reviewed something like this: "Once the top bracket of 16/32 has been determined, those in the top bracket will have their lists reviewed. If your list has errors in your favor you will be dropped out of the top bracket and be ineligible for prizes but may continue to compete in the event with a modified list."
It is simple, cut and dry, doesn't expel people from events, bar them from further events etc. It does however create an incentive for players to make sure their lists are correct, which doesn't seem to exist now. The honor system is great as a concept, but let me assure you as someone who has worked in education the last 12 years it doesn't actually exist. When given lax guidelines or unenforced rules there will always be a majority who choose not to follow said rules or guidelines. If you lived in a city where the PD refused to hand out citations for parking violations would you still follow posted street signage? I doubt it.
warboss wrote: A good start IMO (and a repeat suggestion from earlier) is to go over any list in contention for ANY prize with a fine tooth comb before that last round starts. A 450 person tourney may not have the staff necessary to go over evey list in this current age of Stupidhammer army composition but they certainly SHOULD have the amount to go over the top 16 on the final day (and who ever is in the running for individual prizes) if they're adequately staffed.
Let's be honest.. .in a large tourney, almost no one cares if the 64th placed guy had an illegal list except maybe the 65th placed guy or one of the few folks who lost to him but an illegal army winning any sort of prize should be an embarassment to everyone running that tourney. Avoid the internet and local drama... check any list that might be rewarded.
This. No player in the top 16 should be using an illegal list, no excuses.
Here comes a major problem that happened with FOB
when it is made clear that someone cheated, demands for refunds or redos can be made. If I found out an opponent who I lost too cheated purposefully? You bet your ass im gonna make a fuss about it.
The players shouldn't have to make a fuss. There should be a clear cut protocol in place for the top 16/32 of an event that states lists will be reviewed something like this: "Once the top bracket of 16/32 has been determined, those in the top bracket will have their lists reviewed. If your list has errors in your favor you will be dropped out of the top bracket and be ineligible for prizes but may continue to compete in the event with a modified list."
It is simple, cut and dry, doesn't expel people from events, bar them from further events etc. It does however create an incentive for players to make sure their lists are correct, which doesn't seem to exist now. The honor system is great as a concept, but let me assure you as someone who has worked in education the last 12 years it doesn't actually exist. When given lax guidelines or unenforced rules there will always be a majority who choose not to follow said rules or guidelines. If you lived in a city where the PD refused to hand out citations for parking violations would you still follow posted street signage? I doubt it.
Or we could just do it the simple way: have each player check their first opponents list to make sure it is legal. Allot 15 extra minutes in the round for this to occur. Have players with concerns over the legality of their opponent's list call a judge over for clarification.
warboss wrote: A good start IMO (and a repeat suggestion from earlier) is to go over any list in contention for ANY prize with a fine tooth comb before that last round starts. A 450 person tourney may not have the staff necessary to go over evey list in this current age of Stupidhammer army composition but they certainly SHOULD have the amount to go over the top 16 on the final day (and who ever is in the running for individual prizes) if they're adequately staffed.
Let's be honest.. .in a large tourney, almost no one cares if the 64th placed guy had an illegal list except maybe the 65th placed guy or one of the few folks who lost to him but an illegal army winning any sort of prize should be an embarassment to everyone running that tourney. Avoid the internet and local drama... check any list that might be rewarded.
This. No player in the top 16 should be using an illegal list, no excuses.
Here comes a major problem that happened with FOB
when it is made clear that someone cheated, demands for refunds or redos can be made. If I found out an opponent who I lost too cheated purposefully? You bet your ass im gonna make a fuss about it.
The players shouldn't have to make a fuss. There should be a clear cut protocol in place for the top 16/32 of an event that states lists will be reviewed something like this: "Once the top bracket of 16/32 has been determined, those in the top bracket will have their lists reviewed. If your list has errors in your favor you will be dropped out of the top bracket and be ineligible for prizes but may continue to compete in the event with a modified list."
It is simple, cut and dry, doesn't expel people from events, bar them from further events etc. It does however create an incentive for players to make sure their lists are correct, which doesn't seem to exist now. The honor system is great as a concept, but let me assure you as someone who has worked in education the last 12 years it doesn't actually exist. When given lax guidelines or unenforced rules there will always be a majority who choose not to follow said rules or guidelines. If you lived in a city where the PD refused to hand out citations for parking violations would you still follow posted street signage? I doubt it.
Or we could just do it the simple way: have each player check their first opponents list to make sure it is legal. Allot 15 extra minutes in the round for this to occur. Have players with concerns over the legality of their opponent's list call a judge over for clarification.
You have the knowledge to check any list for errors of all types? I've been playing 40k since the end of 3rd through now, I play competitively, and I have no qualms about admitting I could NOT check all lists for errors. I don't have the points costs of every piece of wargear from every codex memorized. I don't have all the formations, detachments, and units special rules and restrictions memorized from every faction. Just two examples, I doubt most players at a given tournament have this type of knowledge of the game.
warboss wrote: A good start IMO (and a repeat suggestion from earlier) is to go over any list in contention for ANY prize with a fine tooth comb before that last round starts. A 450 person tourney may not have the staff necessary to go over evey list in this current age of Stupidhammer army composition but they certainly SHOULD have the amount to go over the top 16 on the final day (and who ever is in the running for individual prizes) if they're adequately staffed.
Let's be honest.. .in a large tourney, almost no one cares if the 64th placed guy had an illegal list except maybe the 65th placed guy or one of the few folks who lost to him but an illegal army winning any sort of prize should be an embarassment to everyone running that tourney. Avoid the internet and local drama... check any list that might be rewarded.
This. No player in the top 16 should be using an illegal list, no excuses.
Here comes a major problem that happened with FOB
when it is made clear that someone cheated, demands for refunds or redos can be made. If I found out an opponent who I lost too cheated purposefully? You bet your ass im gonna make a fuss about it.
The players shouldn't have to make a fuss. There should be a clear cut protocol in place for the top 16/32 of an event that states lists will be reviewed something like this: "Once the top bracket of 16/32 has been determined, those in the top bracket will have their lists reviewed. If your list has errors in your favor you will be dropped out of the top bracket and be ineligible for prizes but may continue to compete in the event with a modified list."
It is simple, cut and dry, doesn't expel people from events, bar them from further events etc. It does however create an incentive for players to make sure their lists are correct, which doesn't seem to exist now. The honor system is great as a concept, but let me assure you as someone who has worked in education the last 12 years it doesn't actually exist. When given lax guidelines or unenforced rules there will always be a majority who choose not to follow said rules or guidelines. If you lived in a city where the PD refused to hand out citations for parking violations would you still follow posted street signage? I doubt it.
Or we could just do it the simple way: have each player check their first opponents list to make sure it is legal. Allot 15 extra minutes in the round for this to occur. Have players with concerns over the legality of their opponent's list call a judge over for clarification.
You have the knowledge to check any list for errors of all types? I've been playing 40k since the end of 3rd through now, I play competitively, and I have no qualms about admitting I could NOT check all lists for errors. I don't have the points costs of every piece of wargear from every codex memorized. I don't have all the formations, detachments, and units special rules and restrictions memorized from every faction. Just two examples, I doubt most players at a given tournament have this type of knowledge of the game.
I've played since the start of third and do so competitively but that type of knowledge isn't necessary. Your opponent is expected to bring copies of all relevant rules, including codex with associated costs. Can you flip through a book(s) quickly and match the book entries to the army list presented? If you have questions, can your opponent help you answer them with his references? If your opponent can't show you something or you disagree, can you call a judge? Checking the first round opponents list doesn't require vast knowledge. It requires you to be able to match a list to provided references.
PanzerLeader wrote: I've played since the start of third and do so competitively but that type of knowledge isn't necessary. Your opponent is expected to bring copies of all relevant rules, including codex with associated costs. Can you flip through a book(s) quickly and match the book entries to the army list presented? If you have questions, can your opponent help you answer them with his references? If your opponent can't show you something or you disagree, can you call a judge? Checking the first round opponents list doesn't require vast knowledge. It requires you to be able to match a list to provided references.
Noticing things like the fact that a sanguinary priest has to buy a 1 point additional weapon before he can buy an additional weapon really just depends on whether or not you happen to notice that one line in his army entry. If they don't play BA priests, I would expect them to miss that 9/10 times.
The growing amount of list errors just reinforces to me that the competitive scene needs to say "sod off" to GW, ban formations, which are a major cause of confusion and rules bloat, and start performing surgery on the codices and core rulebook to save the game from its negligent parent. It's unfortunate that no one with enough pull to make it happen is willing to stand up to the internet nerd rage that would inevitably follow as soon as they fixed a few ridic things that some players were using as a crutch to help them win.
First, for the thread: please lay off the pyramid quoting. It's not necessary to quote 6 or 7 posts if you're only responding to the previous one.
niv-mizzet wrote: It's unfortunate that no one with enough pull to make it happen is willing to stand up to the internet nerd rage that would inevitably follow as soon as they fixed a few ridic things that some players were using as a crutch to help them win.
This comes off very passive-aggressive. If your goal is to encourage a large-format tournament to put in significant effort to host a 40k tournament with heavily modified rules...they already are. 40k, as written, isn't a tournament-ready game. And given the flak that used to surround the INAT, and now focuses on the ITC rulings, even though those FAQs are completely optional and offered solely as a resource for tournament organizers to use in any manner they choose, it is rather unrealistic to expect, say, the BAO to rewrite all of 40k in this fashion. It would damage their brand, affect their attendance, and make an already-risky financial proposition that much worse.
Change starts at home. What you're proposing actually works best in the small scale first, with a number of players who are all committed to trying out the variant format, tweaking it, and then expanding adoption. (See, e.g., the "Highlander" format.) A large-format event at an expensive con that launches with a completely different ruleset is unlikely to attract much participation, unless it can point to a number of successful prior events.
Panzer, you honestly think 15 minutes would be enough to flip through 3-6 books for relevant rules and points costs, add it all up, and cross check validity of formations etc?
Or we could just do it the simple way: have each player check their first opponents list to make sure it is legal. Allot 15 extra minutes in the round for this to occur. Have players with concerns over the legality of their opponent's list call a judge over for clarification.
Absolutely horrible idea. Tournies are already long enough and a sizable (albeit not the largest) proportion of poll respondents wanted to roll back ITC to 1500pts even as a stardard game size to allow games to finish without extending the time further. Most folks do not pay to attend a tourney to then be forced to be the bad guy clamping down on their opponent's incorrect list (assuming they even have the knowledge to do so). For events that have a sportsmanship scoring (even if it is only positive and doesn't affect the overall score), do you think that the guy with the illegal list won't smack the subjective scores of his opponent in revenge? And the above doesn't even take into account the previously mentioned library of idiot savant knowledge necessary to fact check every possible variation of every list of every faction with the current Stupidhammer army composition rules on the fly at the tableside. Some folks may on their own quickly double check for errors but they shouldn't be forced to do the only check on the fly with no resources to properly do so at hand. I'm not opposed though to publishing ALL lists ahead of time for crowdsource checking but forcing attendees to the bad guy in person at the table side is NOT the solution.
No, it's the job of the organizer,, not the attendees, to police and enforce their own tourney pre-game ground rules. Absolutely horrible idea.
OverwatchCNC wrote:Panzer, you honestly think 15 minutes would be enough to flip through 3-6 books for relevant rules and points costs, add it all up, and cross check validity of formations etc?
For the average player and assuming the opponent has all his references, I think so. Not many people play unusual armies and there is a baseline familiarity with the bigger factions (marines/Eldar/crons). You also figure in that people recognize patterns and if someone has identical units, you only need to do the math once and then make sure the sum is the same.
Or we could just do it the simple way: have each player check their first opponents list to make sure it is legal. Allot 15 extra minutes in the round for this to occur. Have players with concerns over the legality of their opponent's list call a judge over for clarification.
Absolutely horrible idea. Tournies are already long enough and a sizable (albeit not the largest) proportion of poll respondents wanted to roll back ITC to 1500pts even as a stardard game size to allow games to finish without extending the time further. Most folks do not pay to attend a tourney to then be forced to be the bad guy clamping down on their opponent's incorrect list (assuming they even have the knowledge to do so). For events that have a sportsmanship scoring (even if it is only positive and doesn't affect the overall score), do you think that the guy with the illegal list won't smack the subjective scores of his opponent in revenge? And the above doesn't even take into account the previously mentioned library of idiot savant knowledge necessary to fact check every possible variation of every list of every faction with the current Stupidhammer army composition rules on the fly at the tableside. Some folks may on their own quickly double check for errors but they shouldn't be forced to do the only check on the fly with no resources to properly do so at hand. I'm not opposed though to publishing ALL lists ahead of time for crowdsource checking but forcing attendees to the bad guy in person at the table side is NOT the solution.
No, it's the job of the organizer,, not the attendees, to police and enforce their own tourney pre-game ground rules. Absolutely horrible idea.
Again, that type of omniscience is not needed. Do you sit down with your opponent and run through army lists before a game? Of course you do. It's good etiquette. I'm simply suggesting that the first round review is a little more in depth. If a player thinks there is a problem, they call a judge or TO for a ruling exactly like you would for an in game mistake. I've run medium sized tournaments and I've played in a ton of bigger GTs over the last 17 years of gaming. I'm just suggesting we allot extra time to do in round one something that most of us do to a smaller degree in every round.
Again, that type of omniscience is not needed. Do you sit down with your opponent and run through army lists before a game? Of course you do. It's good etiquette. I'm simply suggesting that the first round review is a little more in depth. If a player thinks there is a problem, they call a judge or TO for a ruling exactly like you would for an in game mistake. I've run medium sized tournaments and I've played in a ton of bigger GTs over the last 17 years of gaming. I'm just suggesting we allot extra time to do in round one something that most of us do to a smaller degree in every round.
Do I sit down ahead of time with mostly acquaintances and friends in a local setting that they wouldn't want their rep trashed generally in a casual setting with no set time limit or money/prizes at stake prior to a friendly game and skim quickly through army lists? Yes.. but that isn't what this thread is about.
This thread isn't even about "running through army lists" but rather detailed fact checking for illegal lists. We're not only talking about folks taking Abaddon for 1pt or people taking obsec Stompas in an Eldar list (i.e. a gross error that is easily evident) but also more subtle yet potentially game changing things like whether the peon who just trashed your 280pt land raider carrying your slow death star with a lucky 5pt melta bomb roll actually had that melta bomb in the first place or even had access to it.
Putting the responsibility and potential blame (what if the opponent gets it wrong because he is NOT an expert and calls out a unit that is perfectly fine?) on the attendee for pregame rules policing and enforcement instead of the organizer is a horrible idea.
mortetvie wrote: Once someone masters the art of herding stray cats, that person should be the one to advise the gaming community on how best to deal with army list submission and review.
Honestly, there are just too many factors and variables in play for this to go off without a hitch.
You need enough competent staff or volunteers from the event, to manage 60-160+ army lists.
You need them to be able to do this in a reasonable window not too soon and not too late before the event starts.
You need players to cooperate with submitting lists on time.
You need the stars to align just right.
You need to hope the Stock Market doesn't crash.
Why do I have the feeling that posts like this are telling players to bring whatever they want and write down whatever they want because no one will check anything so let's all play over points and with made up stuff.
You'd think that a white lie would be more functional.
But I don't see why it has to be about absolute verification of all lists or nothing. It's certainly preferable, but if staffing is an issue, why not at least do spot checks? It'd send the message to players that shenanigans may be caught by organizers. And if the penalty is harsh enough, maybe there's some deterrent there.
From having done list checking, I can say that a *very clear* best practice should be to demand that army lists be submitted in a rigid, given format -- with upgrade costs clearly listed, etc. -- or else real points penalties will be enforced. Or structure it so they can earn "list submission points" if positive reinforcement is your thing. Regardless, it greatly helps organizers with list checking -- either of a proactive nature or if a concern is raised -- and makes things much clearer for opponents.
If players can get themselves to events, make lodging reservations, and play these strange and complicated games we play, they're more than capable of acquiescing to a few demands, doing a little typing and double-checking, and following a few instructions.
Please note that my comments aren't intended to be direct criticisms of Adepticon or any other event. Just chiming in on the conversation...
@Crimthaan -- all 100+ personally? Wow man...that's painful, but good job. I have to make it up to DaBoyz one of these years.
Again, that type of omniscience is not needed. Do you sit down with your opponent and run through army lists before a game? Of course you do. It's good etiquette. I'm simply suggesting that the first round review is a little more in depth. If a player thinks there is a problem, they call a judge or TO for a ruling exactly like you would for an in game mistake. I've run medium sized tournaments and I've played in a ton of bigger GTs over the last 17 years of gaming. I'm just suggesting we allot extra time to do in round one something that most of us do to a smaller degree in every round.
Do I sit down ahead of time with mostly acquaintances and friends in a local setting that they wouldn't want their rep trashed generally in a casual setting with no set time limit or money/prizes at stake prior to a friendly game and skim quickly through army lists? Yes.. but that isn't what this thread is about.
This thread isn't even about "running through army lists" but rather detailed fact checking for illegal lists. We're not only talking about folks taking Abaddon for 1pt or people taking obsec Stompas in an Eldar list (i.e. a gross error that is easily evident) but also more subtle yet potentially game changing things like whether the peon who just trashed your 280pt land raider carrying your slow death star with a lucky 5pt melta bomb roll actually had that melta bomb in the first place or even had access to it.
Putting the responsibility and potential blame (what if the opponent gets it wrong because he is NOT an expert and calls out a unit that is perfectly fine?) on the attendee for pregame rules policing and enforcement instead of the organizer is a horrible idea.
Im not advocating a shift. You seem to think I'm saying responsibility should be with the players IN LIEU of the organizer. I'm arguing list checking should be done by the players COLLABORATIVELY with their opponent and the organizer. I currently spend 1 to 3 minutes on average reviewing an opponents list before a game to make sure I understand what he/she is fielding and how it's organized. Verifying points/unit construction before round one is not nearly as problematic as you indicate.
You weren't clear in your posts as you only mentioned doing it prior to the game as a solution without iirc mentioning anything else. As for problematic, it isn't to gauge a general idea of your opponent's army and their possible tactics as well as looking for the grossly obvious mistakes... but to fact check the little things I disagree as I think it is problematic.
I'm wondering if it would be possible to employ a carrot rather than a stick? Instead of requiring lists ahead of time and getting the TO to vet all them, I'm wondering if there would be a way to organize a group of accepted referees for the event who agree to review lists submitted electronically. Then you could allow players to submit lists to them for validation, and award some amount of points to players who show up with a validated list.
People who were playing for fun (and who would be more likely to make simple errors inadvertently) wouldn't be as bothered to submit for validation.
People who were playing to place highly (and who might therefore be tempted to make intentional errors) would be motivated to submit lists for validation, in order to obtain the extra points.
It wouldn't be perfect, but for the most competitive players, it would provide an incentive to provide a verifiable list early, without punishing the more casual player who may not submit something but will still show up and pay to play.
Most of the larger tournaments I played in France/Switzerland and Germany you had to have your list sent in at least a month in advance. You received points to your overall score for doing this bit of admin. At first I did not really like this system but came to appreciate it. Stopped me from constantly wanting to "tweak" my list before the event and I could just practice with the list I planned to play.
You'd think that a white lie would be more functional.
But I don't see why it has to be about absolute verification of all lists or nothing. It's certainly preferable, but if staffing is an issue, why not at least do spot checks? It'd send the message to players that shenanigans may be caught by organizers. And if the penalty is harsh enough, maybe there's some deterrent there.
From having done list checking, I can say that a *very clear* best practice should be to demand that army lists be submitted in a rigid, given format -- with upgrade costs clearly listed, etc. -- or else real points penalties will be enforced. Or structure it so they can earn "list submission points" if positive reinforcement is your thing. Regardless, it greatly helps organizers with list checking -- either of a proactive nature or if a concern is raised -- and makes things much clearer for opponents.
So you want people to submit lists in a format like this?
Daemon Prince (145) Mark of Nurgle (10) Wings (40) Armour (20) Mastery Level 3 (75) == 270pts
This is a for reals example of an army list in a tournament I'm attending this weekend. Everyone had to submit lists 3 weeks in advance of the date, and they were put up for public scrutiny. Its a teams tournament.
But look at the example. There's something wrong with it.
Mark of Nurgle costs 15pts, not 10.
How many people do you think would notice that? I only did because I regularly run Nurgle Daemon princes myself - but if I'd taken Tzeentch princes more often I highly doubt that I would have noticed the discrepancy. I think its pretty likely that someone could get through an entire tournament and not notice.
Another list I noticed was using 2 squads of Cultists as the core choice in a slaughtercult - but it needed to be Bloodletters/Space Marines. Again, would you know the composition of every single formation?
If its just your opponents, I think its pretty likely that across 3-6 games you won't come up against someone who has enough knowledge of your army to point out the flaws, and certainly there's not enough for every opponent to come in and totally recalculate your list.
A few years ago Sparks and Mike M came to visit me in the uk and while at the pub the night before convinced me to change my ukgt heat list. I made a mistake and was 1 point over it was discovered during the second round and my first win was turned to a loss and my opponent was given the win. It hurt enough were I missed the qualification to the finals. An illegal list should make you lose all games played with list up to the point it is discovered. It is harsh but if you are taking lists that are on the edge get it right.
There are suggestions that seem like quick fixes for these issues and some that would require a lot more work, whether those who have suggested them admit it or not.
As a Denver resident who saw what happened at FoB in both cases of a player doing something naughty that last year, I support my judge fully for his decisions, but wish that a protocol was in place for dealing with these situations beforehand so these things don't escalate in the aftermath the way that they do. These players are putting these events at risk through their negligence and it simply can't be tolerated. The amount of work that is put into these events, while we don't play 40k professionally, is significant. Each player should be held to standards that reflect this or else that work may ultimately be in vain if a snafoo like illegal lists, dice, bullying, or rulebreaking happens at the event.
Because we don't have Feast anymore, I can attest to what happens when we try to accommodate everyone. Not only do I believe that we should punish players at events for these actions whether they were intentional or not, I also believe we should keep a track record of these offenders.
To me, it seems simplest to keep track of individuals who break the rules rather than subject the event staff to yet another massive project to accomplish in order to put on their event because for the most part, those who are participating in the events are ADULTS. Sure someone may have accidentally put together an illegal list, but that's on them and no one else. That's what we're supposed to do. If you set up a method of weight different offenses, you can hand out punishment accordingly. Some may just be yellow cards which subject the player to greater scrutiny (think probation) while others straight up ban a player for a period of time from attending events.
Maybe then these players will finally stop being lazy and get their gak together. That being said, each tournament should only have one or two people that can be emailed beforehand in order to make list comp decisions. If it's a borderline interpretation, it should be shared with all attendees. We all just need to stop dropping the ball or else we risk losing all credibility for our hobby.
You'd think that a white lie would be more functional.
But I don't see why it has to be about absolute verification of all lists or nothing. It's certainly preferable, but if staffing is an issue, why not at least do spot checks? It'd send the message to players that shenanigans may be caught by organizers. And if the penalty is harsh enough, maybe there's some deterrent there.
From having done list checking, I can say that a *very clear* best practice should be to demand that army lists be submitted in a rigid, given format -- with upgrade costs clearly listed, etc. -- or else real points penalties will be enforced. Or structure it so they can earn "list submission points" if positive reinforcement is your thing. Regardless, it greatly helps organizers with list checking -- either of a proactive nature or if a concern is raised -- and makes things much clearer for opponents.
So you want people to submit lists in a format like this?
Daemon Prince (145) Mark of Nurgle (10) Wings (40) Armour (20) Mastery Level 3 (75) == 270pts
This is a for reals example of an army list in a tournament I'm attending this weekend. Everyone had to submit lists 3 weeks in advance of the date, and they were put up for public scrutiny. Its a teams tournament.
But look at the example. There's something wrong with it.
Mark of Nurgle costs 15pts, not 10.
How many people do you think would notice that? I only did because I regularly run Nurgle Daemon princes myself - but if I'd taken Tzeentch princes more often I highly doubt that I would have noticed the discrepancy. I think its pretty likely that someone could get through an entire tournament and not notice.
Another list I noticed was using 2 squads of Cultists as the core choice in a slaughtercult - but it needed to be Bloodletters/Space Marines. Again, would you know the composition of every single formation?
If its just your opponents, I think its pretty likely that across 3-6 games you won't come up against someone who has enough knowledge of your army to point out the flaws, and certainly there's not enough for every opponent to come in and totally recalculate your list.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
Uniform formats don't somehow stop people from cheating on their own. But they do make lists *easier to review* by both judges and opponents. I can tell you from experience that it's faster and easier for me to cross-check an entry as you have it there against a wargear list than one NOT listing individual costs. And on the player front, many players play more than one army and are capable of catching small errors.
Striving for clarity is a good thing. It's the best thing. Do you feel differently?
Maybe then these players will finally stop being lazy and get their gak together.
It's usually not a matter of laziness.
The army list building between books is simply too esoteric for anyone to know it all, or any player/judge to be expected to know it all.
The people in the thread calling for disqualification for 1 point errors are, IMO, holding players to an unreasonable standard. Virtually no sport/competition I know of is so punitive.
While some people can agree on certain standards/penalties or what-not, there is a wide variance between what one person or group of players thinks is appropriate and what another person or group of players is appropriate.
To make matters worse, some people have a rather militant view and inflexibility regarding their outlook and position.
Some people are of the mentality that being over points, even by 1 point, is cause for disqualification while others say that a TO should just remove models/upgrades to make the list compliant and move on. Neither position or variation of positions along the spectrum of how to handle lists at a GT, is inherently right or wrong or better or worse.
There really isn't any single "right" solution here folks. In a game system where virtually everything is optional, it is pretty daft to think that there is a single, simple, easy to implement, one size fits all solution.
Honestly, I think AdeptiCon's policy is a pretty fantastic middle ground.
Checking the lists of the top competitors once they have separated from the pack (admittedly, it would have ideally been done earlier than with 2 rounds remaining, and I think their policy normally is to check earlier). If they are over on points due to an error on any unit (in this case a Sanguinary Priest) that unit is completely removed from play for the remainder of the tournament.
The fact that the player went on to win the tournament anyway is a testament to his skill. I like this punishment better than disqualification, personally, since it was quite obviously an error (the player had filler points in some useless scout wargear, I believe, and was even a few points under when not accounting for the bolt pistol upgrade required to then trade out for a second close combat weapon). So, it seems to pretty obviously have just been an oversight, and while not acceptable apparently the makers of Army Builder and Battle Scribe made the same mistake, to boot.
It's in some ways a problem of the game as it has evolved - I'd personally love to go to simpler army construction, where it would be much easier to check everything, but I think that's not possible with the current 40K ruleset. Checking the lists of top competitors after a few rounds is the best way to go, imo. The punishment then likely depends on what the problem is, but if it's pretty clearly an oversight I think removing the unit immediately for the remainder of the tournament is a good way to go. Just kind of unbelievable that he then beat two of the best players left at the event, anyway!
RiTides wrote: Honestly, I think AdeptiCon's policy is a pretty fantastic middle ground.
Checking the lists of the top competitors once they have separated from the pack (admittedly, it would have ideally been done earlier than with 2 rounds remaining, and I think their policy normally is to check earlier). If they are over on points due to an error on any unit (in this case a Sanguinary Priest) that unit is completely removed from play for the remainder of the tournament.
The fact that the player went on to win the tournament anyway is a testament to his skill. I like this punishment better than disqualification, personally, since it was quite obviously an error (the player had filler points in some useless scout wargear, I believe, and was even a few points under when not accounting for the bolt pistol upgrade required to then trade out for a second close combat weapon). So, it seems to pretty obviously have just been an oversight, and while not acceptable apparently the makers of Army Builder and Battle Scribe made the same mistake, to boot.
It's in some ways a problem of the game as it has evolved - I'd personally love to go to simpler army construction, where it would be much easier to check everything, but I think that's not possible with the current 40K ruleset. Checking the lists of top competitors after a few rounds is the best way to go, imo. The punishment then likely depends on what the problem is, but if it's pretty clearly an oversight I think removing the unit immediately for the remainder of the tournament is a good way to go. Just kind of unbelievable that he then beat two of the best players left at the event, anyway!
Yeah, I think this is a good solution as well. Honestly, if someone is slightly over points and they are at the top tables, they likely did not need those extra points to get there-and if they did, they likely won't succeed in their final games. Simply adjusting the list to be compliant and moving on allows for the issue to be resolved and everyone to move on.
I mean really, what harm has anyone really suffered at that point? If anything, it is more of a metaphysical issue for people rather than a grievance amounting in any actual, quantifiable harm suffered.
LValx wrote: Without a doubt, this is an issue of principles. Anyone who thinks the 1 pt is what caused him to win, is out of their mind!
While I'd generally agree with you, you would be surprised to hear how many people actually would think "if he wasn't over points, I would have won". None the less, the bottom line (to us anyway) is principles and the issue then becomes who's principles are the better suited to resolve these types of issues? In the big picture, I think how Adepticon does it seems sufficient and I am pretty sure the ITC crew would be reasonable in how they handle such issues as well.
LValx wrote: Without a doubt, this is an issue of principles. Anyone who thinks the 1 pt is what caused him to win, is out of their mind!
While I'd generally agree with you, you would be surprised to hear how many people actually would think "if he wasn't over points, I would have won". None the less, the bottom line (to us anyway) is principles and the issue then becomes who's principles are the better suited to resolve these types of issues? In the big picture, I think how Adepticon does it seems sufficient and I am pretty sure the ITC crew would be reasonable in how they handle such issues as well.
Its not so much that the 1pt extra caused him to win games, its more about the army construction that leads to being 1pt over. Being able to take that 1 extra point might mean you can now afford to take huge upgrades. Min-maxed armies with multiple detachments like Aarons are especially prone to this.
Lets say, for example, that I have a Flesh Tearer's Taxi Service detachment and I accidentally undercost the HQ by 2pts, and that lets me fit the detachment in to the overall army. Someone notices and I have to play without the HQ. Woe is me. Was it 2pts extra that let me win games? No. But that 2pts let me take 6 drop pods that did win the games.
This happened in a tournament I'm attending, where someone had undercosted a HQ choice by 5pts. But because nearly every single other choice in the army was minimum-sized cheapest possible squads with no upgrades, the only place to drop points was a 65pt upgrade on his Lord of War. So that 5pts discrepancy represented 65pts of value he was actually getting.
My point is that the person with list over points should then drop upgrades/units until they are (1) under points and (2) still have a legal list.
So if they are over points and dropping a p-fist would solve the problem, so be it. If they literally cannot drop any upgrades and still be under, that is a more serious problem that may necessitate being severely under points... But that is rare.
In your example, if all that could be dropped is that 65 point upgrade, then that would need to go. However, I doubt that that upgrade was singularly responaible for game wins. If that were the case, well, he'll be severely handicapped in the latter rounds.
For AdeptiCon, they remove the entire unit that was miscosted. I like that better than removing just enough to get under points, as it's a bigger deterrent to being careless with the list, but still gives the player a chance to play out the tournament (with a significant handicap / penalty).
Have the top tournament organizers come together and make an online list maker for tournament play. Triple check it for errors.
Allow players to print lists at home, but scan the lists for "errors". ( for example, you can change the text/points in an Army Builder list after copy/pasting it).
In this day and age it should not be hard to find gamers willing to do the coding, or the tech.
Bam, problem solved. No need to ban formations etc.
( people who still don't have access to the internet/computers can make their lists and print them at the tournament for a fee).
Have the top tournament organizers come together and make an online list maker for tournament play. Triple check it for errors.
I ran Star Wars CCG and HackMaster tournaments all of the time, back in the day. I do not have the skills to make an online list maker, nor the money to pay a programmer to make one.
In this day and age it should not be hard to find gamers willing to do the coding, or the tech.
Is this a serious sentence? Players can't even to be bothered to print out their lists or paint their minis. The coding can get done; however,
1. As has been pointed out dozens of time in this thread, GW considers point values, formation information, and other copywritten lyrics so they can't be stolen sacred, and their lawyers will attack, and you don't want that.
2. Most/many/nearly all TOs are gamers, but not expert code writers.
3. Even if you find some code writers, people don't do gak for free. I happen to know two that could do this. They work for NASA. I was a groomsman in their wedding. If I asked them to write this for me, they'd laugh at me and tell me to go drink bourbon out of a dead monkey's anus.
General Hobbs. If it really is this easy, then you should have no problem getting Reece, MVBrandt, and all of the other major tournament organizers to sit down and make this happen.
I mean, BAM! It's that easy, right? Go do it then.
A wee question regarding number 16, Kenneth Johnsons, the Tau player in the top 16. I see he took a Tau Empire CAD & FSE, both of his commanders in each separate CAD have Iridium Armour, which is a signature system. I thought the "one per army" included separate CADS from the same faction? (I could be wrong though, just asking for clarification).
A wee question regarding number 16, Kenneth Johnsons, the Tau player in the top 16. I see he took a Tau Empire CAD & FSE, both of his commanders in each separate CAD have Iridium Armour, which is a signature system. I thought the "one per army" included separate CADS from the same faction? (I could be wrong though, just asking for clarification).
According to AB it is, but I'm fairly sure that is incorrect, only 1 sig system per army; He's taking 2 identical sig systems from 2 different codex, but its still under 1 army. Tools like AB are good but still have mistakes, and players that uses it exclusively suffer. I'm in support of a more harsh penalty on players that exceed the pt level/errors made, in the end the players themselves should be responsible. Thus making them check their own army list against the codex and other necessary sources for error prior to the tourney.
On how harsh the penalty should be, it needs to be a balance. Stripping the prize and medal may be too harsh, but perhaps split the winnings with the 2nd place? If the player in question made a second error in the following same tourneys, perhaps strip the prize and honors.
Adepticon looks like a joke atm, 2 errors in the top 16, honest mistake or not, that is not acceptable.
Maybe then these players will finally stop being lazy and get their gak together.
Virtually no sport/competition I know of is so punitive.
You're obviously not a golfer.
Why shouldn't people be responsible for the lists they bring? If you're going to play a list at a GT you should at least have the digital copy of the book that belongs to your army or wherever your formation comes from. It's called being responsible. I know mistakes are made, but these players are putting judges and TOs in tough spots when they put on their sad faces and say they didn't mean to do anything wrong. The blame then gets shifted to people who shouldn't have to babysit us, but feel bad so they compromise. As an athlete growing up in multiple sports, if I were ever found to have cheated via list construction or whatever, I'd step down immediately because I was playing at an advantage. It's the right thing to do. Don't shrug your shoulders and say 'C'est la vie,' step up and own it. This game isn't THAT complicated. Communities are available that you can reach out to in order to check that you're doing things right. The problem people have in list construction is the same they have with the rulebook is that they don't read it closely enough. Don't just look at the units you can take, goto the pages with those units on them and look for any other stipulations that are required to field that unit. It's simple, DON'T BE LAZY.
A wee question regarding number 16, Kenneth Johnsons, the Tau player in the top 16. I see he took a Tau Empire CAD & FSE, both of his commanders in each separate CAD have Iridium Armour, which is a signature system. I thought the "one per army" included separate CADS from the same faction? (I could be wrong though, just asking for clarification).
According to AB it is, but I'm fairly sure that is incorrect, only 1 sig system per army; He's taking 2 identical sig systems from 2 different codex, but its still under 1 army. Tools like AB are good but still have mistakes, and players that uses it exclusively suffer. I'm in support of a more harsh penalty on players that exceed the pt level/errors made, in the end the players themselves should be responsible. Thus making them check their own army list against the codex and other necessary sources for error prior to the tourney.
On how harsh the penalty should be, it needs to be a balance. Stripping the prize and medal may be too harsh, but perhaps split the winnings with the 2nd place? If the player in question made a second error in the following same tourneys, perhaps strip the prize and honors.
Adepticon looks like a joke atm, 2 errors in the top 16, honest mistake or not, that is not acceptable.
I would say it's highly likely there was an error on BoK's writing of the list. They are generally recreating them to the best of their knowledge from what they get from other players. I doubt that Ken sent them a full army list.
I mean, mine is wrong as it has the wrong number of dogs and no magic hat for my RP and that was a cursory glance.
But Kudos to BoK for gathering the armies as much as they can for others to see. Just don't take the write ups as gospel of what was played.
A wee question regarding number 16, Kenneth Johnsons, the Tau player in the top 16. I see he took a Tau Empire CAD & FSE, both of his commanders in each separate CAD have Iridium Armour, which is a signature system. I thought the "one per army" included separate CADS from the same faction? (I could be wrong though, just asking for clarification).
According to AB it is, but I'm fairly sure that is incorrect, only 1 sig system per army; He's taking 2 identical sig systems from 2 different codex, but its still under 1 army. Tools like AB are good but still have mistakes, and players that uses it exclusively suffer. I'm in support of a more harsh penalty on players that exceed the pt level/errors made, in the end the players themselves should be responsible. Thus making them check their own army list against the codex and other necessary sources for error prior to the tourney.
On how harsh the penalty should be, it needs to be a balance. Stripping the prize and medal may be too harsh, but perhaps split the winnings with the 2nd place? If the player in question made a second error in the following same tourneys, perhaps strip the prize and honors.
Adepticon looks like a joke atm, 2 errors in the top 16, honest mistake or not, that is not acceptable.
I would say it's highly likely there was an error on BoK's writing of the list. They are generally recreating them to the best of their knowledge from what they get from other players. I doubt that Ken sent them a full army list.
I mean, mine is wrong as it has the wrong number of dogs and no magic hat for my RP and that was a cursory glance.
But Kudos to BoK for gathering the armies as much as they can for others to see. Just don't take the write ups as gospel of what was played.
I second this. Anything posted by secondary or tertiary sources needs to be looked at through a less scrutinizing lens.
I will say that I gave him a copy of my list written up in Word, and he put it into army builder. So some errors could have occurred when he inputted them. Luckily I don't see any errors in mine since eldar are pretty straight forward with upgrades
I played against Ken, he definitely only had one commander in general, so that list is probably close-guesswork.
He played, just to give you the gist of it, Cad, buffmander, some missile suits, couple min troops, 1 stormsurge, a riptide wing....and I think that was it if memory serves me.
Target wrote: I played against Ken, he definitely only had one commander in general, so that list is probably close-guesswork.
He played, just to give you the gist of it, Cad, buffmander, some missile suits, couple min troops, 1 stormsurge, a riptide wing....and I think that was it if memory serves me.
There have been a good few list creator programs put out, and some of them are for pay. And they have problems. No one is magically creating an imperfect 40k army list generator any time soon- let alone some free coding from the community.
IF there is going to be list enforcement It would have to come from the tournament organization with required formats for lists to make them easier to read, e.g. excel only pts for units and upgrades listed out. Wargear listed out and spelled correctly with correct costs and limits for units.....list a nesting order of formations with units, and which books they are from.
Otherwise you have tournament organizers looking at AB, BS, whatever, excel, some guy penciling "inquiistor and friends 615 pts skyhammer 1k pts, assassin rest pts" on a post it with a coffee mug stain and trying to comb through books to see if it is all legit.
Hulksmash wrote: I would say it's highly likely there was an error on BoK's writing of the list. They are generally recreating them to the best of their knowledge from what they get from other players. I doubt that Ken sent them a full army list.
So, wait...BoK is back to stirring up gak over illegal lists (as usual), and throwing shade at players and events for not doing their due diligence in cross-checking the lists and ensuring their validity, claiming that it "isn't hard" to do, without actually going through the effort of making sure the lists they're putting up amidst these accusations of cheating are the right lists in the first place?
Sounds like list-checking really is easier said than done, no?
I mean yeah, if you don't get the right list in the first place and can't reach the players in question after the event to get their lists so you can post them up on your website, it's understandable that your information won't be entirely accurate. It's just kinda funny to me considering the situation, claiming three lists in the top 16 were illegal when at least one of those lists is potentially your mistake.
Hulksmash wrote: I would say it's highly likely there was an error on BoK's writing of the list. They are generally recreating them to the best of their knowledge from what they get from other players. I doubt that Ken sent them a full army list.
So, wait...BoK is back to stirring up gak over illegal lists (as usual), and throwing shade at players and events for not doing their due diligence in cross-checking the lists and ensuring their validity, claiming that it "isn't hard" to do, without actually going through the effort of making sure the lists they're putting up amidst these accusations of cheating are the right lists in the first place?
Sounds like list-checking really is easier said than done, no?
I mean yeah, if you don't get the right list in the first place and can't reach the players in question after the event to get their lists so you can post them up on your website, it's understandable that your information won't be entirely accurate. It's just kinda funny to me considering the situation, claiming three lists in the top 16 were illegal when at least one of those lists is potentially your mistake.
Except in this case Tastey isn't claiming anything of the sort. And I'm not his biggest fan but he basically put up approximate lists to show what's going on. He probably should have a better disclaimer but meh.
Seriously, before you're gonna try and be authoritative perhaps you might reach out to folks and check you have their list? It's not like whoever this tool is actually asked for my list during the tournament.
Further Edit: Just annoyed people think I'd actually have taken that. On a few levels. I don't begrudge BoK trying to get some info out there, but it's the height of simplicity to find out who I am and asking me. Preferably DURING the tournament. And if you haven't? Make sure the list is marked as speculative, please. Last thing I want to see are folks reaching out to me asking "wait did you actually take that?!" because somebody didn't even try remotely to do their homework.
Thanks Hulk and Target for the responses on this. Crazy talk!
Seriously, before you're gonna try and be authoritative perhaps you might reach out to folks and check you have their list? It's not like whoever this tool is actually asked for my list during the tournament.
He definitely should have reached out - maybe he just assumed you wouldn't share it since you posted this in the AdeptiCon thread?
GreyDragoon wrote: I'm not of the list posting type. If one of my opponents wants to share they can, but I prefer to keep playing lists with a slightly different take on Tau (they're not completely off the wall) and publishing them as netlists never helps that. So I would prefer they not as well.
General outline of it was Tau CAD, FE Allies, Riptide Wing, Inq.
Not saying they got it right posting something they hadn't verified, but they do read this section of Dakka so maybe saw the above and didn't follow up.
Hulksmash wrote: And I'm not his biggest fan but he basically put up approximate lists to show what's going on. He probably should have a better disclaimer but meh.
Then he should make that clear from the start, because nowhere on that page does it say the lists he posted for the top 16 are "close approximations" or otherwise something random he cobbled together based on what other players at the event told him. He's presenting these as the actual lists that were "made legal per the rules of Adepticon" as far as I can tell. Nowhere does it say there's potential for mistakes in the lists he posted.
RiTides wrote: He definitely should have reached out - maybe he just assumed you wouldn't share it since you posted this in the AdeptiCon thread?
GreyDragoon wrote: I'm not of the list posting type. If one of my opponents wants to share they can, but I prefer to keep playing lists with a slightly different take on Tau (they're not completely off the wall) and publishing them as netlists never helps that. So I would prefer they not as well.
General outline of it was Tau CAD, FE Allies, Riptide Wing, Inq.
Not saying they got it right posting something they hadn't verified, but they do read this section of Dakka so maybe saw the above and didn't follow up.
All he had to do was mention that the list(s) aren't confirmed and I'd be just fine. Annoyed that Nick H. couldn't be bothered to even ask if what he was going to post was correct, ask me directly for a list, or just throw a little text in saying that he didn't confirm it.
Agreed that he should have confirmed - but since the only thing about your list I've seen posted was a single line summary by Target and a similar one by you, it's hard to even know how far off BoK is.
Basically, being cagey about the list is going to invite speculation... doesn't excuse it, but certainly makes it more likely (and more likely to be inaccurate).
Hulksmash posted earlier in this thread that BoK was asking for the Top 16 AdeptiCon lists and was trying to find his exact list to provide to them to post:
Hulksmash wrote: If anyone from Adepticon played me in the champs and still has my list could they send it to me? Just need to check something
Hulksmash wrote: Clarifying my list since I made top 16 and TastyTaste was asking for them.
There's obviously no obligation of any kind to do so, but the fact that they got the list wrong isn't that surprising since you haven't been willing to share it, either.
In the end it's really not a big deal either way, just thought it was worth pointing out that they'd publicized they were trying to put together the top lists, so it would've been easy to remedy (and still is, if you wanted to share it - if not, no worries!).
Fair enough I guess. Still not intending to post my list. Perhaps he could/should just note that he's making it up? And if he knows he's making it up, perhaps not making an illegal one right off the bat in a conversation about lists being legal/illegal would be prudent.
Seriously, before you're gonna try and be authoritative perhaps you might reach out to folks and check you have their list? It's not like whoever this tool is actually asked for my list during the tournament.
Further Edit: Just annoyed people think I'd actually have taken that. On a few levels. I don't begrudge BoK trying to get some info out there, but it's the height of simplicity to find out who I am and asking me. Preferably DURING the tournament. And if you haven't? Make sure the list is marked as speculative, please. Last thing I want to see are folks reaching out to me asking "wait did you actually take that?!" because somebody didn't even try remotely to do their homework.
Thanks Hulk and Target for the responses on this. Crazy talk!
You complain that wasn't your list yet don't post your list here that seems silly.
The OP was well off on pointing the finger. Blaming the system for a person that deliberately (or otherwise) used an illegal/incomplete/poorly written list is silly.
I also think it's not the correct direction to try and build a system or process that will catch all list mistakes/cheating for lists in tournaments. That's a very expensive method, and will never work 100% as 5 pages of discussion has shown us.
The real solution has to be with the players, having them be responsible for their own lists. I think the issue is very similar to quality management systems in modern manufacturing. If you don't make the players responsible, they won't ever feel at fault for cheating. It will always be the processes fault for not catching it.
IMO list mistakes should be treated with varying degrees of severity based on event size.
10 buck 3 round RTT? Make him fix it and move on unless it's very obvious that it was intentional, or its something gigantic.
2 day+ GT with high prize support? No one with an illegal list should walk out with anything. If you're good enough to get GT prize support, you're good enough to build a legal list, and there should be enough thought/practice going into the list in the weeks beforehand that you or your playtest buddies catch it. If it still makes it through, then the TO shouldn't feel any remorse for telling you "sorry dude, I gotta nullify your results and remove you from prize possibility. Please make sure your list is legal for future GT's."
I feel like there are two ways this could have gone, one being what happened, which benefits Aaron and caused considerable outrage among the community. The other would have been him penalized, being unable to win with an illegal list. While I'm sure many would sympathize with him, I dont think you'd have nearly the emotional response or negative feedback on a decision like that.
I'm wondering about the 17th person, the person that's looking in at the top 16; does he have any angst toward the TO etc. I mean hypothetically he might of had a chance to win the prize if Aaron was disqualified, bumping him to the top 16.
Adepticon TO and any other GT should have a concrete solution prior to their tourney, it should be a priority topic among them.
Seriously, before you're gonna try and be authoritative perhaps you might reach out to folks and check you have their list? It's not like whoever this tool is actually asked for my list during the tournament.
Further Edit: Just annoyed people think I'd actually have taken that. On a few levels. I don't begrudge BoK trying to get some info out there, but it's the height of simplicity to find out who I am and asking me. Preferably DURING the tournament. And if you haven't? Make sure the list is marked as speculative, please. Last thing I want to see are folks reaching out to me asking "wait did you actually take that?!" because somebody didn't even try remotely to do their homework.
Thanks Hulk and Target for the responses on this. Crazy talk!
You complain that wasn't your list yet don't post your list here that seems silly.
I have no obligation to repost my list, and if it means one less copy cat list out there, then I'm happy with the results. Any of my opponents could easily share my list as could the tournament if that was their perogative. But I'm not about to perpetuate netlisting if I can avoid it.
As for Blood of Kittens, considering he never saw my list, asked me directly for my list, asked my opponents for my list, or put any disclaimer that he hadn't actually seen my list and was just making it up.. Well honestly he should have known better. He has a thread about the top lists, mentions the issues with an illegal list in it, and puts my name against an incorrect (and not legal) list. I play more than enough tournaments that his action immediately had people reaching out to ask if I had done that. Nobody has the right to tie me up with that crap just because I don't care to repost my lists. It's my hobby too and someone tossing my name out there like that is a bunch of crap.
As for Blood of Kittens, considering he never saw my list, asked me directly for my list, asked my opponents for my list, or put any disclaimer that he hadn't actually seen my list and was just making it up.. Well honestly he should have known better. He has a thread about the top lists, mentions the issues with an illegal list in it, and puts my name against an incorrect (and not legal) list. I play more than enough tournaments that his action immediately had people reaching out to ask if I had done that. Nobody has the right to tie me up with that crap just because I don't care to repost my lists. It's my hobby too and someone tossing my name out there like that is a bunch of crap.
I feel for you Aaron and agree you are not obliged to make your list known to anyone who isn't across a table from you.
Nick Hayden (AKA tasty taste) the author of BOK has a long standing bad reputation for not fact checking and out right lying on his blog with no care to the personal ramifications this has in the real world on the people he has libeled. (just type "tasty taste liar" into google there is more then enough well known people calling him out on his unethical practices)
Mods should be issuing a permanent ban to his avatar for this kind of activity due to the repetitive nature and real world consequences it has had on players, organizers, ect and their reputations over the years. Especially since he has often used this site to promote his own and I don't think dakka should be supporting this kind of thing.
All I can say is don't let him or those who foolishly believe anything he says get you down.
I have no obligation to repost my list, and if it means one less copy cat list out there, then I'm happy with the results. Any of my opponents could easily share my list as could the tournament if that was their perogative. But I'm not about to perpetuate netlisting if I can avoid it.
As for Blood of Kittens, considering he never saw my list, asked me directly for my list, asked my opponents for my list, or put any disclaimer that he hadn't actually seen my list and was just making it up.. Well honestly he should have known better. He has a thread about the top lists, mentions the issues with an illegal list in it, and puts my name against an incorrect (and not legal) list. I play more than enough tournaments that his action immediately had people reaching out to ask if I had done that. Nobody has the right to tie me up with that crap just because I don't care to repost my lists. It's my hobby too and someone tossing my name out there like that is a bunch of crap.
Sounds like you are a Whiner who has his feelings hurt. Posting lists does nothing but shows you are not a chump but take your secret list to the grave and let the blood of kittens list posted be your list.
Okay, GreyDragoon has made it clear he won't be posting his list, and that isn't the topic of this thread. Any further posts regarding that will be deleted as off-topic.
So, let's return to the topic of list errors at tournaments / methods to avoid / etc. Thanks
As for Blood of Kittens, considering he never saw my list, asked me directly for my list, asked my opponents for my list, or put any disclaimer that he hadn't actually seen my list and was just making it up.. Well honestly he should have known better. He has a thread about the top lists, mentions the issues with an illegal list in it, and puts my name against an incorrect (and not legal) list. I play more than enough tournaments that his action immediately had people reaching out to ask if I had done that. Nobody has the right to tie me up with that crap just because I don't care to repost my lists. It's my hobby too and someone tossing my name out there like that is a bunch of crap.
I feel for you Aaron and agree you are not obliged to make your list known to anyone who isn't across a table from you.
Nick Hayden (AKA tasty taste) the author of BOK has a long standing bad reputation for not fact checking and out right lying on his blog with no care to the personal ramifications this has in the real world on the people he has libeled. (just type "tasty taste liar" into google there is more then enough well known people calling him out on his unethical practices)
Mods should be issuing a permanent ban to his avatar for this kind of activity due to the repetitive nature and real world consequences it has had on players, organizers, ect and their reputations over the years. Especially since he has often used this site to promote his own and I don't think dakka should be supporting this kind of thing.
All I can say is don't let him or those who foolishly believe anything he says get you down.
Much appreciated.
Oh and I'm Kenny. Not Aaron
Being a bit more on point, I was supposed to be Aaron's first opponent on day2. And if I can suggest anything to others going to tournaments and worried about this sort of thing - I would just remind you that at the end of the day TO decisions are final. So I came in after having read the list and having some thoughts aired to me about it, I simply confirmed it was legal with the TOs, and that was it. As far as I was concerned, we had a match to play and anything could happen/go wrong for either of us. So game on. You really do have to be willing to simply man up and play even when you think a call is incorrect. And hell, you paid for it. So do your best to have some fun.
As far as what could have been done differently, if at all, I would suggest that at the end of day 1 a much more indepth list turn in and review would have been smart of the top 24. Because as people have pointed out, things do slip by. my 2 cents. But other than that I thought they handled things well in general, and while as a competitor I may have wanted a different call, as a person I completely understand how going back on a decision made pre-tournament to disqualify a top 16 list the night before would be ridiculous. The call had already been made at that point, have to live with it.
I think thats a good point GreyDragoon. At the end of the day, this thread is probably making a bigger deal out of the issue than it actually was/is.
Professional athletes go through the same thing. At times theres a blatant bad call and they have to play on. And those can result in lots of real $$ being handed out for winning.
I don't understand why he was able to continue playing for the top prize. I understand accidents happen, but ignorance isn't a legitimate defense. As someone else said, own up to the error and drop out.
Putting all the responsibility on the TO to fact check lists on top of their responsibilities is crap though. They have enough on their plate, it's much easier to make each player responsible for their own list.
I think each player should have to have at least enough copies to hand to each opponent and the judges, no excuses. Then, while the tournament is live publicly share all lists online.
If someone is discovered in error during the event, turn all their previous wins to loses and give their opponents the wins and allow them to correct the issue if possible, if not, disqualification.
If someone is found with an illegal list after the event, strip them of the any titles/awards and give the title to the runner up.
This will demonstrate that there is a zero tolerance for illegal lists. Army lists are the one thing we have the most time, reflection and control over to be sure they are accurate. In-game rules errors are forgivable after the fact unless it's obvious the intent was malicious, but how can anyone be OK with allowing illegal lists no matter what size the error. Now your setting a president. How many points next time? As someone else demonstrated earlier as well sometimes that 1 point is part of a min detachments requirements, so they are really getting much more then a krack grenade or pistol.
Finally, it blows my mind that people think this is unfair to the individual while ignoring all the individuals they wronged to get to the top. It also reflects poorly on the event, since not only was the prize tainted, but people feel like there is no ramification for the actions that caused the problem.
If real consequences exist, list issues will be MUCH less likely to occur.
Proactive measures are great, but that shouldn't eliminate reactive consequences. I didn't attend this tournament but had I been one of his opponents I would be livid when I found out he was still allowed to play for the crown, not because I thought I deserved to win but because I'd KNOW he didn't deserve to win. So after all that effort and all the people that made this tournament happen the result was bollixed.
At the end of the day I hope the lack of real consequences doesn't ruin a players reputation or the reputation of one of the countries premier events.
You know he had to play his last two games (so against the very top of the competition) without the unit right - so down 120 points or similar? That's not no consequences - it's pretty crazy that he could pull out the win despite that.
RiTides wrote: You know he had to play his last two games (so against the very top of the competition) without the unit right - so down 120 points or similar? That's not no consequences - it's pretty crazy that he could pull out the win despite that.
But how does that show good faith to all the people he cheated? Further yet your looking at it though the bias of him winning. Notice I never said he wasn't a good enough player to win it all, but that he didn't deserve the prize because he didn't follow the rules. He beat some of his opponents with a legal list, but he didn't beat all his opponents with a legal list. I understand he beat tougher opponents down points but shouldn't there be more to a champion then a winning streak? All this feels sort of Trump like, he won, so lets forgive his previous illegal games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidstyler wrote: He also gave up the prize and didn't receive points for the win, if I'm not mistaken.
Then good on him, however it would have turned out better and resulted with a legitimate champion had this happened at the event when it was discovered. I just feel like it would protect the event, and the parties involved much better if this sort of consequence was delivered ASAP. But again, it's good of him to step down.
Again guys, and it's not like I thought thjs was the "right" decision, but he was already list verified going into this tournament on the lone wolves. that is, by far, the imortant part of the list. Once you accept that as legal, the 1 pt issue is to me academic and if he goes without then so be it. That was fairly inconsequential.
At the end, Aaron did win this, and he won it with something he got pre approved. I'm one hundred precent ok with a 1 pt issue, we've all been guilty of that before. I don't agree with the answers but theh were metted out without problems. And havkng been a person that asked, I can say that it wasn't the problem at the time some of you think it was. Everyone there suspected if the rule went for him we could still knock him off depending.
I will freely admit we need better "list legality" solutions for ahead of game checking. Until that time, it rests on players, for better or worse. Please get over it, and suggest cogent solutions instead of pummeling people who gave it their all in a fun competition last week.
Anyway, on to more touneys in May. Can we move on/suggest a list of basic solutions?
The interview glossed over the Lone Wolf issue. Aaron said he feels the pain and this win will always have an asterisk. Ultimately the TOs are responsible or things like this will just keep happening.
I don't know if it's been "verified" but that's what I've been hearing. BoK also said as much, too, but then again I don't know if I'd take his word for it, either.
But yeah, it still sucks either way and still isn't really fair to the people he beat with an illegal list.
From what I noticed and heard (not 100% positive) he provided one of his two Imperial Knights he won to the the winner of the young bloods tournament. To my knowledge no other prize support was given back to the event to redistribute but I could be wrong.
I know for a fact he gave one Imperial Knight to the youngblood champ because they announced it at the even.
The Lone Wolves thing was pre-approved so as much as I disagree with the ruling it's Adepticon's ruling. The one point thing by itself wouldn't have been an issue for me.
Given that he got it approved, the idea that he should give back the prize support I find kind of crazy... but kudos to him for giving that to the Young Bloods, classy move
RiTides wrote: Given that he got it approved, the idea that he should give back the prize support I find kind of crazy... but kudos to him for giving that to the Young Bloods, classy move
The approval for the Lone Wolves was given. Not for being 1pt over
I just know to many people that when that might have come up would have just shook hands and dropped out of the running. They never would have won the prize in the first place.
RiTides wrote: Given that he got it approved, the idea that he should give back the prize support I find kind of crazy... but kudos to him for giving that to the Young Bloods, classy move
Hulksmash is correct. Only one of the items was returned to which we allocated it to the young winner bloods (a new in box knight). To my knowledge, all other winnings were kept.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote: I just know too many people that when that might have come up would have just shook hands and dropped out of the running. They never would have won the prize in the first place.
Hulk - I feel like it's more a problem of the game as GW has evolved it. He was 2 points under with something that from my understanding wasn't flagged by Army Builder or BattleScribe, which resulted in him being 1 point over (having to first buy the bolt pistol to upgrade it on the Sanguinary Priest). There were plenty of places for him to get that point with all the small upgrades he had, and as it was listed he was 2 points under, so it was obviously an oversight.
The fact that this happened to Tony Kopach as well just says to me that this era of 40K is crazy enough with enough dichotomy between codexes / detachments / formations / decurions / etc of different armies, that these things are going to happen.
I don't think it should be excused by any stretch - but I think making the player play without the unit is penalty enough. Things like this happen all the time in competitions of various types. Some things results in automatic DQs, but others simply result in a fine or penalty. Nascar would be a great example, where certain offenses will make you move back in starting position, others are fines, and the worst are DQs.
I don't think being 1 point over on an obvious oversight is of the DQ type, but rather of the penalized type of offense. No one, I don't think, is saying there shouldn't be a consequence - but making him remove a 120 point model upon discovery of the 1 point error is penalty enough, imo.
RiTides wrote: Hulk - I feel like it's more a problem of the game as GW has evolved it. He was 2 points under with something that from my understanding wasn't flagged by Army Builder or BattleScribe, which resulted in him being 1 point over (having to first buy the bolt pistol to upgrade it on the Sanguinary Priest). There were plenty of places for him to get that point with all the small upgrades he had, and as it was listed he was 2 points under, so it was obviously an oversight.
The fact that this happened to Tony Kopach as well just says to me that this era of 40K is crazy enough with enough dichotomy between codexes / detachments / formations / decurions / etc of different armies, that these things are going to happen.
I don't think it should be excused by any stretch - but I think making the player play without the unit is penalty enough. Things like this happen all the time in competitions of various types. Some things results in automatic DQs, but others simply result in a fine or penalty. Nascar would be a great example, where certain offenses will make you move back in starting position, others are fines, and the worst are DQs.
I don't think being 1 point over on an obvious oversight is of the DQ type, but rather of the penalized type of offense. No one, I don't think, is saying there shouldn't be a consequence - but making him remove a 120 point model upon discovery of the 1 point error is penalty enough, imo.
Just my take, of course!
Again I guess I just don't understand your reasoning. Part of being a champion at this game is building a legal army. It is a skill just as if not more crucial then playing and out playing your opponents. If you can't build a legal list, whatever the reason, your not qualified in that tournament to be crowned the champion. Your argument about how confusing 40k currently is makes no sense, plenty of other players were able to compete with legal armies, just because you think it was inconsequential makes no difference.
As far as Kopach (3PO) is concerned, many players felt the same back then. Notice how setting a precedent like this is important? Now you let another champion slide? Back then Kopach was given the benefit of the doubt because of his young age I remember, agree with it or not it added a whole other layer to a similar mess so it's not really a valid point to make.
Look, thousands of man hours, love and sweat was put into running this event. many people also made travel arrangements and took time off and spent money to compete. At the end of the day, his list wasn't legal, period. It simply isn't fair to all the other human beings involved to let it slide, even if only one person isn't OK with it it's simply unacceptable. I honestly am surprised he didn't step down immediately when he was found in violation.
If your list is illegal, all wins with that list are a loss, that has been the rule in every country I have played 40k in for over 14 years. You are not a devil for doing it, but you apologize, step down, and move on. If the extra points mattered or not is completely irrelevant.
Now we have tournaments like this one and BAO last year giving out prize support to people with illegal lists.
Red corsair, that is simply only your opinion as far as what the consequences should be for being over points... And what is your basis for it being the correct consequence?
Ritides, and others, have pointed out that there could-and probably should-be a varying degree of consequences ranging in severity and supported that position with examples in other sports... Yet you want to yell "off with his unworthy to win head" because...?
The bottom line is, certain players do not feel being unintentionally slightly over points warrants an automatic DQ and forfeiture of prizes. How this matter is handled is up to each TO and no one way is "correct" so people should stop acting like there IS a single correct way...
You think being over warrants dropping out and no prizes? Cool, that is your opinion and right... But when you start making judgments about people who play and win and keep prize support for violating your notions of right and wrong and not handling things according to how you think they should, well then you've crossed a line where you are imposing how you think things should be upon others. I then have to ask, who died and made you TO?
I guess a lot of it is perspective. Say I turn my list in to a big GT, NOVA for example. And its clearly labeled as 1851 pts and adds up to 1851 pts. I'll get an email saying I cant use that list, not for one game, not two, but for any of my games, because its illegal.
Maybe its my military background that makes me take a harsh stance on this kind of oversight, but the phrase "Trust but verify" really does apply here. I get that Battlescribe or any of the programs out there are not bulletproof, and if I as a lowly middle of the pack tournament goer understands that fact then I'm sure someone who invests so much time and money like Aaron would get that too, so manually check your list. Then recheck, and when you feel nervous about it check again.
mortetvie wrote: Red corsair, that is simply only your opinion as far as what the consequences should be for being over points... And what is your basis for it being the correct consequence?
Ritides, and others, have pointed out that there could-and probably should-be a varying degree of consequences ranging in severity and supported that position with examples in other sports... Yet you want to yell "off with his unworthy to win head" because...?
The bottom line is, certain players do not feel being unintentionally slightly over points warrants an automatic DQ and forfeiture of prizes. How this matter is handled is up to each TO and no one way is "correct" so people should stop acting like there IS a single correct way...
You think being over warrants dropping out and no prizes? Cool, that is your opinion and right... But when you start making judgments about people who play and win and keep prize support for violating your notions of right and wrong and not handling things according to how you think they should, well then you've crossed a line where you are imposing how you think things should be upon others. I then have to ask, who died and made you TO?
So now the result will be based on event organizer bias and not a rigid structure. Consistency be damned. Where are your dividing lines? What's one, two, three, four or more points over? What defines the structure? How do you pick the offending model or unit if the points violation is not clear? How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Without a rigid structure/cut-off in place, all this does is invite even more problems.
There is a rigid structure, but this varies by event (like all things on the tourney circuit!).
AdeptiCon adhered to their policy exactly (which to my understanding has been unchanged for 10 years). Upon discovery, the entire unit that was miscosted was removed from play (in this case a 123 point HQ) for the remainder of the event, and the player won his last two games without it.
Doesn't excuse the error, but obviously disincentivizes playing over on points because if you do well you'll be discovered and be playing at a large handicap for the final rounds.
mortetvie wrote: Red corsair, that is simply only your opinion as far as what the consequences should be for being over points... And what is your basis for it being the correct consequence?
Ritides, and others, have pointed out that there could-and probably should-be a varying degree of consequences ranging in severity and supported that position with examples in other sports... Yet you want to yell "off with his unworthy to win head" because...?
The bottom line is, certain players do not feel being unintentionally slightly over points warrants an automatic DQ and forfeiture of prizes. How this matter is handled is up to each TO and no one way is "correct" so people should stop acting like there IS a single correct way...
You think being over warrants dropping out and no prizes? Cool, that is your opinion and right... But when you start making judgments about people who play and win and keep prize support for violating your notions of right and wrong and not handling things according to how you think they should, well then you've crossed a line where you are imposing how you think things should be upon others. I then have to ask, who died and made you TO?
So now the result will be based on event organizer bias and not a rigid structure. Consistency be damned. Where are your dividing lines? What's one, two, three, four or more points over? What defines the structure? How do you pick the offending model or unit if the points violation is not clear? How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Without a rigid structure/cut-off in place, all this does is invite even more problems.
The bottom line is that it is a fact that (1) every player is at the mercy of the TOs with how any and every infraction (perceived or real) is handled; and, (2) there is absolutely NO authoritative basis or standard that one can apply to any one TO in how they handle any infraction.
Therefore, results are ALWAYS based on event organizers and their bias towards how to handle situations. Whether they should or not is another matter altogether and one that is more metaphysical than practical at this point in time. For there to be a rigid structure, there must be an authoritative source for that structure... And 40k lacks that since GW stepped out of the Tournament business. Even with any authoritative source, it is still up to any TO to handle things as they see fit.
Saying we are just going down a rabbit hole with no end in sight and that without a rigid format more problems would be invited is unfounded and I challenge you to support those claims with something more than "well this could happen if that happens" type of slippery slope reasoning.
Of course, is it ideal that people follow the rules? Absolutely and I wholeheartedly advocate having a checks and balances system in place. What I do not advocate is that there is a single one size fits all solution or consequence for everything across the board.
RiTides wrote: I don't think it should be excused by any stretch - but I think making the player play without the unit is penalty enough. Things like this happen all the time in competitions of various types. Some things results in automatic DQs, but others simply result in a fine or penalty. Nascar would be a great example, where certain offenses will make you move back in starting position, others are fines, and the worst are DQs.
Your mention of NASCAR got me thinking.
NASCAR is a more rigidly officiated sport that nevertheless has a "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'" attitude. They try to catch you, and you try to get away with whatever you can. Golf, on the other hand, is a self-policed game in which sportsmanship and honesty are paramount. They aren't trying to catch you, but you don't try to get away with anything.
So what does 'competitive 40K' aspire to be?
There's no reason that things can't be different from tourney to tourney. However, it seems to me that if TOs aren't trying and players are...that's potentially a worst of both worlds, anti-competitive scenario.
Edit: Note that in the case being mentioned, I agree that the player in question made an oversight and wasn't intentionally cheating. I'm talking bigger picture.
mortetvie wrote: Red corsair, that is simply only your opinion as far as what the consequences should be for being over points... And what is your basis for it being the correct consequence?
Opinions are kind of how everything works on a forum. Kind of a weak way to start your post if we're being honest. My basis is pretty obvious BTW, if you went over points your broke the social contract you agreed to abide by when you signed up. Changing his list moving forward does nothing to rectify the impact his illegal list had on the 6 previous players.
Ritides, and others, have pointed out that there could-and probably should-be a varying degree of consequences ranging in severity and supported that position with examples in other sports... Yet you want to yell "off with his unworthy to win head" because...?
Don't put words in my mouth please. I never said any such inflammatory thing and this is a veiled jab at my motives. I want their to be ONE standard action for such an offense, the problem with varied consequences is the fact that it isn't fair, your being incredibly partial as soon as you add more or less weight to by what degree something is in violation. As for other sports, I could care less because 40k isn't A. a sport and B. as other pointed out as well each sport does it wildly differently based on the culture. Some sports act as if cheating is fine if you can get away with it. What a lovely way to approach a social event!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: There is a rigid structure, but this varies by event (like all things on the tourney circuit!).
AdeptiCon adhered to their policy exactly (which to my understanding has been unchanged for 10 years). Upon discovery, the entire unit that was miscosted was removed from play (in this case a 123 point HQ) for the remainder of the event, and the player won his last two games without it.
Doesn't excuse the error, but obviously disincentivizes playing over on points because if you do well you'll be discovered and be playing at a large handicap for the final rounds.
No actually it doesn't. All it incentivizes is not getting caught sooner. He didn't suffer any consequence for the prior games which is BS. You keep looking at this one example without considering other consequences. What if his last games opponent was over 1 pt? Remove any one unit entirely until he's in line right, except he had war convocation so now he is only playing the equivalenty of 2300pts rather then 2400pts. See how your soft line in the sand approach doesn't work across the board without being incredibly partial to each players offense?
mortetvie wrote: Red corsair, that is simply only your opinion as far as what the consequences should be for being over points... And what is your basis for it being the correct consequence?
Ritides, and others, have pointed out that there could-and probably should-be a varying degree of consequences ranging in severity and supported that position with examples in other sports... Yet you want to yell "off with his unworthy to win head" because...?
The bottom line is, certain players do not feel being unintentionally slightly over points warrants an automatic DQ and forfeiture of prizes. How this matter is handled is up to each TO and no one way is "correct" so people should stop acting like there IS a single correct way...
You think being over warrants dropping out and no prizes? Cool, that is your opinion and right... But when you start making judgments about people who play and win and keep prize support for violating your notions of right and wrong and not handling things according to how you think they should, well then you've crossed a line where you are imposing how you think things should be upon others. I then have to ask, who died and made you TO?
So now the result will be based on event organizer bias and not a rigid structure. Consistency be damned. Where are your dividing lines? What's one, two, three, four or more points over? What defines the structure? How do you pick the offending model or unit if the points violation is not clear? How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Without a rigid structure/cut-off in place, all this does is invite even more problems.
The bottom line is that it is a fact that (1) every player is at the mercy of the TOs with how any and every infraction (perceived or real) is handled; and, (2) there is absolutely NO authoritative basis or standard that one can apply to any one TO in how they handle any infraction.
Therefore, results are ALWAYS based on event organizers and their bias towards how to handle situations. Whether they should or not is another matter altogether and one that is more metaphysical than practical at this point in time. For there to be a rigid structure, there must be an authoritative source for that structure... And 40k lacks that since GW stepped out of the Tournament business. Even with any authoritative source, it is still up to any TO to handle things as they see fit.
Saying we are just going down a rabbit hole with no end in sight and that without a rigid format more problems would be invited is unfounded and I challenge you to support those claims with something more than "well this could happen if that happens" type of slippery slope reasoning.
Of course, is it ideal that people follow the rules? Absolutely and I wholeheartedly advocate having a checks and balances system in place. What I do not advocate is that there is a single one size fits all solution or consequence for everything across the board.
Metaphysics? Really? This is not life or death and nobody here is saying you can't have verying penalties for different infactions. We are saying that having an illegal list should disqualify you. Showing up late, slow playing, illegal models/basing or rules errors can all be handled differently.
mortetvie wrote: Red corsair, that is simply only your opinion as far as what the consequences should be for being over points... And what is your basis for it being the correct consequence?
Opinions are kind of how everything works on a forum. Kind of a weak way to start your post if we're being honest. My basis is pretty obvious BTW, if you went over points your broke the social contract you agreed to abide by when you signed up. Changing his list moving forward does nothing to rectify the impact his illegal list had on the 6 previous players.
Ritides, and others, have pointed out that there could-and probably should-be a varying degree of consequences ranging in severity and supported that position with examples in other sports... Yet you want to yell "off with his unworthy to win head" because...?
Don't put words in my mouth please. I never said any such inflammatory thing and this is a veiled jab at my motives. I want their to be ONE standard action for such an offense, the problem with varied consequences is the fact that it isn't fair, your being incredibly partial as soon as you add more or less weight to by what degree something is in violation. As for other sports, I could care less because 40k isn't A. a sport and B. as other pointed out as well each sport does it wildly differently based on the culture. Some sports act as if cheating is fine if you can get away with it. What a lovely way to approach a social event!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: There is a rigid structure, but this varies by event (like all things on the tourney circuit!).
AdeptiCon adhered to their policy exactly (which to my understanding has been unchanged for 10 years). Upon discovery, the entire unit that was miscosted was removed from play (in this case a 123 point HQ) for the remainder of the event, and the player won his last two games without it.
Doesn't excuse the error, but obviously disincentivizes playing over on points because if you do well you'll be discovered and be playing at a large handicap for the final rounds.
No actually it doesn't. All it incentivizes is not getting caught sooner. He didn't suffer any consequence for the prior games which is BS. You keep looking at this one example without considering other consequences. What if his last games opponent was over 1 pt? Remove any one unit entirely until he's in line right, except he had war convocation so now he is only playing the equivalenty of 2300pts rather then 2400pts. See how your soft line in the sand approach doesn't work across the board without being incredibly partial to each players offense?
Red,
So everything on a forum, and this forum in particular, is just opinion? There are opinions and then there are arguments supported by logic, the two are not the same so please don't confuse the two.
Also, good job quoting me without providing the context of what I was responding to (which amounts to taking my words out of context). I used a bit of hyperbole but the underlying concept of what you were saying is still the same: you (admittedly) feel that being 1 point over warrants a forfeiture of prize support and no chance at winning the event. To some, that is an overly harsh stance. Sorry if you were offended.
And when you say "We are saying that having an illegal list should disqualify you" we already understand that that is what YOU and certain others are saying. That does nothing to answer or address whether that is (1) the correct penalty for such an infraction; or, (2) what the basis for that penalty is.
Mortetvie, intentionally misquoting another post through hyperbole is trolling. I didn't quote you out of context, you attacked my motive by fabricating something I might say in your opinion which I don't appreciate.
Semantics of opinion vs argument aside, you can keep your nonpology and simply make your own argument without playing mind reader.
GreyDragoon wrote: Again guys, and it's not like I thought thjs was the "right" decision, but he was already list verified going into this tournament on the lone wolves. that is, by far, the imortant part of the list. Once you accept that as legal, the 1 pt issue is to me academic and if he goes without then so be it. That was fairly inconsequential.
At the end, Aaron did win this, and he won it with something he got pre approved. I'm one hundred precent ok with a 1 pt issue, we've all been guilty of that before. I don't agree with the answers but theh were metted out without problems. And havkng been a person that asked, I can say that it wasn't the problem at the time some of you think it was. Everyone there suspected if the rule went for him we could still knock him off depending.
I will freely admit we need better "list legality" solutions for ahead of game checking. Until that time, it rests on players, for better or worse. Please get over it, and suggest cogent solutions instead of pummeling people who gave it their all in a fun competition last week.
Anyway, on to more touneys in May. Can we move on/suggest a list of basic solutions?
Just wanted to quote the part where you said you dont care about one point over because "weve all been guilty of that before".
Thats flat out BS. I have never played any tourney much less a GT with an overpointed list. Speak for yourself nwxtime imo.
GreyDragoon wrote: Again guys, and it's not like I thought thjs was the "right" decision, but he was already list verified going into this tournament on the lone wolves. that is, by far, the imortant part of the list. Once you accept that as legal, the 1 pt issue is to me academic and if he goes without then so be it. That was fairly inconsequential.
At the end, Aaron did win this, and he won it with something he got pre approved. I'm one hundred precent ok with a 1 pt issue, we've all been guilty of that before. I don't agree with the answers but theh were metted out without problems. And havkng been a person that asked, I can say that it wasn't the problem at the time some of you think it was. Everyone there suspected if the rule went for him we could still knock him off depending.
I will freely admit we need better "list legality" solutions for ahead of game checking. Until that time, it rests on players, for better or worse. Please get over it, and suggest cogent solutions instead of pummeling people who gave it their all in a fun competition last week.
Anyway, on to more touneys in May. Can we move on/suggest a list of basic solutions?
Just wanted to quote the part where you said you dont care about one point over because "weve all been guilty of that before".
Thats flat out BS. I have never played any tourney much less a GT with an overpointed list. Speak for yourself nwxtime imo.
Lol OK, clearly it's only me who has accidentally screwed up my army on a spreadsheet, used an old number for a per model cost, or trusted army builder/battlescribe and realized after/during that I was off. I would say it happens more often then you'd think - but hey apparently it's just me.
GreyDragoon wrote: Again guys, and it's not like I thought thjs was the "right" decision, but he was already list verified going into this tournament on the lone wolves. that is, by far, the imortant part of the list. Once you accept that as legal, the 1 pt issue is to me academic and if he goes without then so be it. That was fairly inconsequential.
At the end, Aaron did win this, and he won it with something he got pre approved. I'm one hundred precent ok with a 1 pt issue, we've all been guilty of that before. I don't agree with the answers but theh were metted out without problems. And havkng been a person that asked, I can say that it wasn't the problem at the time some of you think it was. Everyone there suspected if the rule went for him we could still knock him off depending.
I will freely admit we need better "list legality" solutions for ahead of game checking. Until that time, it rests on players, for better or worse. Please get over it, and suggest cogent solutions instead of pummeling people who gave it their all in a fun competition last week.
Anyway, on to more touneys in May. Can we move on/suggest a list of basic solutions?
Just wanted to quote the part where you said you dont care about one point over because "weve all been guilty of that before".
Thats flat out BS. I have never played any tourney much less a GT with an overpointed list. Speak for yourself nwxtime imo.
Lol OK, clearly it's only me who has accidentally screwed up my army on a spreadsheet, used an old number for a per model cost, or trusted army builder/battlescribe and realized after/during that I was off. I would say it happens more often then you'd think - but hey apparently it's just me.
I think he was referring in a tournament setting but I'll let him answer that to be sure. I have played in countless RTT's and several GT's and I have never had an illegal list in those events because I take the time and care to double, triple and quadruple check my lists as well as having my peers check when I can. Anecdotal I admit, but he isn't wrong when he is saying you shouldn't make broad assumption.
Blackmoor wrote: Everyone is making comments about Aaron's list at the Adepticon finals but the fact is that there is very little oversight of any lists at GTs.
With most people not using army builder anymore (and even then army builder has some issues) and with the amount of formations and how complicated lists are these days there are bound to be a lot of mistakes. Heck, most people do not even own the codexes that they are using for their armies.
First off, most GTs do not even require you to have a copy for each opponent you play against so there is no way to keep a list and check it after the tournaments to see if it is correct. Some lists are hastily scrawelled on a piece of paper a few moments before the tournament begins so there is no wonder that there are mistakes, and there is absolutely zero list checking.
Here is an example of the one list that I lost to at the LVO in January:
My phone battery died after this picture so I can't show you how really bad this list was. No points listed, just the number of models. He also had no transports listed so I asked him if his army is walking, and he informed me that the squads had rhinos, razorbacks and drop pods, but they were just not listed on his sheet.
Frontline Gaming does not even collect an army list for their events so even after the tournament there is no way to check to see if mistakes were made.
If someone wanted to, they can play with a different list each round, or be over a lot of points or have illegal lists, and no one would ever know.
How can we fix this? Is there a way people can upload there lists to a database prior to a tournament so they can be reviewed by the public? At the bare minimum you should have to turn in a list when you register for the event so if there is an issue later on there is a hard copy. Also tournaments should require players to bring a list for each of their opponents. That way you can check that what is on the table matches what is on the lists, and after the tournament you can check it for accuracy for points and legality.
GreyDragoon wrote: Again guys, and it's not like I thought thjs was the "right" decision, but he was already list verified going into this tournament on the lone wolves. that is, by far, the imortant part of the list. Once you accept that as legal, the 1 pt issue is to me academic and if he goes without then so be it. That was fairly inconsequential.
At the end, Aaron did win this, and he won it with something he got pre approved. I'm one hundred precent ok with a 1 pt issue, we've all been guilty of that before. I don't agree with the answers but theh were metted out without problems. And havkng been a person that asked, I can say that it wasn't the problem at the time some of you think it was. Everyone there suspected if the rule went for him we could still knock him off depending.
I will freely admit we need better "list legality" solutions for ahead of game checking. Until that time, it rests on players, for better or worse. Please get over it, and suggest cogent solutions instead of pummeling people who gave it their all in a fun competition last week.
Anyway, on to more touneys in May. Can we move on/suggest a list of basic solutions?
Just wanted to quote the part where you said you dont care about one point over because "weve all been guilty of that before".
Thats flat out BS. I have never played any tourney much less a GT with an overpointed list. Speak for yourself nwxtime imo.
Lol OK, clearly it's only me who has accidentally screwed up my army on a spreadsheet, used an old number for a per model cost, or trusted army builder/battlescribe and realized after/during that I was off. I would say it happens more often then you'd think - but hey apparently it's just me.
I think he was referring in a tournament setting but I'll let him answer that to be sure. I have played in countless RTT's and several GT's and I have never had an illegal list in those events because I take the time and care to double, triple and quadruple check my lists as well as having my peers check when I can. Anecdotal I admit, but he isn't wrong when he is saying you shouldn't make broad assumption.
I was just having fun, no need for people to take it so seriously. That said, and this is just me personally, unless a list was severely broken I wouldn't have an issue with an opponent dropping a unit that has bought it over the limit - as long as that left the rest of the list legal after the fact. Life is too short.
Again, that's just me. And yes I am more than willing to admit that I have screwed up on a list years ago. I had been using a hand done spreadsheet and had a typo for the value of my Commander models. (put in 75 instead of 85) Offered to self report and drop a lose on the match, but my opponent offered to play as long as I could make the list legal, which I did by immediately dropping a squad putting me roughly 50 pts under the limit. List corrected (and now legal with the change) we played on and the list was played that way for the rest of the day. I have since personally run into two broken lists from the other side of the table and I have always been willing to apply the same standard to my opponents. If you play in enough GTs/Tourneys, it's just bound to happen that you'll run into something off in a list. Frankly since people rarely have the level of knowledge needed to properly point out models across all the codices, there's every chance you'd never even know you were playing against a broken list.
People aren't perfect, and it's a game of little army men. You can either get pissed off about every thing that your opponent does wrong or you can try and work with them. If you try to keep the salt content down you'll probably find you have a better experience at the end of the day.
I wasn't trying to seem rude, I get your poking fun but just wanted to shed my personal experience. BTW I am not trying to advocate for players names or reps being trashed and I understand it isn't a big deal to you personally, but that doesn't mean in future events others would feel the same so having a rigid black and white system to me makes sense.
I don't think they should be ejected from the event, I think that any previous wins with the illegal list be reversed, allow the opponent to fix the list and continue. I think having them drop a model is a bizarre method as well. Basically your punishing them going forward rather then rectifying the games they messed up. Does that make more sense?
I also think this would protect the players and event from bad PR. Had Aaron received the treatment I am suggesting nobody would be questioning any of this and people would be celebrating a clean victory rather then discussing how soured the whole championships turned out, with many wondering why he didn't drop.
Having a preemptive policy would be great but it just isn't logistically enough with 200+ players. I would rather give a break to the TO's who have a daunting task already.
Red Corsair wrote: I don't think they should be ejected from the event, I think that any previous wins with the illegal list be reversed, allow the opponent to fix the list and continue. I think having them drop a model is a bizarre method as well. Basically your punishing them going forward rather then rectifying the games they messed up. Does that make more sense?
I also think this would protect the players and event from bad PR. Had Aaron received the treatment I am suggesting nobody would be questioning any of this and people would be celebrating a clean victory rather then discussing how soured the whole championships turned out, with many wondering why he didn't drop.
This is a great point because we would not be having this discussion at all had this method been followed. It would not even register on the radar but for a minor blip, which when applying the smell test passes the muster. The radar blip would be "Hey, he screwed up. Next."
I wouldn't have a problem with prior wins being removed as well. In this particular case it just wasn't part of the tournament's stated policy for finding an illegal model in a list. As long as it's in the tourney rules, I'm just fine with it as a policy.
Booting people though should 100% be reserved for truly bad sportsmanship. Physical/verbal abuse, outright lying to judges, etc. Pretty rare stuff but it does happen from time to time. It is a salty/beardy event full of nerdy folks with what I think could generously be called eclectic personalities. And every now and then they just don't work out at all on the table.
I think the problem is the two issues here were being mixed a bit, so I looked into a bit more. One issue was the lone wolves, the other was being a point over. Here is the official policy regarding both things (full packet is here):
AdeptiCon 2016 40K Championship Packet wrote:
If illegal units or rules violations are found in a player's list, at a minimum, the models in violation will be removed from all subsequent play. Tournament points may be deducted and award eligibility may be forfeited. Please use the feedback form on the AdeptiCon 2016 website to ask any questions you or your club may have regarding rules issues or legal units in advance!
So, to break out the two issues:
1. Regarding the lone wolves, the player did exactly what they were supposed to do - submitted the question ahead of time and got clarification that they could bring the units as a part of their list.
2. Regarding the point over, the policy was followed - "the models in violation will be removed from all subsequent play."
I think there's a valid question to say "Should a further penalty have been applied?", which the policy leaves room for. But honestly, I brought up Tony Kopach earlier just to point out that this happens to the best of people (NOT to give Tony Kopach a hard time - honestly people should drop that ridiculous "3PO" nickname and call him "Beast" or something else reflecting how he absolutely dominated the 40K tournament scene for several years).
In the end, I think the policy is a good one, and it was followed. It's good to have flexibility because rules violations, by their very nature, are going to vary and need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But in this situation, I feel like people were conflating the two issues (not being happy the player's list was allowed, AND then discovering it was a point over). The way he made his list was approved, and in any other situation I feel like the accidental 1-point-over just should not be met with the "death penalty" tournament response.
I guess what I have a major problem with is a champion being crowned when they couldn't fulfil the basics 101 of the game. Again, I don't know why reversing scores keeps being twisted into calls for "death penalties." Honestly it comes off as a scare tactic to prevent the discussion. I am sure it was an honest mistake and Aaron is a swell guy and great player, but by the virtue of admitting it was a mistake, one which happened in the majority of his games it makes no sense to crown a victor under those circumstances going forward.
As to this event, I can speak for myself and say it's done and in the books so lets move on. However that doesn't mean the policy, which I agree was spelt out and followed, shouldn't be further scrutinized and evolve.
I probably should have just used the word "DQ" instead - certainly didn't intend it as a scare tactic (for reference, it is used in conjunction with NCAA rules violations when a program is prohibited from entering the post season that year).
I also totally agree that the policy should be looked at going forward given what occurred. I don't think saying a player Must be DQ'ed is a good idea... but it could be added to the current text as a possible outcome. It really depends on the offense, and since this is a "catch all" rule I think they need to have some flexibility in how to apply it.
RiTides wrote: I probably should have just used the word "DQ" instead - certainly didn't intend it as a scare tactic (for reference, it is used in conjunction with NCAA rules violations when a program is prohibited from entering the post season that year).
I also totally agree that the policy should be looked at going forward given what occurred. I don't think saying a player Must be DQ'ed is a good idea... but it could be added to the current text as a possible outcome. It really depends on the offense, and since this is a "catch all" rule I think they need to have some flexibility in how to apply it.
BTW sorry to say scare tactic, even my response was to dramatic. I knew what you meant but just wanted to point it out so the discussion could continue to be objective going forward
Is it really such a catch all rule? I am saying reverse all outcomes with the illegal roster. So it automatically tailors itself to the offense. If a player is caught after 7 games it is going to really affect that players score as it should since his mistake cost 6 other players. If it is caught after 1 game he now simply has a loss, IF he won mind you.
I feel like your concern for the player is admirable, but illogical in this instance. Not to sound like Spock but shouldn't the other players and event be protected first? Tell me how allowing a player to continue on to win the whole tournament under such circumstances won't impact and hurt an event and that players image? Again, just look at all the discussions right now, the number one topic out of adepticon is an illegal list winning the championships (at least the 40k side I should note, theres plenty more at adepticon).
MVBrandt wrote: Reece you are obviously as much of a colluding cheater as I am
I literally laughed out loud. Nice one.
My one and only suggestion for this would be for the top lists at the end of day one to be combed through for errors to insure those players moving on to day(s) 2/3 are playing lists that are above board. As a side, and really unrelated note, all those players playing for top spots should also be using dice that are provided for them by the GT. Just my $.02 I don't run events I just play in them so take it for what you will.
This, for me anyway, is why I avoid the ITC GTs as much as possible. You only worry about the "Top Players".
When I started playing this game again back in 5th I was LUCKY to go to a GT that did not have this mentality, they wanted every single participant on the same playing field so the games between the "bad" players and "good" players were on level standing and fun no matter what.
Not bashing necessarily, just perspective.
List building, and proper/level judgement at ALL levels of the tourney is how a good event turns into a fantastic one. Like it was mentioned, no need to be draconian, but asking everyone to submit a standard list type a week before is not unreasonable.
Red Corsair wrote: I guess what I have a major problem with is a champion being crowned when they couldn't fulfil the basics 101 of the game. Again, I don't know why reversing scores keeps being twisted into calls for "death penalties." Honestly it comes off as a scare tactic to prevent the discussion. I am sure it was an honest mistake and Aaron is a swell guy and great player, but by the virtue of admitting it was a mistake, one which happened in the majority of his games it makes no sense to crown a victor under those circumstances going forward.
As to this event, I can speak for myself and say it's done and in the books so lets move on. However that doesn't mean the policy, which I agree was spelt out and followed, shouldn't be further scrutinized and evolve.
Because one of those people has been consistently called out for less than above board behaviors at tournaments.
RiTides wrote: I probably should have just used the word "DQ" instead - certainly didn't intend it as a scare tactic (for reference, it is used in conjunction with NCAA rules violations when a program is prohibited from entering the post season that year).
I also totally agree that the policy should be looked at going forward given what occurred. I don't think saying a player Must be DQ'ed is a good idea... but it could be added to the current text as a possible outcome. It really depends on the offense, and since this is a "catch all" rule I think they need to have some flexibility in how to apply it.
BTW sorry to say scare tactic, even my response was to dramatic. I knew what you meant but just wanted to point it out so the discussion could continue to be objective going forward
Is it really such a catch all rule? I am saying reverse all outcomes with the illegal roster. So it automatically tailors itself to the offense. If a player is caught after 7 games it is going to really affect that players score as it should since his mistake cost 6 other players. If it is caught after 1 game he now simply has a loss, IF he won mind you.
I feel like your concern for the player is admirable, but illogical in this instance. Not to sound like Spock but shouldn't the other players and event be protected first? Tell me how allowing a player to continue on to win the whole tournament under such circumstances won't impact and hurt an event and that players image? Again, just look at all the discussions right now, the number one topic out of adepticon is an illegal list winning the championships (at least the 40k side I should note, theres plenty more at adepticon).
His statement is illogical? Based on what? Just because you disagree with something does not make it "illogical". Whether someone should have their game results reversed or not and whether they should be allowed to win an event if they had an illegal list is merely your opinion but you are talking as if that is how it should be according to some objective standard. I think that is partly my concern with the points you are raising. Furthermore, how did being 1 point over actually affect any other game or the outcome? What exactly did it "cost" the other 6 players?
Indeed, one thing consistently disregarded and left unaddressed (especially by you) is the issue of what (1) the correct penalty for any infraction is; and, (2) what the basis for that penalty is. Really, all you are doing is just saying "I think it should be this way" but you never provide any compelling reasons why. In the end, we are left with no authoritative basis for preferring one penalty over another.
I believe Ritides and me, if we are both saying the same thing, are merely pointing out that the position you are espousing seems too rigid to apply across the board for every infraction of being over points and there should be a sliding scale, or power of discretion for any TO handling the situation. Flexibility to handle situations as you see fit is important for a TO.
Really, any tournament should have consequences for certain conduct laid out in their format or primer somewhere-that then becomes a legitimate basis for what should be done for any particular infraction for that event. That is just one of the basics of good contract writing-to have all relevant terms defined. Absent such language, any penalty (or lack thereof) and the basis for such penalty is at the sole discretion of the TO and there really is no basis anyone has for disagreement other than their opinion-which holds zero weight, much like how an observer's opinion or anyone else's opinion in a courtroom holds zero weight once a judge is making his ruling.
In the end, I just don't want there to have to be any hard lines made - in that net you'll catch some unfortunate players at the lower tiers who were just there to have fun and get instantly DQ'ed.
I can definitely see that the sporting thing may have been to just step aside, etc - just don't want people to overreact and institute tar and feathering or anything like that
(Note: That analogy was just for Red Corsair, I'm aware that folks who just want people to get their darn point values correct aren't the equivalent of Winston, Salem . It's a legitimate question that you guys are asking, and I'd like to see it looked at more!)
Another thing TOs could institute is tiered penalties, where you would be ineligible for prize support as a result but could still play out the tourney without having to re-configure brackets based on something that honestly would not have changed any game results. This would avoid needlessly penalizing lower tier players (who aren't in the running for prize support), and greatly incentivize getting points correct for the upper tier.
nice to see the winner of the broadside bash running an accidently illegal list. How many more illegal lists did not get caught and thisone only caught since he won and it was released. At some point lower rated players who every tourney needs to help round out the field will stop showing up and getting cheated.
FrontlineGaming.org wrote:James Carmona’s Super Star with Cheese List.
Daemons Primary.
Black Legion CSM Psyclopian Cabal
5 Sorcerers Lv3, Bike, Spell Familiar.
KDK Herald on Jugger Khorne
Cultists
12 Flesh Hounds
Chaos Daemons
Prince of Nurgle Lv3. EG GG and the nurgle relic
Fateweaver
Nurglings
12 Pink Horrors
Update: After the event an intrepid internet goer realized James’ list was illegal. The Nurgle Prince is not allowed both a grimoire and a nurgle relic. Now although I don’t condone running illegal lists, and everyone should triple-check their lists before events, James did make an honest mistake and is beating himself up for such a silly mental error. He did the responsible thing and emailed the TO to see how he would rule, and will accept whichever decision the TO comes up with. I would like to add, that even without the Grimoire James has a nasty, unique list that runs 24 warp dice to swiss army knife his opponent’s and is also Chaos Space Marines primary. Whether you believe he deserves his tournament victory or not, I think he has proven that the Cabal formation is really strong, and gives a much needed boost to a faction that has been picking up the scraps of it’s three other powerhouse battle brother factions.
What do you guys think aboout the situation? Also, I am interested to hear about the Chaos Space Marine lists you are brewing up. Is it time to break out those dusty old Chaos Terminators?
As always thanks for following and visit the tactics corner for more great tournament strategy!
Posted on April 29, 2016 by Pablo Martinez in 40K, Battle Report, Tactics, Tournament report
I think this is something worth discussing, but since it's obviously a wider problem it'd be great if people didn't go after James like some did with Aaron (or Tony previously, etc). It's a systemic issue, pretty much inherent with the game itself due to the complexity of list building now... not sure of the solution unless Army Builder wants to drop their prices and up their game lol
And by solution I don't just mean penalties after the fact (since James is accepting whatever the TO decides here now that he discovered it) but is there any way to avoid this happening in the first place at such large events? Manual list checking just seems like it's going to have a ton of errors and be so labor intensive as to not be feasible after a certain number of participants.
James' situation is particularly tricky, since the list wasn't illegal at turn it. It's legal to have an Exalted Reward and a Helforged Artifact of Nurgle. It's only illegal if, at the start of the game, he swaps that Exalted Reward for the 0 result on the table, since the 0 results are also Helforged Artifacts. It's an easy mistake to make, but it's also one that no amount of list checking and cross checking could ever catch.
I'm not sure how it's an easy mistake to make? Only 1 Helforged Artifact per model is a pretty basic rule. And it's been a rule for years. Just because they added more Artifacts (that state you can still only have one) doesn't make the rule any more difficult.
And has anyone ever rolled on the Exalted table, ever?
wow really, so soon after.. I guess if you ain't cheating you ain't trying. No real point to go to any of these GTs if you're trying to win as there will be honest mistakes and no penalties in place for when the lists are turned in and after the GTs.
Big GTs are like the Olympics for our game, so why shouldn't there be penalties for illegal lists found after the result, I mean the Olympic committee get the medals back years after(Marion Jones, Tyson Gay, Lance Armstrong etc..) when the doping result came back. The prize, trophy, and league pts should be stripped.
Pythius Primus wrote: James' situation is particularly tricky, since the list wasn't illegal at turn it. It's legal to have an Exalted Reward and a Helforged Artifact of Nurgle. It's only illegal if, at the start of the game, he swaps that Exalted Reward for the 0 result on the table, since the 0 results are also Helforged Artifacts. It's an easy mistake to make, but it's also one that no amount of list checking and cross checking could ever catch.
Wow... yeah, that's crazy! Honestly not sure what you can do about these things... other than play 30K or reduce the number of formations / etc. The rules interactions are getting to the point where there are so many "gotchas"... Aaron's AdeptiCon mistake was similar (one codex with one character that has no bolt pistol, so you have to buy it to then upgrade it...).
I know people are going to say these things were obvious, and maybe they were in some ways - but there are just so many, that there's going to be people missing things at events... just not sure what to do about it since GW doesn't show any sign of making things simpler. Penalties after the fact are a bummer, since while necessary they're like when the NCAA "vacates" wins... everybody knows who won, it just doesn't count anymore because of a rules violation. It'd be much better to catch it beforehand and get a "true" winner, rather than just disqualifying or the like the actual winner.
skarsol wrote: I'm not sure how it's an easy mistake to make? Only 1 Helforged Artifact per model is a pretty basic rule. And it's been a rule for years. Just because they added more Artifacts (that state you can still only have one) doesn't make the rule any more difficult.
And has anyone ever rolled on the Exalted table, ever?
Except Only 1 Helforged Artifact per model has not been a rule for years. Its been a rule only since Curse of the Wulfen came out. Before the new supplement with the explicit limit (provided because you can now buy demon artifacts like you do in other books), Helforged Artifacts could only be acquired through the Exalted Gift upgraded which points limited to one per model (it costs 30 and even the biggest demons have a cap of 50). To know the action to swap was illegal requires referencing a page in the Curse of the Wulfen supplement that doesn't actually contain the specific rules for Exalted Gifts or Grotti the Nurgling. It could be an honest mistake if he was unfamiliar with his army and I don't see why he shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.
If you cheat at a event you should be DQed, it's pretty cut and dry. If you play with a army you should know it inside out.
Adepticon was one of the worst I've seen, illegal list (lone wolfs thing, being over points (blames battle scribe) you should know your own book. Oh and not doing -2 when charging tru cover. This person won the event, when in reality should have been DQed.
Now we have someone else cheating at a big event and again nothing is done about it.
If T.O.s keep allowing this sort of thing to happen then you'll see a huge drop in a attendce and more cheating.
"Top" players should know there stuff.
skarsol wrote: I'm not sure how it's an easy mistake to make? Only 1 Helforged Artifact per model is a pretty basic rule. And it's been a rule for years. Just because they added more Artifacts (that state you can still only have one) doesn't make the rule any more difficult.
And has anyone ever rolled on the Exalted table, ever?
Except Only 1 Helforged Artifact per model has not been a rule for years. Its been a rule only since Curse of the Wulfen came out. Before the new supplement with the explicit limit (provided because you can now buy demon artifacts like you do in other books), Helforged Artifacts could only be acquired through the Exalted Gift upgraded which points limited to one per model (it costs 30 and even the biggest demons have a cap of 50). To know the action to swap was illegal requires referencing a page in the Curse of the Wulfen supplement that doesn't actually contain the specific rules for Exalted Gifts or Grotti the Nurgling. It could be an honest mistake if he was unfamiliar with his army and I don't see why he shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.
The "but a model can’t have more than one Hellforged Artefact (of any type)." rule is literally 1 inch above Grotti the Nurgling's entry in the electronic version. I don't have the paper one here to check, but I doubt they moved it very far.
40kmaster1 wrote: If you cheat at a event you should be DQed, it's pretty cut and dry. If you play with a army you should know it inside out.
Adepticon was one of the worst I've seen, illegal list (lone wolfs thing, being over points (blames battle scribe) you should know your own book. Oh and not doing -2 when charging tru cover. This person won the event, when in reality should have been DQed.
Now we have someone else cheating at a big event and again nothing is done about it.
If T.O.s keep allowing this sort of thing to happen then you'll see a huge drop in a attendce and more cheating.
"Top" players should know there stuff.
Agreed. These are grown men (and women?) who should be held responsible for their own actions.
Are you so hyper competative that you need to create an extremely min-maxed army that spans several codexs? Get it right. As someone posted much earlier in the thread, that 1 point matters, especially with formations. I've had to scrap entire list ideas due to the desired formations being 1 point over. That point didn't just invalidate the model or squad, it invalidated the entire army build. I can not name how many of my mental lists have met this end.
Once again, these are grown adults who should be held accountable for their mistakes, and should be mature enough to understand the consequences of being incorrect with their lists. These are not innocent mistakes. They are mistakes. The innocent stance is occupied by those who brought correct lists, whether by chance or because THEY made CERTAIN.
skarsol wrote: I'm not sure how it's an easy mistake to make? Only 1 Helforged Artifact per model is a pretty basic rule. And it's been a rule for years. Just because they added more Artifacts (that state you can still only have one) doesn't make the rule any more difficult.
And has anyone ever rolled on the Exalted table, ever?
Except Only 1 Helforged Artifact per model has not been a rule for years. Its been a rule only since Curse of the Wulfen came out. Before the new supplement with the explicit limit (provided because you can now buy demon artifacts like you do in other books), Helforged Artifacts could only be acquired through the Exalted Gift upgraded which points limited to one per model (it costs 30 and even the biggest demons have a cap of 50). To know the action to swap was illegal requires referencing a page in the Curse of the Wulfen supplement that doesn't actually contain the specific rules for Exalted Gifts or Grotti the Nurgling. It could be an honest mistake if he was unfamiliar with his army and I don't see why he shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.
The "but a model can’t have more than one Hellforged Artefact (of any type)." rule is literally 1 inch above Grotti the Nurgling's entry in the electronic version. I don't have the paper one here to check, but I doubt they moved it very far.
It still makes his list legal, until after he rolls. Should the reviewer make sure to not to him that he is not allowed to swap his exalted reward, maybe. As for the 1 Hellforged Artifact rule. Plenty of people don't pay attention to what things are called. For years you could only have one Exalted reward, which was almost always exchanged for a grimior or Portal. People remember Exalted reward, and the 2 things they swap for not that those things are called hellforged artifacts.
It doesn't change the fact that he played it wrong, and technically cheated in his win. But it was not due to list oversight.
Hulksmash wrote: Exactly. This isn't a list issue. This is a played a rule incorrectly issue. Let's not mix the two up.
Ok, I acknowledge that and it does change the circumstances a bit. Still, while I believe that innocent until proven guilty is always a proper mindset to have, if every slight is assumed to be simply a mistake that fundamental rule breaks down.
I'm in no way advocating DQing anyone but the belligerent. But I feel that a discussion of remedying these sorts of occurences will be beneficial for T.O.s when they have to make these decisions in the future, as some of the methods of redress may be viewed as unfair as well.
I personally lean towards the idea that the responsibility lies COMPLETELY on the shoulders of the player. This allows us to assume that every mistake is just that: a mistake. We immediately take the advantage of cheating and playing stupid away from those who would do so. More importantly, we take away the air of suspicion out of our events. 40k is not serious bussiness. We should operate from the viewpoint that these are all honest mistakes, and the players across from us are honest people. This seems much more possible if we all feel the loophole of "just play dumb" were gone. That kind of trust can be restored if some kind of review system were in place to determine intent after the fact (which I DO NOT advocate), or we simply hold the player responsible for all mistakes.
As many said, it's a game with toy soldiers. Exactly why it should be easy to accept if you made a mistake and got knocked out of the running. It's no big deal. Next time get it right.
I don't follow your reasoning here... you say "I'm in no way advocating DQ'ing anyone but the billigerent". But your later statements seem to be that you are advocating DQ'ing. Which is it or am I missing something? Just asking for the purposes of clarification / not following here...
40kmaster1 wrote: If you cheat at a event you should be DQed, it's pretty cut and dry. If you play with a army you should know it inside out.
Adepticon was one of the worst I've seen, illegal list (lone wolfs thing, being over points (blames battle scribe) you should know your own book. Oh and not doing -2 when charging tru cover. This person won the event, when in reality should have been DQed.
Now we have someone else cheating at a big event and again nothing is done about it.
If T.O.s keep allowing this sort of thing to happen then you'll see a huge drop in a attendce and more cheating.
"Top" players should know there stuff.
Let's be clear... Cheating requires Malicious intent.
*The rules are often unclear and in a state of flux and heavily dependent on FAQs and rulings.
*Listbuilding is hardly universal in format and often has discrepancies and a lot of people blindly rely on listbuilding software, which again, has issues.
*Misremebering rules, or mistaking how rules interact with other unknown rules is often a thing.
None of these mistakes by default necessarily justify an accusation of cheating and often it isn't the players fault, or the player is partially to blame.
Let's save the calls of 'cheating' for documented malicious activities...
RiTides wrote: I don't follow your reasoning here... you say "I'm in no way advocating DQ'ing anyone but the billigerent". But your later statements seem to be that you are advocating DQ'ing. Which is it or am I missing something? Just asking for the purposes of clarification / not following here...
You are correct. I mistyped or crossed my thoughts there. I meant EJECTION should be saved for the belligerent. The reprimands for these infractions should carry some kind of retro-active consequence, however. I honestly think that is a tough call to make though as a blanket "full points awarded" to the previous opponents can skew overall points in ways that also leave fellow tourney goes feeling cheated. DQing probably isn't the answer either for situations like this. More in this case, if I were the TO I would rule as such:
Round two, turn three it is brought to my attention. Player corrects list by removal of said item with no point/rule adjustment to compensate. Player forfeits all points so far accumulated in this round. Player forfeits all points for round 1. Player continues in tourney with modified list.
If you do make a mistake, better hope it gets caught early. If I'm not mistaken, in this case it was found after the fact? If so, you can't very well ask for prizes back, but ranking points can be rescinded.
Either way, the new FAQ is gonna cause havoc in the tourney scene with rules being misplayed. Should be interesting.
I remembered a rule incorrectly, and it affected the outcome of a game.
I caught it before the next game and went to the organizer. I apologized to the other player, had my score for that round dropped to 0, had the other player get full marks, and the tournament carried on.
It was not malicious, nor do I feel it warranted me getting tossed from the tournament. It was a mistake.
kronk wrote: I remembered a rule incorrectly, and it affected the outcome of a game.
I caught it before the next game and went to the organizer. I apologized to the other player, had my score for that round dropped to 0, had the other player get full marks, and the tournament carried on.
It was not malicious, nor do I feel it warranted me getting tossed from the tournament. It was a mistake.
Every circumstance is unique, and it sounds like this one was handled perfectly. The best part is that it was handled by you. Kudos.
easysauce wrote: Right mistakes lose you games, its not a big deal.
Giving people who make mistakes prizes is a pretty big deal though.
Some people seem to think its punishing to do so, when in fact, its just normalizing things.
Not getting a prize is not a punishment, otherwise 99% of attendees are being "punished" already.
Getting a prize is just that, a reward, and making mistakes should not be rewarded is all.
I don't know if there's ever been a mistake-free game of 40k played, though . Whether it's getting a movement distance slightly off, bumping a model, forgetting a damage result, misplaying a rule... it's obviously a matter of degrees, and imo this is just too broad a brush to paint things with.
easysauce wrote: Right mistakes lose you games, its not a big deal.
Giving people who make mistakes prizes is a pretty big deal though.
Some people seem to think its punishing to do so, when in fact, its just normalizing things.
Not getting a prize is not a punishment, otherwise 99% of attendees are being "punished" already.
Getting a prize is just that, a reward, and making mistakes should not be rewarded is all.
I don't know if there's ever been a mistake-free game of 40k played, though . Whether it's getting a movement distance slightly off, bumping a model, forgetting a damage result, misplaying a rule... it's obviously a matter of degrees, and imo this is just too broad a brush to paint things with.
Come on now we are obviously not talking about simple things like that, we are talking about the mistakes made in the context of this thread.
I don't see how it's that clear - bottom of last page, we're discussing a mistake where trading a gift is illegal. And I agree with Hulk that it's a "played a rule wrong mistake" rather than a true list mistake. But it probably had a much bigger effect on games than being a point over... just like playing many rules wrong would. Where do you draw the line?
I'm just making this point to highlight how common game altering mistakes can be... I don't see how the issue can be treated so black and white with a ruleset like this is all.
In my yute I played competition paintball. Yes there were some sponsors but the dime is primarily flipped by the team. After paying thousands of dollars for competitive gear, paintballs, travel, registration and lodging. Guess what happens when a team commits a certain lists of fouls/cheats?
Forfeits, bans, DQ's and loss of sponsors/reputation.
If someone is "cheating" to win, they are stealing. This is a discredit to the coordinators of the event and the rule abiding money paying players that slave and triple check their lists. If the "system" can't regulate itself because its hard, make it a tee-ball event. Everybody gets a little participation trophy or plaque and the winner wins the internet and has their name in lights. Otherwise prize support needs to be regulated by rules and oversight. I hate paying for cheaters(call a duck) prizes with my registration fee. I hung up my 40K tourney cap when 'ard boyz died on the vine. This thread is the exact reason.
Byte wrote: In my yute I played competition paintball. Yes there were some sponsors but the dime is primarily flipped by the team. After paying thousands of dollars for competitive gear, paintballs, travel, registration and lodging. Guess what happens when a team commits a certain lists of fouls/cheats?
Now that you mention it, maybe there ought to be a distinction between "fouls" in 40k and things that straight out DQ you or etc. There might be something to that idea.
Byte wrote: I hung up my 40K tourney cap when 'ard boyz died on the vine. This thread is the exact reason.
Did something give you the idea that this problem didn't exist at 'Ard Boyz? Because there was all kinds of nonsense happening there.
Byte wrote: I hung up my 40K tourney cap when 'ard boyz died on the vine. This thread is the exact reason.
Did something give you the idea that this problem didn't exist at 'Ard Boyz? Because there was all kinds of nonsense happening there.
No, of course not. I've played competitively since 1995, I've seen it all in all shapes and sizes. I actually enjoyed that series with the 2500 point armies, thanks for asking.
Oh BTW, I don't attend and won't attend. Until something definitive comes out regulating/enforcing army lists. But, I'm just one dude, right?
I do understand the monumental task of putting together one of these huge events. But, at some point the inmates are running the asylum.
I still don't understand why you yanks don't have lists handed in atleast a week or two in advance. That's what we do up here in BC... But admittedly, they are (a lot) smaller scale than something as big as the LVO.
Sure you can turn your list in a few weeks in advance. But unless someone is reviewing each list that knows that army very well they will still miss things. You would probably catch some mistakes but that is a huge task and not guaranteed to catch all of them or any of them. Also what if the T.O. misses a mistake on a list but gives it the stamp of approval? Is it now the T.O.s fault? Seems pretty unfair to me.
durango wrote: The TOs should always review army lists. Not doing so is just passing the buck.
I haven't met a player yet who was willing to pay the extra $$$ to cover the cost of a TO checking lists. I have 3 rules that I apply to running my events:
1. I'll stop doing it when it stops being fun
2. It can't cost me anything more than the amount of time I am willing to invest
3. I'm catering to all of the attendees, not just the winner
I turn 100% of the entry fees into the event and I invest a ton of time. Checking lists in detail for 64 players would violate #2 above. The only way that I would invest 30-40 hours into checking lists is if I was compensated for the time away from my family or work, and I'm far too expensive to bill my time to the event.
You may say it is passing the buck. I'm saying you're suggesting an unfunded mandate. If you want to pay $40 for an RTT and north of $100 for a GT, then I'm sure you can get a TO to check them all day long.
^ I'm by no means rolling in money, but this is meant for perspective.
I like to run big races, and its really not uncommon for a marathon to be in the $50+ range and ultras to reach into the hundreds. Most all of these events (especially ultras) are volunteer driven and completely absorb the race director(s) for 48 hours or more, not to mention all that goes into it prior to the race.
For a game like Warhammer 40k that is legendary at this point for the cost of even collecting an 1850 pt army let alone the units you arent using in the tourny, I wouldnt bat an eye at seeing "north of $100" for a GT, especially with the kind of cash prizes we're seeing and the ranking structure out there.
I dont want to price out players, but competitive play is NOT cheap by its nature.
durango wrote: The TOs should always review army lists. Not doing so is just passing the buck.
I haven't met a player yet who was willing to pay the extra $$$ to cover the cost of a TO checking lists.
Why would it cost extra to get someone to do something they already volunteered to do?
If you want to run the event, you should run the event.
Because I'm unwilling to donate that additional and significant amount of time to the event that I already do out of love for the game. Players should be responsible for their own lists. They have every tool required to make sure their lists are legal. I spot check. Why should players pass the buck to the TO? If I find an illegal list I deal with it harshly. Run a legal list and there won't be any issues.
MLKTH wrote: Having all players turn in lists a week or so before the tournament and posting them online for other players to spot any mistakes is a really good way of weeding out illegal lists. Crowdsourcing is the way to go here.
I run tournaments that have 40-50 players, so I can manage it by just having players e-mail me their lists and copying and pasting them on a forum. For an american style 200+ player GT that would be way too much work, but it could probably be automated into a website where you submit a list and could only edit it if the TO approved the changes (usually only to correct mistakes).
Crowd sourcing On major tournaments I agree is the way to go!!!
Heck do it like GW put it on Facebook and generate a million page hits and some ad revenue :p
Even if it's only 24hr or 12hr in advance it will work.
Any mistakes found can be changed before the tournament officially begins and if one slips through then have the player remove said mistake when it's discovered and have them play without those points for the rest of the tournament.
This can be as simple as scanning in lists sheets.
Smaller events (40 or less players) can review them by hand or just have the players police themselves however they should always have a list for thier opponent to review.
Because I'm unwilling to donate that additional and significant amount of time to the event that I already do out of love for the game.
What significant amount of time? You have plenty of time while waiting for all the games to take place.
Seriously, punchdub. What is wrong with you?
All you have to do is post that there will be a tournament, get the lists, review the lists, then run the tournament.
It's not like you have to spend months building the terrain, working out the details with the venue to make sure you have tables, chairs, and the room required. You certainly don't have to reply to the hundreds of emails asking if this ork with shoota is close enough WYSIWYG for a Riptide or if they can take 4 detachments to the tournament with a 2 detachment limit. You also never have to tell the same person 3 times the date and time of the event that is clearly posted in the original announcement. You never have to get your prize support organized and decide how to divvy everything up. And forget trophies, as no one appreciates them.
Man. You TOs have it too fething easy. Just buy all of the fething rulebooks, codecies, and supplements and check all 50 entries to your tournament, already. And you better not miss that 1 point for the bolt pistol either, you fething feth from feth-land!
I don't think it should be the responsibility of the TO. It should be on the players to make sure they have it right. I understand it's complicated maths, but if you've made a mistake, it's on you and you should no longer have the same amount of possibility of taking home grand prize as people who didn't make any mistakes.
There's no way to truly tell if someone does a list feth up on purpose, but that doesn't mean everyone who does should get away with it, just because people know they're good at the game anyway. There should be a penalty of some kind on the player. It can be case-by-case, sure. But something, every time, that makes coming in 1st place harder, or less rewarding.
BossJakadakk wrote: It should be on the players to make sure they have it right.
The same players who are awarded for cheating? Yeah, they're completely trustworthy.
Yeah, I see what you mean. I meant make them responsible if caught, and punish them. There does need to be some sort of check in place.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I get that it would take a lot of time to check lists and such, but really, if list "mistakes" are winning tournaments and there's no repercussion, what message does that send?
And I get that it would take a lot of time to check lists and such, but really, if list "mistakes" are winning tournaments and there's no repercussion, what message does that send?
This is exactly what is already happening. The message being sent is "cheat as often as possible".
And I get that it would take a lot of time to check lists and such, but really, if list "mistakes" are winning tournaments and there's no repercussion, what message does that send?
This is exactly what is already happening. The message being sent is "cheat as often as possible".
As a new player who wants to get into the tournament scene within the next year, seeing these issues really makes me think twice about it.
And I get that it would take a lot of time to check lists and such, but really, if list "mistakes" are winning tournaments and there's no repercussion, what message does that send?
This is exactly what is already happening. The message being sent is "cheat as often as possible".
As a new player who wants to get into the tournament scene within the next year, seeing these issues really makes me think twice about it.
Issues like this are why I'm not participating in the WarGamesCon 2016 events as a player, but as a volunteer. I want to get an understanding of what the TO's of large events go through and I'd like to offer my expertise in the area. I'll have to speak with the person running it to see if he wants lists early or at all, but I think the event organizers should collect a list from all players at the start of the event. Not only for record keeping but for integrity as well. Don't want someone to be changing lists up to tailor to their opponents.
And I get that it would take a lot of time to check lists and such, but really, if list "mistakes" are winning tournaments and there's no repercussion, what message does that send?
This is exactly what is already happening. The message being sent is "cheat as often as possible".
As a new player who wants to get into the tournament scene within the next year, seeing these issues really makes me think twice about it.
Issues like this are why I'm not participating in the WarGamesCon 2016 events as a player, but as a volunteer. I want to get an understanding of what the TO's of large events go through and I'd like to offer my expertise in the area. I'll have to speak with the person running it to see if he wants lists early or at all, but I think the event organizers should collect a list from all players at the start of the event. Not only for record keeping but for integrity as well. Don't want someone to be changing lists up to tailor to their opponents.
I'd be very interested in hearing your experience with this.
durango wrote: Saying the players are responsible obviously doesn't work which is why it behooves the TOs to do so.
It actually does work, but TOs have not only set the expectations, they must also penalize players who are found to have illegal lists. The problem is that the penalties have not been swift and severe, so the effort involved in ensuring lists are accurate by players has been lacking.
I will weigh in here. I have run many tourneys from small eight man events up to large GT's and list checking is difficult. The larger the event the harder to check but you have to at least make an attempt. I have never attended LVO but I am a little floored as to what Blackmore had posted as a list. That just should not be allowed. If someone handed me that list and said he had other war gear etc...I would explain he could not play it since it was not on his list. Then explain he can have a TO come by and we can argue our case. There is just no excuse in any event to allow that level of laxness in organization. The event should have a standard and what Blackmore shows in that picture shows me an event where they just don't care.
Any event with any hope of real list checking must do it in advance then verify at the event that is the list being played. Large events should have someone whom this is their entire job over the course of the event.
In addition to this I like events that expect you to turn a list into them for every round (give them three lists at a three round event) then they give your list to your opponent at matchup. This again takes an individual dedicated to performing just this function as it can be time consuming but if they organize it between rounds does not add to the overall time of the event.
I think these two steps can help but it will never be perfect. Most of us, including judges, use software to build and check lists. If there are errors there then it will probably slip through. In the end it is up to the player to make sure their list is legal and correct. Any failing there should be reflected on the player and the events reaction should be equal to severity of the infraction.
Edits to add this:
Players stating that an error in points was not the fault of the player due to the software are mistaken. If I run a stop sign because a cute girl distracts me does not mean the girl is to blame. I made the infraction for not double checking/allowing myself to be distracted. Players at that level should do a paper check with the list at home to make sure the software is right. Events MUST do their best to try but the overall responsibility is up to the player....period. If an event is UP TO 1850 points and you bring 1851 then you cheated, even if by accident, and even if you never gained an advantage. Repercussions should be based in that and not that software is flawed.
white925 wrote: Sure you can turn your list in a few weeks in advance. But unless someone is reviewing each list that knows that army very well they will still miss things. You would probably catch some mistakes but that is a huge task and not guaranteed to catch all of them or any of them. Also what if the T.O. misses a mistake on a list but gives it the stamp of approval? Is it now the T.O.s fault? Seems pretty unfair to me.
That's like saying the TSA should not bother with checking luggage because the volume ensures mistakes. If anything TO's would be given much more credit for trying and missing rather then kicking the can down the road. I don't know what the answer is for large tournaments, but that doesn't mean some attempt shouldn't be made.
Not sure why this is even a debate. Player is responsible for their list. If player wins something, list gets checked. If list is illegal or incorrect, player forfeits.
You guys are asking way to much from TO's almost all of us lose money putting on events don't get to play in events and just do it for the love of the game.
If you want everything at a Large GT to checked and double checked then expect to pay a lot more for your ticket. I mean a lot more.
7th ed 40k is so bloated with rules interactions and ways to build armies the resources alone just to check everything would be in the thousands.
Please be reasonable and thank your TO every once in a while.
7th ed 40k is so bloated with rules interactions and ways to build armies the resources alone just to check everything would be in the thousands.
Please be reasonable and thank your TO every once in a while.
Perhaps then TO's should put some though towards limiting the bloat and restricting all those interactions...
I mean, are armies composed of 3 or 4 or more detachments, with overlapping bonuses and rules, often composed of factions that would not be working together as portrayed in the list (e.g. DA's and Space Wolves, DE & Eldar, etc), and often taking advantage of synergies unintended by the codex writers, and that many players can't keep track of themselves, really something that have much value to events and communities in the first place aside from highlighting how badly people can break the system?
7th ed 40k is so bloated with rules interactions and ways to build armies the resources alone just to check everything would be in the thousands.
Please be reasonable and thank your TO every once in a while.
Perhaps then TO's should put some though towards limiting the bloat and restricting all those interactions...
I mean, are armies composed of 3 or 4 or more detachments, with overlapping bonuses and rules, often composed of factions that would not be working together as portrayed in the list (e.g. DA's and Space Wolves, DE & Eldar, etc), and often taking advantage of synergies unintended by the codex writers, and that many players can't keep track of themselves, really something that have much value to events and communities in the first place aside from highlighting how badly people can break the system?
That is a totally different topic my friend. You are correct it's nuts out there what can you do.
MDizzle wrote: You guys are asking way to much from TO's almost all of us lose money putting on events don't get to play in events and just do it for the love of the game.
If you want everything at a Large GT to checked and double checked then expect to pay a lot more for your ticket. I mean a lot more.
7th ed 40k is so bloated with rules interactions and ways to build armies the resources alone just to check everything would be in the thousands.
Please be reasonable and thank your TO every once in a while.
100% agree. Checking every list simply isn't feasible. What I was recommending was having lists checked for prize winners. List is over points or wrong? No prize and/or ITC points submitted. Period.
In Bolt Action I have slightly moved away from cash prize while some are awarded the real prize is a trophy..
With a good chunk of the prize support goes in to community sourced and voted on terrain. We focus on building tables like a France table or a Pacific table and such.
This helps bring people together and makes a better environment for all.
Red Corsair wrote: That's like saying the TSA should not bother with checking luggage because the volume ensures mistakes.
This is a pretty good analogy. Check 10% of lists. Punish any illegal list discovered with immediate disqualification from the event and a ban on attending future events. Now, as a cheater, are you willing to roll the dice on that 10% chance of losing your hobby forever? Or are you going to take a legal list just in case yours happens to be one of the ones that is checked?
Red Corsair wrote: That's like saying the TSA should not bother with checking luggage because the volume ensures mistakes.
This is a pretty good analogy. Check 10% of lists. Punish any illegal list discovered with immediate disqualification from the event and a ban on attending future events. Now, as a cheater, are you willing to roll the dice on that 10% chance of losing your hobby forever? Or are you going to take a legal list just in case yours happens to be one of the ones that is checked?
This is a statement from someone that has never run and event and stuck his/her neck out there for the community to run an event. This is as bad as Trumps wall. You are going to Punish people that are playing a game of toy solders and in your mind you would be taking their hobby away from them? Seems crazy bro.
Just so you know TO's have to consider a little thing called attendance with rules like yours you are sure to draw jack& gak to your event.
MDizzle wrote: You are going to Punish people that are playing a game of toy solders and in your mind you would be taking their hobby away from them?
Yes, of course I'm going to punish people who cheat. Are you suggesting that cheaters should be allowed to continue participating in the hobby?
And yes, you can adjust the penalty if you feel that's too harsh. The point is not the specific penalty, it's that you check a percentage of the lists at random and impose a penalty harsh enough that it's not worth trying to cheat and taking the risk of getting caught. Even a chance of being kicked out of an event that you spent hundreds of dollars to travel to would probably be a pretty significant deterrent, especially combined with a 100% chance of checking your list if you are eligible to receive any prizes.
MDizzle wrote: Are you sure that the people that have made errors on their lists are cheaters?
Forget to write down a melta bomb and get banned seems legit!
Punishing cheaters is a big deal to you list issues would be far down the rung for me. In 40k the way people cheat most is slow play.
A 3 point issue on a list is small potatoes IMHO.
Making honest people feel like cheaters for making a simple mistake is not the way to build a community and have a good and healthy environment.
Sorry,
But when 40k players take themselves as seriously as they do, there's no other way.
A guy running a MTG deck with cards not listed in his decklist gets kicked and banned. They pay as much or more for their hobby as we do. I don't see them struggling with attendance.
3 points here or there might have been the difference between a transport, melta bomb, or formation cost, all of which could drastically change how the game ends.
MDizzle wrote: Are you sure that the people that have made errors on their lists are cheaters?
Forget to write down a melta bomb and get banned seems legit!
Punishing cheaters is a big deal to you list issues would be far down the rung for me. In 40k the way people cheat most is slow play.
A 3 point issue on a list is small potatoes IMHO.
Making honest people feel like cheaters for making a simple mistake is not the way to build a community and have a good and healthy environment.
What about the honest people who didn't make mistakes that may have affected the game? They're passively punished by allowing the "mistakes happen" argument to be so prevalent. Honest Guy With Legal List might lose a game to Honest Guy Who Made a Mistake. Mr. Mistake earned the win in a non-legal manner, but gets to keep it because "mistakes happen." Mr. Legal List now has a loss that may not have been a loss, losing chances at prizes because "mistakes happen." I feel like something needs to be in place, I don't know what it is, I'm no rules writer, and I understand there's a lot of sacrifice involved in being a TO, and mad respect to those who do it. I want to preemptively thank all the TO's who do it for love of the game and community, even before I get involved in tournaments. But keep in mind, a good and healthy environment to me (and likely many others) means cheaters (mistake or intended) don't get hundreds of dollars payout.
This is the first game I've been in involved in with this mindset being so popular. It boggles my mind, but maybe I'll just have to adjust. I just honestly feel like this means "it's okay if cheaters win" and that makes me sad.
7th ed 40k is so bloated with rules interactions and ways to build armies the resources alone just to check everything would be in the thousands.
Please be reasonable and thank your TO every once in a while.
Perhaps then TO's should put some though towards limiting the bloat and restricting all those interactions...
I mean, are armies composed of 3 or 4 or more detachments, with overlapping bonuses and rules, often composed of factions that would not be working together as portrayed in the list (e.g. DA's and Space Wolves, DE & Eldar, etc), and often taking advantage of synergies unintended by the codex writers, and that many players can't keep track of themselves, really something that have much value to events and communities in the first place aside from highlighting how badly people can break the system?
That is a totally different topic my friend. You are correct it's nuts out there what can you do.
I dont think it is a different topic at all, and would seem to be the obvious answer to "what can you do?".
Everyone agrees that its insanely difficult fot TO's to check lists as a result of 40k list building going nuts. Limiting detachments and allies would greatly mitigate many (though obviously not all) of these issues, largely only at the expense of the top end people that look to break the ruleset as much as they can and will just move on to another army in 6 months either way.
A guy running a MTG deck with cards not listed in his decklist gets kicked and banned. They pay as much or more for their hobby as we do. I don't see them struggling with attendance.
No. No they don't. They get a Game Loss (in a best 2 out of 3 Match) and there are procedures to modify the deck to match the list as closely as possible. If they self report upon discovery then even that penalty can be lessened.
A guy running a MTG deck with cards not listed in his decklist gets kicked and banned. They pay as much or more for their hobby as we do. I don't see them struggling with attendance.
No. No they don't. They get a Game Loss (in a best 2 out of 3 Match) and there are procedures to modify the deck to match the list as closely as possible. If they self report upon discovery then even that penalty can be lessened.
Yes, yes they do.
From the DCI Penalty Guide.
Level 5 Events: Very strict rules enforcement. This level of rules enforcement is designed for the highest level of competition. Players are expected to have a thorough knowledge of all tournament rules and procedures, so judges should issue penalties for unintentional rules violations that reflect this expected amount of rules knowledge.
Those rules are ancient. You want the IPG for current tournament rules at the competitive and professional levels. Level X Events don't even exist anymore.
MDizzle wrote: Forget to write down a melta bomb and get banned seems legit!
Here's a novel idea: don't forget a melta bomb. Check your list ten times, have your friends check it, etc. There is no excuse for having an illegal list in a tournament.
A 3 point issue on a list is small potatoes IMHO.
No, it's actually a rather big issue. Unlike many forms of "cheating", where the line between honest disagreements and deliberate cheating is hard to define, there's no ambiguity here. If you bring 1753 points to a 1750 point tournament you have an illegal list. It's one of the few cases in 40k where absolutely everyone can agree that the rule has been broken, and there is indisputable evidence in the written army list to confirm it.
skarsol wrote: Those rules are ancient. You want the IPG for current tournament rules at the competitive and professional levels. Level X Events don't even exist anymore.
It's there at the bottom.
Cheating: Disqualification
There is a lesser infraction for deck list errors, but that also lumps in misprints and other things. I think swapping in cards you shouldnt have demonstrates a clear intent for advantage. I also think adding points you shouldnt have for extra units and wargear is the same.
It's not a matter of shades of grey. If you are playing in any event, especially a GT or event with prize support, the army point total is the easiest rule to follow.
"Players must construct an army costing 1850 points or less."
Sneaking in extra points is just as bad as stealing inches or changing dice results when your opponent isn't looking.
skarsol wrote: Putting in a Sol Ring when your Decklist says Gruul Signet is a bit easier to call 'Cheating' than being 1 point over on your army list.
Do you mean easier to *catch*? Because you can call anything a banana pretty easily.
axisofentropy wrote: If a TO does check everyone's list and they still miss something, what happens then?
That's when we acknowledge that mistakes happen.
Saying mistakes happen before ever trying is stupid frankly.
Besides, all I hear in this thread is that scraping sound from the goal post being shifted continuously. read the thread and you will find a number of recommendations that are not that difficult. For example, checking all the top 16 lists thoroughly. Any violations will disqualify them from continuing on for the title and prize support. They don't need to be ejected and ridiculed, simply knock them down to 17 and continue. That alone will ensure players do their due diligence.
What is ridiculous are the claims that anyone in violation is somehow the victim, and if strict enforcement is applied somehow the victim is the TO. Doing nothing ensures everyone else is the victim and that tournaments will suffer in the long run.
I do not condone, nor do I think anyone here condones actual cheating. However, people are being very sloppy with their language and just because you think a word means something in English, if the English language/dictionary disagrees with you, you are wrong/or not speaking English.
So since we are presumably speaking English here... Definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary (an authoritative source for English definitions):
Cheat: (Verb) Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game.
Cheat: (noun) A person who behaves dishonestly in order to gain an advantage.
Now lets look at the word "Honest" in the OED and one example we get is as follows:
"1.3(Of an action) blameless or well intentioned even if unsuccessful or misguided:
he’d made an honest mistake"
So, how is accidentally being over points equate to acting dishonestly (or unfairly) to gain an advantage? Someone could submit a list they intended to be at or under a points limit but be unsuccessful in doing so. That does not make them a cheater as cheating requires a knowledge element which is missing in what people call "honest mistakes". That is why laws involving dishonesty, deception and fraud involve a requirement that you prove the individual had knowledge that they were acting dishonestly, deceptively or fraudulently and that they acted in such a manner intentionally. It is worth noting that one defense to a fraud accusation is that you did not intend to commit a fraud, indicating that the intention of a person is what is at the heart of the matter.
Should there be ramifications? Sure... But taking a hard-line stance such as labeling someone a cheater and demanding they don't participate in said event and future events is pretty unreasonable absent the KNOWLEDGE that they, you know, actually knew or intended to submit a list over points and play it as such.
Specifically, I am referring to what Peregrine wrote in his comment "This is a pretty good analogy. Check 10% of lists. Punish any illegal list discovered with immediate disqualification from the event and a ban on attending future events. Now, as a cheater, are you willing to roll the dice on that 10% chance of losing your hobby forever? Or are you going to take a legal list just in case yours happens to be one of the ones that is checked?"
It has been pointed out that even if players check their lists several times and a TO checks their list, it is still possible for errors to persist due to the complicated nature of how lists are constructed. And while we can look to other game systems like MTG, that is a very flawed analogy. This is because MTG may have rather draconian penalties but remember that MTG is a vastly simpler and less complex system when it comes to deck building... Either a card is on the play list or it isn't. Either your cards are on your deck list, or they are not.... There is no interaction where one card will modify your ability to include any other card in your deck and there are no points associated with the inclusion of any cards.
So the less precise the process of competing is, the less severe the penalties need to be when errors are discovered, especially absent any clear proof that intentionally dishonest conduct was involved.
Now to play devil's advocate, one description of "unfairly" in the OED is "In a way that does not follow the rules of a game or sport" but while the rules for a points limit in 40k are black and white (a list is either at/under a points limit or it is not), the rules for getting there (e.g., putting together a list and the points implications for said lists) are not so black and white. Therefore, you cannot (or should not) be so black and white in your assessment of what penalties should or should not be applied. The definition of cheating has a very strong implication of intentional and wrongful conduct; so absent some knowledge of a person's intent, you cannot rightly label them a cheater.
mortetvie wrote: It has been pointed out that even if players check their lists several times and a TO checks their list, it is still possible for errors to persist due to the complicated nature of how lists are constructed.
Not really. 40k list building isn't all that complicated. 40k armies often involve multiple sources/detachments, but in the end you still list every unit and upgrade and add up the total points you have spent. If you have 1753 points in a 1750 point tournament it isn't because 40k is complicated, it's because you're either incompetent or cheating.
the rules for getting there (e.g., putting together a list and the points implications for said lists) are not so black and white.
Could you give an example of something that is not black and white in army construction? Because everything I can think of is pretty black and white if you take the time to carefully read the rules and list everything you're including.
mortetvie wrote: It has been pointed out that even if players check their lists several times and a TO checks their list, it is still possible for errors to persist due to the complicated nature of how lists are constructed.
Not really. 40k list building isn't all that complicated. 40k armies often involve multiple sources/detachments, but in the end you still list every unit and upgrade and add up the total points you have spent. If you have 1753 points in a 1750 point tournament it isn't because 40k is complicated, it's because you're either incompetent or cheating.
the rules for getting there (e.g., putting together a list and the points implications for said lists) are not so black and white.
Could you give an example of something that is not black and white in army construction? Because everything I can think of is pretty black and white if you take the time to carefully read the rules and list everything you're including.
So now you've changed your position from someone being over points as being a cheater to being incompetent or a cheater. Well, that is an improvement, I guess...
As far as an example, others have posted how there are just certain details that are easy to miss (like needing to buy a bolt pistol or CCW for a character to upgrade it to another item) and there is the element of human error. No one person is perfect and builds perfect lists all the time. Labeling someone a cheater for simple human error is an untenable position and better players than us have made simple mistakes in list composition. Calling them incompetent or cheaters is hardly reasonable or a realistic assessment of the situation.
We can assume it's an accident and still have penalties in place. That doesn't make us bad people. It makes us fair. You cheat? Penalty. You make a mistake that could affect games in your favor? Penalty.
We don't need to call them cheaters, but they're bringing illegal lists. That still should result in a penalty. So don't get hung up on what we call them, let's focus on the discussion which is what we should do about it.
Human error is a thing, yes. Actual cheating is also a thing. Do we forgive cheating to allow human error, or do we penalize human error to prevent cheating?
We can assume it's an accident and still have penalties in place. That doesn't make us bad people. It makes us fair. You cheat? Penalty. You make a mistake that could affect games in your favor? Penalty.
We don't need to call them cheaters, but they're bringing illegal lists. That still should result in a penalty. So don't get hung up on what we call them, let's focus on the discussion which is what we should do about it.
Human error is a thing, yes. Actual cheating is also a thing. Do we forgive cheating to allow human error, or do we penalize human error to prevent cheating?
If you read ANY of my posts (both earlier in the discussion and my initial post prompting Peregrine's reply), you will note that I was for some penalty being imposed. So no, wanting to impose a penalty for rules or format violations does not make you a bad person, that makes you a person who wants justice, which I commend.
However, anyone and everyone should get hung up on what you or anyone else calls other people. By calling people cheaters or implying certain conduct equates to cheating without any rational basis, you (and everyone else doing so) diverts the discussion-from the focus of what should/could be done-to name calling which IIRC violates not only Dakka policy but basic human decency. Based on your flag, it appears you live in America, where people are innocent until proven guilty. Remember that =).
Finally, I also make the point that there is absolutely no legitimate basis anyone has for saying X penalty for Y infraction is the way it should be, unless they are the TO for that specific event. It is fine for you, Kronk (and others), to say what you think the penalty structure should be and everyone should welcome such discussion. But really, we should all remember that it's only our opinion, at best, and none of us speak with any authority on what the penalties-if any-should be.
Yeah, man, I'll happily say it's just my opinion! I do remember reading your posts, just couldn't remember what all you had said before, and ended up not searching through.
I just think that because we can't actually prove or disprove intent, the penalty should be such that the intent doesn't matter. If a list is illegal, penalty. Otherwise we risk alienating people who lost to an illegal list and were told something along of the lines of "too bad," although it will probably be worded in a much nicer way. Or the risk of having more illegal lists because "Hey that guy did it and he won all the prizes!"
I'm with ya. And I'm not saying we *should* call people cheaters or that it's okay too. I felt the conversation turning to that might start to stray too far off topic, and then we're no longer trying to find any fair penalties for these things, we're just talking about what we should call these people. And if we're gonna do that, I vote for "bananas."
As in, "Y'all're bananas if you think you should get prizes with an illegal list."
I like kronk's list. Seems fair enough, and the person still gets to play some 40k, which is what we all really want, right?
Personally I would have no problem being disqualified if I was found to be over points. It's nobody else's fault I could not do simple math but mine. I would feel terrible for someone I beat that while they might have been awarded my points maybe left early thinking they were eliminated.
Strict enforcement of tournament rules don't exist to punish cheaters, but to protect the innocent from being cheated. I would rather 10 guys walk away with hurt feelings because they were eliminated due to their own bad math than send one guy home early because his opponent cheated him, intentional or not.
We don't need tournaments that coddle cheaters and tell them it's OK, just don't do it in the future and drop that meltabomb that you illegally had, you know the one you used to finish off your opponents knight and cinch the win your last game. That is stupid.
Orock wrote: Personally I would have no problem being disqualified if I was found to be over points. It's nobody else's fault I could not do simple math but mine. I would feel terrible for someone I beat that while they might have been awarded my points maybe left early thinking they were eliminated.
Strict enforcement of tournament rules don't exist to punish cheaters, but to protect the innocent from being cheated. I would rather 10 guys walk away with hurt feelings because they were eliminated due to their own bad math than send one guy home early because his opponent cheated him, intentional or not.
We don't need tournaments that coddle cheaters and tell them it's OK, just don't do it in the future and drop that meltabomb that you illegally had, you know the one you used to finish off your opponents knight and cinch the win your last game. That is stupid.
And this is the mentality I was talking about... Saying things like "opponent cheated him" and "we don't need tournaments that coddle cheaters..." shows you presuppose such conduct is akin to cheating. It isn't cheating if there is no intent to cheat.
Also, not all rules violations are equal. Being 1 point over with wargear that had no effect on a game (like an IG Sgt taking a bolter that never shot in a game) versus being over points with wargear that did have an effect on a game (like a meltabomb that finishes off a Knight) is not the same thing.
Especially if the error is caught before a game or event starts, I don't think a player should be disqualified from earning any prizes or participating if any potential issues are resolved before an event begins. And in the end, it is always up to a TO with how to handle the matter.
Overall, what we REALLY need is TOs to simply put in their primer/rules how being over points will be handled and go from there.
I'd be inclined to go easy on people in low key "open" events, but if they're competing in an invitational or a championship event, or the on the second say of a multi day event for high end placing, would say there's very little excuse for anything being wrong with their lists, at those levels they should know better and TO's should be able to vet lists with more care with reduced numbers. Severe penalties are both appropriate and warranted to deter future behavior, as is extra care by the TO's in vetting lists to ensure the integrity of the event is not called into question.
tomjoad wrote: Not being willing to assume that cheating is cheating is why cheating is so easy and prevalent. until a hard stance is taken, this is a sucker's game.
First of all, who is not willing to assume that cheating is cheating? You might want to clarify that because a fact is a fact, so if someone cheats, they are a cheater... But automatically equating conduct that is not necessarily cheating as cheating defies the laws of logic (and is a logical fallacy). That is backwards thinking that is not supported by logic or how the English language works, but ok, thank's for your opinion? This added what, exactly, to the discussion of what SHOULD be done in handling list oversight at GTs?
Acting outside the rules or standards set-up by an event organizer, one is acting as a vigilante or worse, a mob. The problem here is that some TOs do not address this matter in their tournament format, where they really should. And absent rules or standards set-up by any event organizer, we have the chaos brewing in this thread-and no one person's opinion is any better than another's in terms of what penalties, if any, should be assessed for various infractions.
Vaktathi wrote: I'd be inclined to go easy on people in low key "open" events, but if they're competing in an invitational or a championship event, or the on the second say of a multi day event for high end placing, would say there's very little excuse for anything being wrong with their lists, at those levels they should know better and TO's should be able to vet lists with more care with reduced numbers. Severe penalties are both appropriate and warranted to deter future behavior, as is extra care by the TO's in vetting lists to ensure the integrity of the event is not called into question.
Not saying I exactly disagree with you, but to drive a point home, what is the basis for your position? What is the authority you speak from to make a statement as "Severe penalties are both appropriate and warranted to deter future behavior"?
The bottom line is that any conduct that is punishable in any way needs to be clearly outlined. There is a reason why people cannot be punished by our justice system for actions they carried out that were not clearly illegal or punishable at the time they carried out those actions. Likewise, laws are routinely struck down if they are vague in terms of what the penalties are and how those penalties are assessed.
In the interest of justice, I balk at punishing anyone absent a clearly outlined schedule of "x conduct=y infraction" clearly implemented by a TO. In that sense, it is the TOs responsibility to address these issues and deal with them as thoroughly as possible because it really isn't our job, as a player base, to address these matters after the fact and we certainly have no authority to dictate how they should be handled before the fact. Absent any clearly outlined language in a TO's rules packet, it is just up to the TO to dictate what penalties are attributed for what infractions.
Wrongful conduct should be addressed and deterred-that is something we can all agree on. But it should be done as fairly and judicially as possible.
MDizzle wrote: Are you sure that the people that have made errors on their lists are cheaters?
Forget to write down a melta bomb and get banned seems legit!
Punishing cheaters is a big deal to you list issues would be far down the rung for me. In 40k the way people cheat most is slow play.
A 3 point issue on a list is small potatoes IMHO.
Making honest people feel like cheaters for making a simple mistake is not the way to build a community and have a good and healthy environment.
Sorry,
But when 40k players take themselves as seriously as they do, there's no other way.
A guy running a MTG deck with cards not listed in his decklist gets kicked and banned. They pay as much or more for their hobby as we do. I don't see them struggling with attendance.
3 points here or there might have been the difference between a transport, melta bomb, or formation cost, all of which could drastically change how the game ends.
The problem here is that you are assuming that most 40K players are serious.
Usually, maybe only 20% of tournament goer's at a larger tournament are serious competitors. The rest of the 80% of attendees are there more for fun and the social aspect.
And while MTG might be doing well in the tournament scene, competitive 40K overall isn't. If not for the efforts of certain communities (like the ITC), tournament attendance would be dismal in many parts of the United States.
I really can't stand these statements of absolutions. He cheated therefore he needs to be DQ'd and banned! I say, let the punishment fit the crime. In other words, it would be up to the TO to decide how he wants to deal with cheating, whether purposeful or unintentional. Who are we as strangers on the Net to dictate how John runs his tournament? If he makes the right call, ok, everything is peachy. If he makes the wrong call, his future tournament attendance will suffer. Just look at Feast of Blades or other tournaments that were involved in controversial decisions. But the future of his tournament should lie in his hands, not to armchair generals on the Net.
This thread has become fairly ridiculous and circular.
The number of people posting authoritatively, from places of sheer ignorance as to what goes into running events, is mind boggling. That's not even mentioning the people posting with no skin in the game at all because they don't even go to these events.
The TO community is aware of the problem, and I am confident they will address it to the best of their ability. It does give me some small comfort knowing that threads like these are given much less weight than they used to by the wider Competitive 40k community.
You will never get anyone to admit that they cheated. It's just like all those stories we hear on multiple forums..."I did not know that dice was loaded.....I purchased it out of a jar at my local store".
The repurcussions for "making an honest mistake"/cheating are there to force people into due diligence and check their own lists. If you want an organizer to check your list see if they will ahead of time...then you have a case. But if you make a mistake then you should be punished.
OverwatchCNC wrote: The TO community is aware of the problem, and I am confident they will address it to the best of their ability. It does give me some small comfort knowing that threads like these are given much less weight than they used to by the wider Competitive 40k community.
As a TO who has had both recent and ongoing communications with other TOs where some of these issues have arisen, I am not confident that "they" will address the matter - certainly not uniformly. Ability and willingness, to take a stand when something "bad" happens, are very different things. Some TOs have no problem being very public and transparent about what happens at their events. Others are far less comfortable. Some TOs have a much better grasp on rules than others, etc. Much like the posts in this thread, I don't feel that TOs have a common feeling about how "big" the problem is, or what an appropriate response is to issues at their events.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fishboy wrote: You will never get anyone to admit that they cheated.
Perhaps not using the word "cheated", but I have seen people with some big balls and major integrity stand up and admit either a mistake or an issue where their opponent felt cheated. This has included people returning prize support and apologizing. We should all aspire to this sort of self regulation.
Here's a cool ap idea for Battlescribe. They could expand into sharing of lists with your opponent via cell or tablet. Also can do tourney scoring for TOs and list oversight. It would be an insignificant add on for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I shouldn't say insignificant... I actually have no idea how hard that would be.
I like the crowd sourcing idea. Maybe give a free drink to anyone who finds a illegal list. Doesn't sound hyper abusive.
It seems like if a TO required a printed list from BS and the community stayed on top of that then that would prevents these shenanigans that have been occurring since the 6th edition deluge of army rules. I would like to see a way to share lists but if they were simply posted online ahead of time then you could take a look without your opponent having to do anything. Since we can afford to travel to event and expensive plastic toys I guess we can afford at least a older model smart phone or tablet.
The problem is that Battlescribe is by design very easy to edit. It would be trivial to subtly alter a list to give up some free points. The output of Battlescribe, Army Builder, and any other army tool is so verbose that small errors would be easy to hide.
The real issue is that list construction is far too unwieldy.
Yer maximizing the potential for stupidity there.
I have to make it up to DaBoyz one of these years.
. Whether it's getting a movement distance slightly off, bumping a model, forgetting a damage result, misplaying a rule... it's obviously a matter of degrees, and 
