Registration opens at 7PM US EST on Wednesday, February 1, 2017.This will be the primary info and QA thread for Dakka, which is often a major site for such things.
Convention Overview and Information - The NOVA Open is a Washington, DC area Tabletop Wargaming Convention with a strong focus on organized play, charity, hobby seminars, and social connection. Over 1,300 gamers and hobbyists attended in 2016.
2017 will be the 8th year of the NOVA Open, whose origins lie in a 32-person outdoor charity BBQ tournament held in 2009 in Springfield, VA.
The NOVA's legacy events include a 256-slot Warhammer 40,000 GT, 256-player X-Wing championship, Warmachine, Malifaux, and large organized play tracks in numerous other game systems.
NOVA hosts some of the world's best hobby instructors - Roman Lappatt of Massive Voodoo, James Wappel of James Wappel Miniature Painting, Caleb Wissenback of CK Studios, and many more. Seminars are offered all day, every day of the con, and include new 4-hour hands-on workshops as of 2016.
NOVA partners with a sister organization, a formal 501(c)(3) charitable foundation known as the NOVA Open Charitable Foundation, to raise funds and awareness in fighting critical causes around the world. We especially focus on leveraging the compassion of fellow wargamers and hobbyists to raise funds for Doctors Without Borders, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Fisher House Foundation. We primarily achieve this through an international consortium of brilliant miniature figure artists who collaborate to create world-class pieces of miniature art, including full armies, display boards, and individual show pieces. These are raffled and auctioned off through a combination of world-wide online raffles and at-NOVA raffles and silent auctions. Entering its 5th year, the NOCF raised over $100,000 for charity to date.
For all events overviewed below, check out novaopen.com for event primers containing detailed information, schedules, and more.
Event-Specific Overview Information Warhammer 40,000 - NOVA offers numerous distinct events for Warhammer 40,000 players and enthusiasts. We host a 256-slot, 8-round Warhammer 40KGT; a 30-team "Trios" team tournament pitting 3-man teams in alternating 1v1 and 2v2 games vs. opponents in a very casual and laid back setting; a 32-player Invitational for a $1,000 cash prize; a weekend-long Narrative that combines world-class gaming and terrain with social, team-building wargaming both on and beyond the tabletop (think war councils, planning sessions, and the like in places like our charity bar and lounge). We also offer a "Nightfighter" track for those who spend the day in other activities to join in on some of the Narrative battles at night, ala carte registration (albeit limited in quantity) for specific games on the Narrative schedule, Powered Play Gaming's famous Glowpocalypse fully-lit nighttime Apocalypse battles, and a full suite of Recon Squad Kill-Team sized events.
For 2017, we're also partnering more closely with the ITC, including further revised missions now featured at both NOVA and within the formal ITC mission catalog, plus the likely incorporation of a select number of ITC missions within NOVA's mission set.
Perhaps most excitingly, GAMES WORKSHOP IS JOINING US FOR 2017! The GW Community Team and more will be on site, participating in live streaming, seminars, lectures, demos, and more. Additionally, we'll see more awesome GW support in the SuperNOVA and Swag Bags.
Warhammer 30,000 / Horus Heresy - Led by some of the same personnel who've brought acclaimed Heresy era events to AdeptiCon in recent time, NOVA is proud to present a full suite of Heresy-era organized play opportunities throughout the NOVA weekend, inclusive of an escalation tournament, multiple campaign-style opportunities, and multiple mega-battle styled opportunities. Last year saw our entry of 30K events to the NOVA events catalog, and they blew the doors off the place, twice requiring increased spaces, and three times selling out. We're back even bigger, more exciting, and stronger than ever before, with more room for players and more awesome terrain, missions, camaraderie, and miniatures.
Star Wars Gaming @ NOVA - Star Wars Gaming is fast becoming the biggest thing to do at NOVA Open. 2017 will see championship-level events and numerous side track events for all of Fantasy Flight Games' Star Wars offerings, including X-Wing, Armada, Imperial Assault, Destiny, and the Star Wars TCG. NOVA's Star Wars hall is dominated by an 11.5 foot long Imperial Star Destroyer, built to scale with X-Wing's "Big Ship" scale. It's insane. Check out novaopen.com for more information, but there's no two ways about it - NOVA is one of the best places in the USA to enjoy FFG/Star Wars gaming. Incredible leads, atmosphere, attendees, perks, and tons of face time with FFG staff and game devs!
Warmachine/Hordes - NOVA hosted over 100 Warmachine players in 2016, participating in 9 distinct events (besides iron arena / open play). We expect that to increase substantially this year, due to increased demand and popular feedback.
Malifaux - NOVA proudly hosts Wyrd's North American National Championship for Malifaux. This will be our fourth consecutive year offering expanding Malifaux events, and the 3rd year of the National Champs. Last year's initial offering of 54 slots sold out, and we expect the same to happen this year. We've also added a more diverse array of other Malifaux gaming opportunities, including a weekend-long semi-adhoc Shifting Loyalties campaign.
Age of Sigmar - Age of Sigmar will be in Year 3 at NOVA, including both narrative/casual and organized/competitive gaming opportunities throughout the weekend. In response to massively increasing enthusiasm in the game system and Games Workshop attendance, we're opening up a full 100 spots for the Age of Sigmar GT. It's gonna be Sigmawesome!
Infinity - Infinity is one of our most comprehensive event offerings on an annual basis, though space is always limited and in high demand. This year we're also seeing a reinvigorated staff and an expanded interest and involvement from CB!
Lord of the Rings - NOVA has the best Lord of the Rings terrain anywhere on the planet, including GWHQ. Seriously. It also hosts one of the larger LOTRGTs Stateside, attended last year by players from as far away as London and Quebec. We host a full range of LOTR events at NOVA, with over 70 unique LOTR players in 2016. This year promises some special guests as well, though we can't quite share who yet!
Steamforged Games - We added a very well-received Guild Ball event to the NOVA Open in 2016, and it certainly seemed to catch Steamforged's attention! They're coming in force to NOVA Open 2017, including SFG staff and event support, and a full weekend of exciting event offerings and activities. Check out novaopen.com for more detail and make sure to get in early to snag spots in the highest demand events!
Blood Bowl - About 14 people came to play Blood Bowl in 2014, and nearly 30 different players participated in BB events in 2015! It grew even more in 2016, and with the release of the refreshed Blood Bowl game and miniatures by Games Workshop, we look to grow yet again, with our fourth annual exciting year of Blood Bowl ahead.
Dark Age & Wrath of Kings - Cool Mini or Not is bringing its booth, demos, and more back to NOVA in 2017. Along with this, they'll be running another series of events for Dark Age and Wrath of Kings. SuperNOVA bags are also likely to once again include some pretty swanky goodies, courtesy of CMON.
Capital Palette - The NOVA Open's incredible juried miniature figure art competition and exhibition was revamped last year, moving to an Open Forum format (each Category wins a Best in Category, but there are unlimited #'s of potential Gold, Silver, and Bronze finishers in each category). There will still only be a single mini to win the coveted Best in Show and its accompanying Crystal Monument. This year's event is being directly organized, judged, and run by none other than Dave Taylor, Roman Lapatt, and James Wappel! It is their and NOVA's paint competition for 2017!
Seminars & Lectures - The list of seminars and lectures offered at NOVA this year is exhaustive, highlighted by courses from Roman, James, Caleb, GW, and many more. Check the website for exhaustive details as we put them up, and don't miss out! Many seminars sold out last year - these teachers are in extremely high demand, and it looks like NOVA is likely to be one of the only places you can take courses taught by Roman in the US!
The NOVA Open Charitable Foundation Lounge - In addition to charitable activities with miniature figure art, armies, and more, the NOCF also converts an awesome set of suites at the Hyatt Regency into a Bar and Lounge, with all proceeds benefitting the charitable causes supported by the NOCF. Discount beverages and snacks are available all weekend long amidst a highly energetic, fun, social environment. Every night in the lounge is a night to remember, full of some of the biggest and brightest stars of the hobby having a beer or a cocktail (or just a soda, water, or coffee) with you and talking about whatever suits you. Last year also saw the addition of live music to the bar, and we're looking to expand that as well in 2017. It's one of the coolest places to be in our hobby, and everything you do is not only cheaper than most bars and restaurants ... it benefits great causes! Room 1850 in the Hyatt, all weekend long, through the end of the con on Sunday night after the award and closing ceremony. We're also in talks with the Hyatt about potentially adding more space for the Charity Lounge, perhaps their swanky rooftop venue with a 360 degree view of the US Capital Area. More info to come, but this is one of those fun adds to NOVA that you get just by showing up!
Vendors - We can already confirm some of our best vendors are returning for 2017, and we're hard at work locking the rest and more in. Already good to return are:
The Toledo Game Room ("That Bits Guy" you always see in the halls at AdeptiCon)
Atlantis Comics and Games
Cool Mini or Not
Grex Airbrush
Broken Egg Games
Greenman Designs
Tectonic Craft Studios
Stiff Neck Studios
and more!
Get ready to sign up at 7PM on Monday, February 1
Let us know here or elsewhere if you have any questions
NOVA Open was selected by Fantasy Flight Games to be the official hosts and organizers of the FFG Star Wars National Championships for all of their Star Wars Games (Desitny, TCG, X-Wing, Armada, and Imperial Assault).
So with the ffg nationals announcement, our hotel bookings went nuts, nearly tripling their January status last year. If you're planning to attend, take five to snag your rooms.
That's correct. The cart will also help manage this in that various events with contingent items will automatically help you in that direction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Registration is at a record high, nearing 500 registrants in under the first hour. X-Wing championships are nearly sold out, along with a bevy of other events. The SuperNOVA bags sold out in 80 seconds.
Swag bags are gone. There are a handful of Dwarf NOVA upgrade passes left. Over half the hotel is booked.
Last night's registration went smoothly, and also tripled last year's first night. Get tickets while you can. Numerous events either sold out or are about to.
MVBrandt wrote: Swag bags are gone. There are a handful of Dwarf NOVA upgrade passes left. Over half the hotel is booked.
Last night's registration went smoothly, and also tripled last year's first night. Get tickets while you can. Numerous events either sold out or are about to.
Speaking of that, I wanted to ask a clarification question: when signing up for Trios, does 1 team member need to buy the $90.00 pass or do all three team members need to do it (totaling $270)?
The hotel block is working its way toward gone. Over 2/3 full.
40k and 30k events, including the 40kGT, narrative, trios, and every 30k event, are all over double the registration they were at by this time last year. In the narrative and 30k events in particular, the events are either sold out or only have a couple spots left.
Many seminars are sold out or nearly sold out, including most of Roman's.
The are only a few spots left in both the XWing and Destiny FFG US National Championship events.
Finally, there aren't many DwarfNOVA upgrade passes left, and historically we have maybe one or two supernova drops a year. If you're on the wait list for that, you might wanna snag a DwarfNOVA so you don't miss both.
All star wars events are sold out or nearly sold out.
Hotel block is at 95%
Warlord Games will be joining us and running a number of events, including Bolt Action, K47, and Antares.
rawne2510 wrote: Any thoughts on whether NOVA will move to 8th Edition with a possible extensive re-write of the primer
This is, I'm certain, the most common question we'll receive over the next 5 months leading up to NOVA Open (it is almost exactly 5 months away).
Here are a couple overarching thoughts ...
1. As you can tell by Games Workshop's announcement, they've engaged with me, Reece & Frankie from LVO, and Hank/Chris/Greg/etc. from AdeptiCon over the past few months. In spite of this, there's no information we have that confirms any new edition coming before NOVA. 1a. This doesn't mean a new edition isn't around the corner. 1b. We are open minded about the possibility of a new edition, but aren't possessed of any information that leads us to any certainty one is coming before NOVA.
2. The past 2 editions of 40K released the summer before NOVA, and in both cases we went with the new edition. That said, we very firmly [then and now] do not want to lock ourselves into a formal policy position on what we would do, because there are too many variables to account for.
3. With regard to sweeping primer changes, that would depend. Let's say GW for the third time in I think like 6 years drops an edition a couple months before NOVA. Does it drop in May or does it drop in August? Is it a minor clean-up of the rules or a vast, sweeping change to everything? There are too many variables and not enough information, so it's hard to say whether we'd have to dramatically alter the primer or just clean things up for a new edition.
One thing I will say, based on my read of the AdeptiCon hints about a 3-ways-to-play general's handbook type thing, is that if GW came up with a clear, reasonable way to form armies and build for Matched Play, I think we'd at least seriously consider giving that the time of day in thinking about how to arrange our primer. We'd also do so in close concert with LVO and AdeptiCon, who we've built a pretty close relationship with over the last year.
These are just thoughts, really, but the long and short is this: Since we don't know if a new edition is coming soon or not, and since we don't know if it did come when it would drop or what it would look like, we kinda ... well ... don't know. If I were to guess, we'd probably try to go with a new edition again if it dropped like we have in the past, and we'd make whatever changes to the primer that needed to be made to be most agreeable with both a new edition and whatever timeframe was available for people to prepare within.
We're as tuned into the rumor channels and such as the rest of you, however, so we plan to be as on top of any breaking changes as we can be. For now, we're planning for and expecting to run a 7th edition 40KGT of epic quality and professionalism like we try to do every year. I wish we had a little more clarity on the matter, but what can ya do?
On a separate note I see you guys run Death from the skies within the format. Do we have to run the dogfight phase as well or do we just ignore that bit but not all the rule changes.
On a separate note I see you guys run Death from the skies within the format. Do we have to run the dogfight phase as well or do we just ignore that bit but not all the rule changes.
Yes you do have to run the phase. Or you don't. Its pretty much up to you. Death from the skies says pretty much the same thing. SO if you both don't want to play that phase you don't have to. But if one of you does and the other doesn't you need to roll off to see if it'll happen or not.
On a separate note I see you guys run Death from the skies within the format. Do we have to run the dogfight phase as well or do we just ignore that bit but not all the rule changes.
Yes you do have to run the phase. Or you don't. Its pretty much up to you. Death from the skies says pretty much the same thing. SO if you both don't want to play that phase you don't have to. But if one of you does and the other doesn't you need to roll off to see if it'll happen or not.
I understand that is the book ruling of it but wasn't sure if that was how NOVA were going to run it as that really helps people who want to slow play the game by adding 5 mins per turn
People aren't bringing flyers and jockeying to run the dogfight phase in order to slow play when there are so many trivially easy ways to slow play that don't involve wasting points on flyers.
No but not all flyers are a waste of points with the abilities you get from death from the skies. the formation bonus to ignore cover or re-roll to wound. It is a legitimate way to slow play that people can´t argue against. but it can have a huge effect on the game
In terms of growth, at this point last year we had just shy of 400 people registered, with close to 1500 attending in the end.
Right now, we're nearly at 1,000 registered.
This translates to: get your tickets now.
IN particular, our total # of Games Workshop registrants to this same point as last year has more than doubled. Our total # of Star Wars registrants to this same point as last year has more than quadrupled.
Numerous seminars are sold out.
X-Wing Champs Heat 2 only has 2 spots left (out of 128)
X-Wing Champs Heat 1 only has 31 spots left (out of 128)
The first ever Star Wars: Destiny US National Championship only has 2 spots left (again, out of 128)
For Warhammer 40,000, most of the Narrative events, both all-weekend and ala carte, are sold out or down to single digit spots.
For the Narrative Nightfighter "All games" track, only 4 spots remain.
I won't go through everything, but the long and short is you should sign up sooner than later. At this point, pinkie swear this isn't your typical "promo" alert so much as wanting to make sure many of our regulars who sign up a little later get a chance to get in on the events they want. This especially applies to seminars, where we've jumped from 56 individuals registered for seminars at this point last year to 104 as of today. There are many seminars sold out or nearly sold out.
VERY exciting year, but also means a ton more work for our volunteers and a ton more pressure on event space.
If you happen to be interested in volunteering and being part of our awesome family, feel free to let us know (customerservice@novaopen.com). We could use the help - whether it's just for the weekend, or if you're local and want to contribute to things like terrain days and the like (While learning useful hobby skills and shortcuts).
Question regarding the 40k Primer. Is it going to updated any further before NOVA?
I ask only because it looks like GW's new additions might warrant entries. For instance, 3.2.1.2 lists Lords of War for the armies, but we don't have entries for Custodes, Sisters of Silence or Yannri (or even just a statement that they don't need entries).
3.2.9 also still says that the "new" GWFAQ won't be in effect for NOVA, but 1.1.7 only says no FAQ's after August 2, 2017 will be allowed. This confused me: is NOVA going to use GW's FAQ's or not?
Audustum wrote: Question regarding the 40k Primer. Is it going to updated any further before NOVA?
I ask only because it looks like GW's new additions might warrant entries. For instance, 3.2.1.2 lists Lords of War for the armies, but we don't have entries for Custodes, Sisters of Silence or Yannri (or even just a statement that they don't need entries).
3.2.9 also still says that the "new" GWFAQ won't be in effect for NOVA, but 1.1.7 only says no FAQ's after August 2, 2017 will be allowed. This confused me: is NOVA going to use GW's FAQ's or not?
Thanks in advance!
So we're kind of in a holding pattern right now waiting to see what GW decides to do. If they don't decide to release a new edition I plan on updating the packet.
As to your questions I can answer them here for you and if we are in 7th I'll update the packet to reflect that.
To my knowledge Custodes and Sisters of Silence cannot be taken in a detachment that allows them a SH/GC Lords of War choice. The Yannri will most likely be added to the list.
As to 3.2.9 I'm not sure how that date got changed to 2017. This is pretty much last year's primer and I know I didn't change that date as I fully intend to use the GWFAQs that they've been putting out for 7th. That is if we're still in 7th.
Audustum wrote: Question regarding the 40k Primer. Is it going to updated any further before NOVA?
I ask only because it looks like GW's new additions might warrant entries. For instance, 3.2.1.2 lists Lords of War for the armies, but we don't have entries for Custodes, Sisters of Silence or Yannri (or even just a statement that they don't need entries).
3.2.9 also still says that the "new" GWFAQ won't be in effect for NOVA, but 1.1.7 only says no FAQ's after August 2, 2017 will be allowed. This confused me: is NOVA going to use GW's FAQ's or not?
Thanks in advance!
So we're kind of in a holding pattern right now waiting to see what GW decides to do. If they don't decide to release a new edition I plan on updating the packet.
As to your questions I can answer them here for you and if we are in 7th I'll update the packet to reflect that.
To my knowledge Custodes and Sisters of Silence cannot be taken in a detachment that allows them a SH/GC Lords of War choice. The Yannri will most likely be added to the list.
As to 3.2.9 I'm not sure how that date got changed to 2017. This is pretty much last year's primer and I know I didn't change that date as I fully intend to use the GWFAQs that they've been putting out for 7th. That is if we're still in 7th.
Thank you for the reply! I'm glad to hear about the FAQ and I can understand why you'd be waiting on GW. I have a feeling they'll keep us in suspense for awhile.
You're right: SoS was silly of me to ask because they can't, but Custodes actually can. They became troops in their new pamphlet. If you take Celestine, Voldus, Greyfax or Belisarius as the HQ to a 'Custodes CAD' you can put them in the troop slots and have a Lord of War choice. So far I've only experimented with putting Roubute in it.
Audustum wrote: Question regarding the 40k Primer. Is it going to updated any further before NOVA?
I ask only because it looks like GW's new additions might warrant entries. For instance, 3.2.1.2 lists Lords of War for the armies, but we don't have entries for Custodes, Sisters of Silence or Yannri (or even just a statement that they don't need entries).
3.2.9 also still says that the "new" GWFAQ won't be in effect for NOVA, but 1.1.7 only says no FAQ's after August 2, 2017 will be allowed. This confused me: is NOVA going to use GW's FAQ's or not?
Thanks in advance!
So we're kind of in a holding pattern right now waiting to see what GW decides to do. If they don't decide to release a new edition I plan on updating the packet.
As to your questions I can answer them here for you and if we are in 7th I'll update the packet to reflect that.
To my knowledge Custodes and Sisters of Silence cannot be taken in a detachment that allows them a SH/GC Lords of War choice. The Yannri will most likely be added to the list.
As to 3.2.9 I'm not sure how that date got changed to 2017. This is pretty much last year's primer and I know I didn't change that date as I fully intend to use the GWFAQs that they've been putting out for 7th. That is if we're still in 7th.
Thank you for the reply! I'm glad to hear about the FAQ and I can understand why you'd be waiting on GW. I have a feeling they'll keep us in suspense for awhile.
You're right: SoS was silly of me to ask because they can't, but Custodes actually can. They became troops in their new pamphlet. If you take Celestine, Voldus, Greyfax or Belisarius as the HQ to a 'Custodes CAD' you can put them in the troop slots and have a Lord of War choice. So far I've only experimented with putting Roubute in it.
OH I thought they were elites! I've taken a new job and travel a lot so sometimes stuff like that escapes me. I'll be sure to update the packet closer to the event. Thank you!
I know that Recon Squads happened last year and is scheduled for this year but is there any chance of a Shadow Wars event now that it's a thing and we know rules will be more readily available? Either in addition to or replacing Recon Squads?
Definitely possible, but we'll have to see. We're in a lot of chats with GW right now, with both FW and a large contingent of GW staff coming to NOVA. Once that clears up, we'll be able to better focus on whether there's the resources / volunteers / etc. needed to add a new event track this late in the game.
As an addendum, per this weekend's newsletter, the Hotel is now fully sold out. This is way, way earlier than we could have anticipated, so we went ahead and worked out solid rates in blocks next door to the Hyatt in the Residence Inn and Renaissance Hotel; these are a short sub-1 minute walk to the Hyatt, ensuring a very similar overall experience.
Destiny is down to 1 spot left. There are a ton of events that are either out of room or nearly out of room, and we're over 1,000 registered attendees already. Long and short, get yourself signed up.
Just wanted to confirm that the 40k Trios and Narrative tracks (all of them) will be using 8th edition. The specific rules are very TBD, but expect matched play (points rather than power levels).
The question above about Recon Squads is a good one. Currently we are planning to keep Recon Squads as-is, a Kill Team styled format that doesn't require additional rulebooks, learning new mechanics, isn't built around developing a squad over a campaign, etc.. It works well as a way to quickly drop-in and play a fast game of 40k over lunch/dinner, etc.. Repeating Mike's point above, other organizers are currently considering adding a separate Shadow War event, but nothing is definite yet.
Sign-ups for Trios & Narrative tickets are either almost full or very healthy, so it should be a great crowd. Only one spot remaining for a Warlord position, get on it!
As an FYI, we will *likely* permit Forgeworld Indices, presuming they remain on schedule for Xenos by end of June.
We'll be organizing a charity supporting mini-event in late July as well, to help people get warmed up and familiarized if they haven't yet. This will be in the vein of our past sociable charity tournaments, akin to the one that originally got NOVA started on a series of August picnic tables back in 2009.
Exciting times to be a GW fan, and exciting times to be a NOVA attendee in general! Nearly 1300 people are registered for the convention *already*, which is nearing our total for last year as a whole!
Any idea when the pre-liminary mission packets for the GT might get published? The book missions are very flawed in which certain missions allows the last player to place the objective to choose the deployment zone. This essentially will allowed a player with more objectives in their deployment zone than the opponent.
tjkopena wrote: Just wanted to confirm that the 40k Trios and Narrative tracks (all of them) will be using 8th edition. The specific rules are very TBD, but expect matched play (points rather than power levels).
The question above about Recon Squads is a good one. Currently we are planning to keep Recon Squads as-is, a Kill Team styled format that doesn't require additional rulebooks, learning new mechanics, isn't built around developing a squad over a campaign, etc.. It works well as a way to quickly drop-in and play a fast game of 40k over lunch/dinner, etc.. Repeating Mike's point above, other organizers are currently considering adding a separate Shadow War event, but nothing is definite yet.
Sign-ups for Trios & Narrative tickets are either almost full or very healthy, so it should be a great crowd. Only one spot remaining for a Warlord position, get on it!
Came here to ask about the Narrative, thanks for all your work!
Came here to ask about the Narrative, thanks for all your work!
Thanks Craig, glad you will be joining us again!
The week after 8e drops we're running our weekend long LibertyHammer narrative. It uses the same core missions as the NOVA40k Narrative, so we'll necessarily have them reworked and run through a ~40--50 person event pretty quickly. Current plan is to pick up my pre-ordered books as soon as my FLGS opens June 17, sit down at the tables, and not get up until we've got everything updated or they kick me out. I expect though that the Recon Squads rules will actually take the most updating. In any case, we expect to have a draft revamped NOVA primer posted by mid-July.
Any chance the new NOVA missions be out before the 17th? Nick Nanavati is hosting a RTT at TOGIT this Sat, would be cool for us East coasters to test them out.
Because Vendor Hall lists are pretty exciting ...
Anvil Eight Games
Atlantis Games and Comics Mall with Secret Weapons Miniatures, Poweredplay Gaming and GREX Airbrush, Iello, Slugfest)
Broken Egg Games
Cool Mini or Not
Fallout Hobbies
Fantasy Flight Games
Firmer Terra
Forge World
Games Workshop
Greenman Designs
Inglenook Publishing
KR Multicase
Mini Duels
MiniWarGaming
Prodos Games
Shapeways
Steamforged Games
Stiff Neck Studio
Tablewar Designs
Tectonic Craft Studios
Toledo Game Room
Warlord Games / Footsore Miniatures
CAP costs go up by $10 very shortly folks - make sure you snag one now before they do.
We've had a record spike in attendance, with nearing 1300 attendees already registered (just about our total attendance last year, and compared to only 500 at this same time last year), the Hyatt completely booked on rooms, and our rooms in the hotels immediately next door also booking up fast. DO NOT MISS OUT by waiting too long!
I appreciate feedback on the new primer mission, which is up in the 40KGT Primer.
Furthermore, the release of 8th saw registrations for the GT go crazy over the weekend. Snag your spots.
Finally, make sure to snag rooms at the adjoining hotels ASAP - when those are gone, you'll actually have to hoof it a bit down the street, as opposed to just cross walkin' it.
It's pretty much straight-up matched play but with our mission objectives & scoring, and very straightforward rules for how doubles work. A summary is here:
NOVA Open's 40K Format is being steadily updated for 8th edition.
Quick Hitters -
We are going with the ITC / BAO / Play Tester TO format tweak of +1 to the roll to go first for the player who finishes deploying first, rather than "deploy first / go first."
Understrength Units may only be selected as part of an Auxiliary Support Detachment.
Command Re-Rolls may not be used to re-roll the Seize or End-Game rolls.
We've also updated the missions for 8th fully, updated the 2ndaries, and added a new 4th mission leveraging KP/VP instead of Quarters.
The main hotel's been sold out a while.
The 40KGT is pacing closer than normal to a sellout.
Many, many events are completely sold out, including many seminars.
The nearest hotel next to us, the Renaissance, is nearly sold out.
We're pacing somewhere between 2,000-2,500 attendees compared to only about 1,300 the year prior.
The Games Workshop preview event, where they've hinted at WORLD FIRST unveiling a brand new game (We have no idea, believe it or not!), only has a few spots left. They're free on Wednesday night, don't miss them.
Maybe I'm nuts and/or blind but how is Nova handling variable game length? In the main rulebook it's listed as mission specific (even though it's the same for all the matched missions that I remember).
That deployment is just a much more limited hammer and anvil with a couple square inches extra only at the "point" on a 6x4 table, so we will not use it.
FYI, with some rumors pointing to Codex: GK and Codex: CSM being available for download by August 19 at latest, if those prove true, it is highly likely they will be fully legal for NOVA.
Regarding 40k, there's a rumor swirling around the forums today regarding Objective Secured and Daemons (also Kroot apparently). People are saying that allegiances such as Khorne or Tzeentch are not sufficient to provide a "faction" (at least not for ITC/Nova) to apply the new ObSec granted by today's announcement. As a result, Daemon troops can never be objective secured (even in an all Khorne daemon detachment, for instance).
Would it be possible to address this confusing situation? This seems directly contrary to the RaW. A rules modification this major could obviously have a big impact on list-building for the event.
Yeah, this one seems like it needs a response. Per the RAW posted on the Warhammer Community site, it looks like 'Imperium' and 'Chaos', among others, are sufficient to get ObSec. Not something I have a problem with (I'm bringing Custodes and we don't have a HQ so Imperium is what I'm stuck with) but people are arguing about it already in the News forum and it could change lists.
The RAW is a detachment must include entirely units of the same [faction] and not just the same faction. This refers to the keyword standing in for things like [Chapter]. You'll notice per the article that this aligns to the rules seen in the new codexes.
It passes logic that they wouldn't give Marines using only one Chapter a rule that those same marines can now suddenly get with or without being the same Chapter.
The one hiccup is I'm uncertain whether they meant for the subsequent result that Daemons cannot get obsec, since they have no [faction].
For now, Ynnari players who want obsec will need to have each ynnari det with Troops be all from the same <craftworld>, etc. AM will need to bucket their conscripts and commanders in one det and dump their soup, commissar, etc in the other(s).
I've pinged GW asking intent on the Daemon question. That's the only hiccup in what is otherwise intent and raw clear.
I'd say the intent is clear but RAW I anything but. The comment about brackets seems kind of disingenuous since throughout all of the indexes the rule book and the codexes it's never been established that brackets needs a specific type of faction keyword rather than any other faction keywords. The fact that it is causing issues with chaos players should be evidence of this.
It's a fairly semantico point though since we have Nova's ruling on this and that's all we needed. That said we know it's not a clear rule because there's already a growing number of people confused by it. If it was clear none of these people would have been confused.
Also, thanks for the quick response. I just hope any other tournament also can quickly get back to its players. I'm not sure this is a rule GW should have revealed before actually releasing chapter approved.
In a reflexive sense on clarity, do you believe Games Workshop gave SM a rule enabling Objective Secured for all being from the same <chapter> only to immediately and intentionally make that rule irrelevant?
Also there is no explanation that Faction is different from <faction> in the same way there is no explanation that Ocean is different from Fartburger. The rulebook would be difficult to produce if everything patently diffetent had to be affirmed as being different.
MVBrandt wrote: In a reflexive sense on clarity, do you believe Games Workshop gave SM a rule enabling Objective Secured for all being from the same <chapter> only to immediately and intentionally make that rule irrelevant?
No I don't think GW intentionally did that, but these are also the same people that immediately validated long large portions of the indexes after making people buy them. They're not exactly perfect when it comes to their timing. But this is why I said the intent was clear it is the actual plain language that used that is not.
Also there is no explanation that Faction is different from <faction> in the same way there is no explanation that Ocean is different from Fartburger. The rulebook would be difficult to produce if everything patently diffetent had to be affirmed as being different.
I'm sorry but this is just doesn't jive. In the rule book, there are only faction keywords. Nowhere in the rules is it ever decree but there are different types of faction keywords. They're just faction keywords. Sometimes you can select these factions key words and sometimes you cannot. Sometimes even faction keywords you can select your not always allowed to select. This is why they needed to fax everything to say that you can't have gray Knights Inn as the name for your codex Space Marines or why you can't put adeptus astarte's a in an Imperial Guard regiment. Keywords are just keywords as far as the rulebook is concerned.
You want to say some key words are different than other keywords now which is fine if you're GW. What should not be done, however, he's to try in 1980 for everyone you can just thinking that's how it always was. GW has had multiple issues of ambiguity with the faction keywords system up to this day. It is pretty obvious they did not create it very well and or carefully.
MVBrandt wrote: In a reflexive sense on clarity, do you believe Games Workshop gave SM a rule enabling Objective Secured for all being from the same <chapter> only to immediately and intentionally make that rule irrelevant?
No I don't think GW intentionally did that, but these are also the same people that immediately validated long large portions of the indexes after making people buy them. They're not exactly perfect when it comes to their timing. But this is why I said the intent was clear it is the actual plain language that used that is not.
Also there is no explanation that Faction is different from <faction> in the same way there is no explanation that Ocean is different from Fartburger. The rulebook would be difficult to produce if everything patently diffetent had to be affirmed as being different.
I'm sorry but this is just doesn't jive. In the rule book, there are only faction keywords. Nowhere in the rules is it ever decree but there are different types of faction keywords. They're just faction keywords. Sometimes you can select these factions key words and sometimes you cannot. Sometimes even faction keywords you can select your not always allowed to select. This is why they needed to fax everything to say that you can't have gray Knights Inn as the name for your codex Space Marines or why you can't put adeptus astarte's a in an Imperial Guard regiment. Keywords are just keywords as far as the rulebook is concerned.
You want to say some key words are different than other keywords now which is fine if you're GW. What should not be done, however, he's to try in 1980 for everyone you can just thinking that's how it always was. GW has had multiple issues of ambiguity with the faction keywords system up to this day. It is pretty obvious they did not create it very well and or carefully.
I think it jives just fine. Why would they include the brackets if they did not mean the faction keywords that appear in brackets? Otherwise why would it not just say with the same faction keyword, without using the brackets? I feel like reading it otherwise is either being unaware that those bracket keywords exist, or being intentionally obtuse.
MVBrandt wrote: In a reflexive sense on clarity, do you believe Games Workshop gave SM a rule enabling Objective Secured for all being from the same <chapter> only to immediately and intentionally make that rule irrelevant?
No I don't think GW intentionally did that, but these are also the same people that immediately validated long large portions of the indexes after making people buy them. They're not exactly perfect when it comes to their timing. But this is why I said the intent was clear it is the actual plain language that used that is not.
Also there is no explanation that Faction is different from <faction> in the same way there is no explanation that Ocean is different from Fartburger. The rulebook would be difficult to produce if everything patently diffetent had to be affirmed as being different.
I'm sorry but this is just doesn't jive. In the rule book, there are only faction keywords. Nowhere in the rules is it ever decree but there are different types of faction keywords. They're just faction keywords. Sometimes you can select these factions key words and sometimes you cannot. Sometimes even faction keywords you can select your not always allowed to select. This is why they needed to fax everything to say that you can't have gray Knights Inn as the name for your codex Space Marines or why you can't put adeptus astarte's a in an Imperial Guard regiment. Keywords are just keywords as far as the rulebook is concerned.
You want to say some key words are different than other keywords now which is fine if you're GW. What should not be done, however, he's to try in 1980 for everyone you can just thinking that's how it always was. GW has had multiple issues of ambiguity with the faction keywords system up to this day. It is pretty obvious they did not create it very well and or carefully.
I think it jives just fine. Why would they include the brackets if they did not mean the faction keywords that appear in brackets? Otherwise why would it not just say with the same faction keyword, without using the brackets? I feel like reading it otherwise is either being unaware that those bracket keywords exist, or being intentionally obtuse.
Because bracket key words aren't actually a category. You're trying to make them a category now in hindsight based upon the rule but the brackets themselves simply existed in the rulebook whenever they wanted to give you an example of where you are allowed to make up your own word. That's it. Flipping through my indexes last night, it looks like GW didn't even use brackets half the time when they were making these so-called bracket keywords. They just use the italics.
That means you have to say italics are the same as brackets or now we have three kinds of faction keywords. You're basically going down a rabbit hole based on grammar and punctuation. I don't even think they use the same brackets across all the books. Sometimes they used an actual bracket sometimes they used an arrow like in this warhammer-community article. Are brackets different than arrows? These are the kinds of silly questions we have to get into if we're going to use this logic.
If you can find me a page number in the rule book where the rules actually differentiate between faction keywords as being different kinds of faction keywords beyond customization then your position would make more sense. As it is, it looks like GW wants to make two different kinds of faction keywords, which is fine. They just need to recognize that would they do something like this The World At Large is not mind-readers and they need to explain what they're doing otherwise they will confuse people. And we can look to the news and Rumor for him to see that they already did successfully confuse some people so that point is proven.
EDIT: I think we're getting pretty far off topic though since this is just supposed to be a free thread talking about the Nova. I'll shut up now.
I think there's a difference between arguing an unclear rule when there's debate as to intent and arguing legalese when the intent is patently clear, is all.
MVBrandt wrote: I think there's a difference between arguing an unclear rule when there's debate as to intent and arguing legalese when the intent is patently clear, is all.
I guess my original point was it's obviously not clear to everyone as evidenced by the confusion. I actually don't care what the ultimate result is for this rule. But I look at this forum and I see people in Threads getting confused about it and I know my own playgroup is just as confused judging by the email exchanges were having this morning. If I'm finding confusion with them and on here and I'm imagining and I think with good cause that there is even more rampant confusion among the rest of the community at Large. This just needs a word of God to come down and explain what they meant.
You did that for Nova so everything is good here. GW should probably do it For the game at large too. That's all
MVBrandt wrote: In a reflexive sense on clarity, do you believe Games Workshop gave SM a rule enabling Objective Secured for all being from the same <chapter> only to immediately and intentionally make that rule irrelevant?
No I don't think GW intentionally did that, but these are also the same people that immediately validated long large portions of the indexes after making people buy them. They're not exactly perfect when it comes to their timing. But this is why I said the intent was clear it is the actual plain language that used that is not.
Also there is no explanation that Faction is different from <faction> in the same way there is no explanation that Ocean is different from Fartburger. The rulebook would be difficult to produce if everything patently diffetent had to be affirmed as being different.
I'm sorry but this is just doesn't jive. In the rule book, there are only faction keywords. Nowhere in the rules is it ever decree but there are different types of faction keywords. They're just faction keywords. Sometimes you can select these factions key words and sometimes you cannot. Sometimes even faction keywords you can select your not always allowed to select. This is why they needed to fax everything to say that you can't have gray Knights Inn as the name for your codex Space Marines or why you can't put adeptus astarte's a in an Imperial Guard regiment. Keywords are just keywords as far as the rulebook is concerned.
You want to say some key words are different than other keywords now which is fine if you're GW. What should not be done, however, he's to try in 1980 for everyone you can just thinking that's how it always was. GW has had multiple issues of ambiguity with the faction keywords system up to this day. It is pretty obvious they did not create it very well and or carefully.
I think it jives just fine. Why would they include the brackets if they did not mean the faction keywords that appear in brackets? Otherwise why would it not just say with the same faction keyword, without using the brackets? I feel like reading it otherwise is either being unaware that those bracket keywords exist, or being intentionally obtuse.
Because bracket key words aren't actually a category. You're trying to make them a category now in hindsight based upon the rule but the brackets themselves simply existed in the rulebook whenever they wanted to give you an example of where you are allowed to make up your own word. That's it. Flipping through my indexes last night, it looks like GW didn't even use brackets half the time when they were making these so-called bracket keywords. They just use the italics.
That means you have to say italics are the same as brackets or now we have three kinds of faction keywords. You're basically going down a rabbit hole based on grammar and punctuation. I don't even think they use the same brackets across all the books. Sometimes they used an actual bracket sometimes they used an arrow like in this warhammer-community article. Are brackets different than arrows? These are the kinds of silly questions we have to get into if we're going to use this logic.
If you can find me a page number in the rule book where the rules actually differentiate between faction keywords as being different kinds of faction keywords beyond customization then your position would make more sense. As it is, it looks like GW wants to make two different kinds of faction keywords, which is fine. They just need to recognize that would they do something like this The World At Large is not mind-readers and they need to explain what they're doing otherwise they will confuse people. And we can look to the news and Rumor for him to see that they already did successfully confuse some people so that point is proven.
EDIT: I think we're getting pretty far off topic though since this is just supposed to be a free thread talking about the Nova. I'll shut up now.
Sorry I don't see where it isn't clear in the indices that <Faction> keywords are a thing. They are described on the first page for each larger faction under the keywords section. Telling you what <faction> means - a keyword of your own choosing. So it is very specific about what keywords having brackets are. So when they refer to a bracketed faction it refers to those keywords.
Actually for Daemons I would assume their mark of chaos is the bracketed keyword in question because <mark of chaos> is a bracketed keyword in the chaos index - that said the daemon portion seems to separate their daemonic allegiance out from their keyword (looking at the units you can change allegiance on) so that is unclear.
Genestealer Cults and custodes are also that is unclear as they have no <faction> keywords and have troop choices.
But for all other factions it is clear what <faction> keyword means, and they are a separate category, they are keywords you are allowed to choose. They is a specific type of keyword. I don't see the italics you refer to in any section describing these keywords in the indices.
I'll stick with thinking that those that are confused are either
1.) Not very familiar with the rules
2.) Trying to game the system by being intentionally obtuse (this is often the case with "confusion" on forums, this was the same with people that wanted to make hive fleet adeptus astartes. They knew very well how the rule worked, but wanted to break the system)
Update, working on language, but we will be applying obsec along the lines of it applying to any shared faction detachment for faction keywords, with the exception of Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, and Tyranids.
Basically the meta faction umbrellas don't confer it, but otherwise it is good to go.
MVBrandt wrote: Update, working on language, but we will be applying obsec along the lines of it applying to any shared faction detachment for faction keywords, with the exception of Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, and Tyranids.
Basically the meta faction umbrellas don't confer it, but otherwise it is good to go.
So adeptus Astartes would confer it even if not all the same chapter?
Yes, though I'm uncertain why you'd give up all of your traits, stratagems, etc to do that. You'd be basically turning your marines into worse marines in order to get a rule they'd have had anyway.
Missions are being finalized today in terms of residual typos.
Due to GW updates, we are only using the following tweak:
Command Re-rolls may not be used when determining who goes first, seize the initiative, or the end of game roll.
The following GW rules are in play:
All FAQ, Errata, Stepping Into a New Edition documents
All Indexes (GW & FW), and Codexes: GK, SM, CSM Per Warhammer Community, the previewed Chapter Approved rules for Objective Secured, Boots on the Ground (Flyer Battlefield Role units cannot control Objectives), and the updated +1 to go first First Turn mechanic
2,000 points, maximum of the 3 suggested detachments for that size
Warlord & Chapter Relic (the free one) must be included on your Army List
Psychic Powers, Warlord Traits, and additional Relics due to Command Point usage are all determined pregame.
For Objective Secured:
On August 9, 2017, the Warhammer Community site introduced the Objective Secured rule and its planned use at NOVA Open. Since Chapter Approved is still forthcoming, Games Workshop clarified for us which Factions gain Objective Secured for the NOVA Open. To wit:
If your army is Battle-forged, all Troops units in <Faction> Detachments gain this ability, so long as their Faction is one of the following: Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Astra Militarum, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Ministorum, Asuryani, Drukhari, Harlequins, Chaos Daemons, Renegades & Heretics, Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Necrons, T’au Empire, Orks, <Hive Fleet>, and Genestealer Cults.
Troops units with Objective Secured that are within range of an objective marker (as specified in each mission's rules) control it even if there are more enemy models within range of it. If an enemy unit within range of an objective marker has a similar ability, then it is controlled by the player who has the most models within range as normal.
Note: Codex: Grey Knights, Codex: Chaos Space Marines, and Codex: Space Marines are explicitly not covered by Objective Secured because their Codexes provide a similar rule (i.e. Defenders of Humanity).
For Codex and Index conflicts on wargear options for the same unit, we will finalize a decision on that, but will likely require you to only use the newer Datasheets in all cases (including such things as using updated Horror datasheets and points from CSM when including them in primarily Index: Chaos Daemons armies) for Matched Play.
Final updates have been posted for the 40k Trios and 40k Narrative event primers.
40k Trios is pretty full and will be a big event, but still has a couple spots open if any teams want to jump in for a great way to start off the convention. This event was a blast last year and had a ton of amazing armies and team displays.
40k Narrative Warlords, Dayfights, and Nightfights are all sold out except for the opening night! That's almost twice as many players as last year! Glad many people are already planning to join us, and if you're not signed up but coming in Thursday evening, we'd love to have you as well! The heavily thematic missions were a lot of fun before, and they're even better under eighth edition. For example, because vehicles are more predictably durable, the Convoy mission is more achievable and has led to a bunch of super tight games.
40k Narrative Recon Squads skirmishes have slots available, and I think these will be even better this year. The format is a bit closer to regular play through a few 8e changes like every model having split fire all the time now. We also opened up reserves for units with such abilities, since as standard the majority can't go into reserve now, so Reiver squads and such now play straight to their fluff. The new Specialist Traits we came up with are also generally a lot more active and I think much more interesting than the previous list of USR traits. Join us if you've got a handful of models and ~90 minutes!
40k Narrative Apocalypse has some slots remaining. Should be overwhelming, chaotic, and also a great time, exactly as it should be. The scoring rules and to-be-revealed Strategic Resources earned in the course of the campaign will keep a lot of the focus on troops and regular units, not just a game of whoever brought the biggest model. This is going to be a really climactic way to end this year's narrative.
Question: For the relic mission. In the past if option 2 was selected(turn by turn scoring) the relic was not able to be picked up and moved. Is that still the case? It doesn't appear in the primer packet that I can find.
Did you decide something on the index vs codex front ?
Typically can SM have a librarian on bike ? The index has a "Librarian on bike" entry that does not exist in the codex (so not replaced per se). However regular librarian entry in the codex cannot take a bike.
Same question but for codex-less armies that use index SM units (like BA, DA, etc...)
Typically can SM have a librarian on bike ? The index has a "Librarian on bike" entry that does not exist in the codex (so not replaced per se). However regular librarian entry in the codex cannot take a bike.
Same question but for codex-less armies that use index SM units (like BA, DA, etc...)
Any datasheet was replaced by the codex. Same is true for their points, etc. If a Libby biker is only in the index (not that you'd want one other than for aesthetics), you can still use it. Moreover it must use the updated SM point list (to the extent it is able). So space wolves units that simply point at replaced SM gear, datasheets, points that have now been updated would use the updated points, etc. Obviously only <chapter> units for codex:sm can use the stratagems, abilities, etc from the latter part of the codex.
MVBrandt wrote: So space wolves units that simply point at replaced SM gear, datasheets, points that have now been updated would use the updated points, etc.
Unless I've missed a pronouncement (definitely possible), this contradicts what GW has been saying, e.g., the Q&A quoted below. Not that it doesn't make sense, but based on a local sampling it's not safe to assume players are going to realize this given previous prominent official statements to the opposite.
If I have a Blood Angels, Dark Angels or Space Wolves army, will I need to buy Codex: Space Marines to use my army? You don’t have to. Other Space Marines factions not covered in the new codex will continue to use all the datasheets, rules and points values in the index until their own codex is released. Rules for new models not covered in the index (like the upcoming Redemptor Dreadnought) will be available in the box with the model and matched play points for these units will be made available online.
MVBrandt wrote: So space wolves units that simply point at replaced SM gear, datasheets, points that have now been updated would use the updated points, etc.
Unless I've missed a pronouncement (definitely possible), this contradicts what GW has been saying, e.g., the Q&A quoted below. Not that it doesn't make sense, but based on a local sampling it's not safe to assume players are going to realize this given previous prominent official statements to the opposite.
If I have a Blood Angels, Dark Angels or Space Wolves army, will I need to buy Codex: Space Marines to use my army? You don’t have to. Other Space Marines factions not covered in the new codex will continue to use all the datasheets, rules and points values in the index until their own codex is released. Rules for new models not covered in the index (like the upcoming Redemptor Dreadnought) will be available in the box with the model and matched play points for these units will be made available online.
Those armies are certainly permitted to use their old index entries in lieu of purchasing a new codex, but may also use the updated datasheets for Codex SM that their own lists refer to.
Also, as an FYI to all, ONLINE REGISTRATION IS SHUTTING DOWN IMMINENTLY.
You may still sign up for things on-site, and there are plenty of events with spots left here and there. Nevertheless, we are looking at BY FAR the largest NOVA Open to date, with our largest single-year growth to date, and it's looking like we'll have over 2,000 people attend.
Huge year ... can't wait to see everyone next week!
Yup! Over 70 players in it this year, too. You'll have to register on site at this point but we're set up for the full GT by then, so there should be plenty of room.
I'm so glad that I double checked the times, and it looks like the GW Preview Event's pickup starts at 6, not closes at 6! I land at 5:20 and was really worried I wouldn't get over in time.
So Nick Nanavati doesn't learn until round 4 that the CSM extra attack strat is at end of melee(doesn't even have the reference himself). So for 3 rounds he potentially was attacking 3 times with 'zerks on the charge. At this level of play?
Fast and loose play. Hope this isn't systemic. Another reason I don't attend these. I'm not there to teach the game during a tournament.
You have to expect after 2 grand tourneys and conscript/plasma spam domination there is going to be some heavy nerfs in both chapter approved book and the newly announced astra militarum codex.
Also poor orks still sucking it big time through another edition.
Byte wrote: So Nick Nanavati doesn't learn until round 4 that the CSM extra attack strat is at end of melee(doesn't even have the reference himself). So for 3 rounds he potentially was attacking 3 times with 'zerks on the charge. At this level of play?
Fast and loose play. Hope this isn't systemic. Another reason I don't attend these. I'm not there to teach the game during a tournament.
I don't know where you heard that but there were errors, sure. It's a new edition. About a billion people forgot to do -1 from moving and shooting heavy weapons from what I saw and heard. People were disembarking and shooting after moving the transport too. I also saw Advancing while falling back and confusion over what step a Gulliman ressurected occurs (which is only notable cause there were like 30 Guilliman's).
Sucks if you lose a match for it, but I think people are forgiving that these placements might not be quite as solid as a result. Plus the whole Codex/No Codex issue.
The Best Coast Pairing are a little inaccurate when it comes down to top16 lists. The top16 at Nova (the 4-0 players that were in the top brackets before drops) looked more like: 7 Imperium players, 6 Chaos, 2 Tau players, and 1 Xenos player that I can't remember.
It's hard to tell from that pairing system since the highest players listed were NOT the top16 players, they were simply the players with the highest pts. AKA - the players that earned the most battle points (the players who stayed for all 8 rounds).
Byte wrote: So Nick Nanavati doesn't learn until round 4 that the CSM extra attack strat is at end of melee(doesn't even have the reference himself). So for 3 rounds he potentially was attacking 3 times with 'zerks on the charge. At this level of play?
Fast and loose play. Hope this isn't systemic. Another reason I don't attend these. I'm not there to teach the game during a tournament.
OMG they should ban him from ever playing again.
First, you won't play cause you were not invited, and after reading that comment I am glad you don't come as that attitude is exactly what ruins an opponent's fun as well. Pushing toy men around is not that serious.
Byte wrote: So Nick Nanavati doesn't learn until round 4 that the CSM extra attack strat is at end of melee(doesn't even have the reference himself). So for 3 rounds he potentially was attacking 3 times with 'zerks on the charge. At this level of play?
Fast and loose play. Hope this isn't systemic. Another reason I don't attend these. I'm not there to teach the game during a tournament.
OMG they should ban him from ever playing again.
First, you won't play cause you were not invited, and after reading that comment I am glad you don't come as that attitude is exactly what ruins an opponent's fun as well. Pushing toy men around is not that serious.
O..K.. So never mind entry fees, time off for travel, air fees, prizes going to the wrong people, etc. Your right, toy men. Well put. Got it, fast and loose, OK at a GT. Because fun!
Saythings wrote: The Best Coast Pairing are a little inaccurate when it comes down to top16 lists. The top16 at Nova (the 4-0 players that were in the top brackets before drops) looked more like: 7 Imperium players, 6 Chaos, 2 Tau players, and 1 Xenos player that I can't remember.
It's hard to tell from that pairing system since the highest players listed were NOT the top16 players, they were simply the players with the highest pts. AKA - the players that earned the most battle points (the players who stayed for all 8 rounds).
If that's true than where would we ever be able to see the actual winners list?
Byte wrote: So Nick Nanavati doesn't learn until round 4 that the CSM extra attack strat is at end of melee(doesn't even have the reference himself). So for 3 rounds he potentially was attacking 3 times with 'zerks on the charge. At this level of play?
Fast and loose play. Hope this isn't systemic. Another reason I don't attend these. I'm not there to teach the game during a tournament.
OMG they should ban him from ever playing again.
First, you won't play cause you were not invited, and after reading that comment I am glad you don't come as that attitude is exactly what ruins an opponent's fun as well. Pushing toy men around is not that serious.
O..K.. So never mind entry fees, time off for travel, air fees, prizes going to the wrong people, etc. Your right, toy men. Well put. Got it, fast and loose, OK at a GT. Because fun!
Even all of those items don't excuse you from calling out someone making a simple mistake for a codex that JUST came out and 8th Edition being only a few months old. Plus, GW already releasing several faq's. All of these things add to a learning curve. But hey if you can memorize every armies rules more power to you.
Byte wrote: So Nick Nanavati doesn't learn until round 4 that the CSM extra attack strat is at end of melee(doesn't even have the reference himself). So for 3 rounds he potentially was attacking 3 times with 'zerks on the charge. At this level of play?
Fast and loose play. Hope this isn't systemic. Another reason I don't attend these. I'm not there to teach the game during a tournament.
OMG they should ban him from ever playing again.
First, you won't play cause you were not invited, and after reading that comment I am glad you don't come as that attitude is exactly what ruins an opponent's fun as well. Pushing toy men around is not that serious.
O..K.. So never mind entry fees, time off for travel, air fees, prizes going to the wrong people, etc. Your right, toy men. Well put. Got it, fast and loose, OK at a GT. Because fun!
Even all of those items don't excuse you from calling out someone making a simple mistake for a codex that JUST came out and 8th Edition being only a few months old. Plus, GW already releasing several faq's. All of these things add to a learning curve. But hey if you can memorize every armies rules more power to you.
A simple mistake is something in your OPPONENTS favor, not your own. I have played. Some of these 'celebs' at GTs. They seem pretty fast and loose to me until its my turn.
I'm not sure why there's the need to complain so much for someone who "doesn't go to these" anyway.
Over 2,000 people enjoyed an amazing con, and I'm enormously grateful to the volunteers, vendors, and volunteers themselves for making this the most heartwarming and awesome NOVA yet.
It looks like we also raised nearly or more than $60,000 for charity (they're still balancing the sheets)!
Saythings wrote: The Best Coast Pairing are a little inaccurate when it comes down to top16 lists. The top16 at Nova (the 4-0 players that were in the top brackets before drops) looked more like: 7 Imperium players, 6 Chaos, 2 Tau players, and 1 Xenos player that I can't remember.
It's hard to tell from that pairing system since the highest players listed were NOT the top16 players, they were simply the players with the highest pts. AKA - the players that earned the most battle points (the players who stayed for all 8 rounds).
If that's true than where would we ever be able to see the actual winners list?
I'm not 100% sure how you'd get the top lists. Even the win/loss order from that app is a little off. I got 5th overall (according to the app) - but I went 3-1 the first 4 games, then I went 4-0 in the brackets and won the 3rd bracket.
I just pointed it out so people didn't see the "top 16 rankings" and assume that was the 16 players that made it 4-0 (and logically placed top16).
Saythings wrote: The Best Coast Pairing are a little inaccurate when it comes down to top16 lists. The top16 at Nova (the 4-0 players that were in the top brackets before drops) looked more like: 7 Imperium players, 6 Chaos, 2 Tau players, and 1 Xenos player that I can't remember.
It's hard to tell from that pairing system since the highest players listed were NOT the top16 players, they were simply the players with the highest pts. AKA - the players that earned the most battle points (the players who stayed for all 8 rounds).
If that's true than where would we ever be able to see the actual winners list?
I'm not 100% sure how you'd get the top lists. Even the win/loss order from that app is a little off. I got 5th overall (according to the app) - but I went 3-1 the first 4 games, then I went 4-0 in the brackets and won the 3rd bracket.
I just pointed it out so people didn't see the "top 16 rankings" and assume that was the 16 players that made it 4-0 (and logically placed top16).
Go to the pairings for Game 5. The top 8 tables are the people who made the top bracket. You can look at their lists.
MVBrandt wrote: I'm not sure why there's the need to complain so much for someone who "doesn't go to these" anyway.
Because it precisely illustrates why I don't go. Also your reply cleary defines the support of "fast and loose" play. You insight should be, "Ill have to see if this was a factor in his 3 prior games." Nah.
Byte wrote: So Nick Nanavati doesn't learn until round 4 that the CSM extra attack strat is at end of melee(doesn't even have the reference himself). So for 3 rounds he potentially was attacking 3 times with 'zerks on the charge. At this level of play?
Fast and loose play. Hope this isn't systemic. Another reason I don't attend these. I'm not there to teach the game during a tournament.
OMG they should ban him from ever playing again.
First, you won't play cause you were not invited, and after reading that comment I am glad you don't come as that attitude is exactly what ruins an opponent's fun as well. Pushing toy men around is not that serious.
O..K.. So never mind entry fees, time off for travel, air fees, prizes going to the wrong people, etc. Your right, toy men. Well put. Got it, fast and loose, OK at a GT. Because fun!
Even all of those items don't excuse you from calling out someone making a simple mistake for a codex that JUST came out and 8th Edition being only a few months old. Plus, GW already releasing several faq's. All of these things add to a learning curve. But hey if you can memorize every armies rules more power to you.
A simple mistake is something in your OPPONENTS favor, not your own. I have played. Some of these 'celebs' at GTs. They seem pretty fast and loose to me until its my turn.
This man speaks the truth. He'll get flamed, but truth.
I may not be there rolling dice, but Ive watched the matches for years. I see/saw it.
I have to add this isnt whole sale. Example, Ive played Mike Taylor. Hes a gentleman.
MVBrandt wrote: I'm not sure why there's the need to complain so much for someone who "doesn't go to these" anyway.
Because it precisely illustrates why I don't go. Also your reply cleary defines the support of "fast and loose" play. You insight should be, "Ill have to see if this was a factor in his 3 prior games." Nah.
Byte wrote: So Nick Nanavati doesn't learn until round 4 that the CSM extra attack strat is at end of melee(doesn't even have the reference himself). So for 3 rounds he potentially was attacking 3 times with 'zerks on the charge. At this level of play?
Fast and loose play. Hope this isn't systemic. Another reason I don't attend these. I'm not there to teach the game during a tournament.
OMG they should ban him from ever playing again.
First, you won't play cause you were not invited, and after reading that comment I am glad you don't come as that attitude is exactly what ruins an opponent's fun as well. Pushing toy men around is not that serious.
O..K.. So never mind entry fees, time off for travel, air fees, prizes going to the wrong people, etc. Your right, toy men. Well put. Got it, fast and loose, OK at a GT. Because fun!
Even all of those items don't excuse you from calling out someone making a simple mistake for a codex that JUST came out and 8th Edition being only a few months old. Plus, GW already releasing several faq's. All of these things add to a learning curve. But hey if you can memorize every armies rules more power to you.
A simple mistake is something in your OPPONENTS favor, not your own. I have played. Some of these 'celebs' at GTs. They seem pretty fast and loose to me until its my turn.
This man speaks the truth. He'll get flamed, but truth.
I may not be there rolling dice, but Ive watched the matches for years. I see/saw it.
I have to add this isnt whole sale. Example, Ive played Mike Taylor. Hes a gentleman.
How do you propose he find out if it effected his earlier games? And what would you have him do about it? Ban Nick? Kick him out? re-do the scoring for all those games (how much impact did it have?, do his opponents get full point wins?) re-pair the entire 250 player event? On some level it is opponents responsibility to ask to see the rules if they feel something is off. Which is why they may seem fast and loose until it is your turn. They will play the game unless you ask them a question about their rules. Now you may not want to need to do this, but it is the case. Personally I'm more likely to buy things being an honest mistake until proven otherwise.
Honestly, anything more than, "why should you care, your not in the event". Guess everybody is happy. Who am I to stir a fuss.
Your right, Ive played high level 40k for years. Its always the option of abusing what your opponent doesnt know. I dont play that way but I can spot it. Because I do study all the material.
Byte wrote: Honestly, anything more than, "why should you care, your not in the event". Guess everybody is happy. Who am I to stir a fuss.
Your right, Ive played high level 40k for years. Its always the option of abusing what your opponent doesnt know. I dont play that way but I can spot it. Because I do study all the material.
Not really an answer. In a tournament you really cannot go back and fix prior results, until such a time as all games are judged tableside it is incumbent upon each player to ensure the rules are played correctly.
On some level it is opponents responsibility to ask to see the rules if they feel something is off. Which is why they may seem fast and loose until it is your turn. They will play the game unless you ask them a question about their rules. Now you may not want to need to do this, but it is the case. Personally I'm more likely to buy things being an honest mistake until proven otherwise.
Absolutely NO! In a high level tournament, actually any tournament for that matter, your opponent should know how to play their army correctly, period, full stop. There is no excuse for them not to know the rules for the army they are playing and they should be playing them correctly. I think it is crazy for anyone to know all the rules, and you should not be expected too, for the sole reason of making sure your opponent is playing correctly. I know people hate the C word but if I'm playing in a Major tournament and my opponent is not playing his army correctly, and it is in his favor, there would be no doubt in my mind that I was being cheated period. No excuse for not knowing the rules for your army, I thought that was why all the tournament organizers were involved in play testing to make the game easier to play so stuff like this did not happen!?!
On some level it is opponents responsibility to ask to see the rules if they feel something is off. Which is why they may seem fast and loose until it is your turn. They will play the game unless you ask them a question about their rules. Now you may not want to need to do this, but it is the case. Personally I'm more likely to buy things being an honest mistake until proven otherwise.
Absolutely NO! In a high level tournament, actually any tournament for that matter, your opponent should know how to play their army correctly, period, full stop. There is no excuse for them not to know the rules for the army they are playing and they should be playing them correctly. I think it is crazy for anyone to know all the rules, and you should not be expected too, for the sole reason of making sure your opponent is playing correctly. I know people hate the C word but if I'm playing in a Major tournament and my opponent is not playing his army correctly, and it is in his favor, there would be no doubt in my mind that I was being cheated period. No excuse for not knowing the rules for your army, I thought that was why all the tournament organizers were involved in play testing to make the game easier to play so stuff like this did not happen!?!
So people cannot misread things or make mistakes? You don't need to know the rules to every army to not take your opponents word for how his army works. You don't need to know all the rules to go "hey that seems really strong, can I see the rules for that ability?". Then you read the rules and say "hey, it doesn't work like that." It isn't about knowing all the rules, it is about checking them when something seems powerful to make sure it really is. Especially if you don't know all the rules. If you as the opponent know all the rules, then you will know when things are right or wrong. IF you don't ask.
If only people who never misread rules, never make mistakes about rules, or play things incorrectly are allowed at tournaments, events will be very small. People make way more mistakes than they think they do when playing.
It partly because there are people glad to let cheaters off the hook that there is still a lot of it going on now. When someone makes every mistake that benefits them I don't think that is a matter of "not knowing the rules".
Primark G wrote: It partly because there are people glad to let cheaters off the hook that there is still a lot of it going on now. When someone makes every mistake that benefits them I don't think that is a matter of "not knowing the rules".
Assumes every mistake made benefits the player making those mistakes. But even given that it is incumbent upon opponents to police this because judges cannot do so. Unless every time the internet loses their mind that player should be banned from every event forever is your solution. Which will result in the end of tournament streaming because no one will every want to play on a stream.
You say I should question my opponent if I think something is to powerful, and guess what, he would have gave me the wrong answer because he did not know the rules for his army!. it was only caught because he did play someone that knew his rules, that is not OK, no I should not have to police my opponent. If you are playing in a tournament that has prizes, and people potentially paid thousands of dollars to attend, you should know, at the very least, how to play your army correctly. No I do not think there is an excuse for this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless every time the internet loses their mind that player should be banned from every event forever is your solution.
Make stuff up much? No one said this and I don't believe it. I would be fine if he was not allowed to win anything, and he should have apologized to his previous opponents, which he might have. Lesson learned, and study your rules for the next tournament.
ChainswordHeretic wrote: You say I should question my opponent if I think something is to powerful, and guess what, he would have gave me the wrong answer because he did not know the rules for his army!. it was only caught because he did play someone that knew his rules, that is not OK, no I should not have to police my opponent. If you are playing in a tournament that has prizes, and people potentially paid thousands of dollars to attend, you should know, at the very least, how to play your army correctly. No I do not think there is an excuse for this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless every time the internet loses their mind that player should be banned from every event forever is your solution.
Make stuff up much? No one said this and I don't believe it. I would be fine if he was not allowed to win anything, and he should have apologized to his previous opponents, which he might have. Lesson learned, and study your rules for the next tournament.
You ask him to SEE the rules, you know in his INDEX/CODEX. So you can read them. If he does not have the "official print/digital copy of the rules" call a judge as the rules packet requires him to have them. So no he wouldn't give you the wrong answer. Hence "can I see the rules for that?" not "what does that do?" Sorry most people make mistakes with their armies, it is incumbent upon people to police their own games, because you are the first line of arbitration for rules mistakes.
He didn't win anything, no idea if he apologized. But most people that complain about this stuff want people to be shunned by the community because they made mistakes. Doing so means tournament streaming ends because no one will want to be shunned for their mistakes made on camera.
ChainswordHeretic wrote: You say I should question my opponent if I think something is to powerful, and guess what, he would have gave me the wrong answer because he did not know the rules for his army!. it was only caught because he did play someone that knew his rules, that is not OK, no I should not have to police my opponent. If you are playing in a tournament that has prizes, and people potentially paid thousands of dollars to attend, you should know, at the very least, how to play your army correctly. No I do not think there is an excuse for this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless every time the internet loses their mind that player should be banned from every event forever is your solution.
Make stuff up much? No one said this and I don't believe it. I would be fine if he was not allowed to win anything, and he should have apologized to his previous opponents, which he might have. Lesson learned, and study your rules for the next tournament.
You Sir, are one sharp individual. *Respectful bow *
ChainswordHeretic wrote: You say I should question my opponent if I think something is to powerful, and guess what, he would have gave me the wrong answer because he did not know the rules for his army!. it was only caught because he did play someone that knew his rules, that is not OK, no I should not have to police my opponent. If you are playing in a tournament that has prizes, and people potentially paid thousands of dollars to attend, you should know, at the very least, how to play your army correctly. No I do not think there is an excuse for this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless every time the internet loses their mind that player should be banned from every event forever is your solution.
Make stuff up much? No one said this and I don't believe it. I would be fine if he was not allowed to win anything, and he should have apologized to his previous opponents, which he might have. Lesson learned, and study your rules for the next tournament.
You ask him to SEE the rules, you know in his INDEX/CODEX. So you can read them. If he does not have the "official print/digital copy of the rules" call a judge as the rules packet requires him to have them. So no he wouldn't give you the wrong answer. Hence "can I see the rules for that?" not "what does that do?" Sorry most people make mistakes with their armies, it is incumbent upon people to police their own games, because you are the first line of arbitration for rules mistakes.
He didn't win anything, no idea if he apologized. But most people that complain about this stuff want people to be shunned by the community because they made mistakes. Doing so means tournament streaming ends because no one will want to be shunned for their mistakes made on camera.
Not sure one of the GTs most successful legendary players will get "shunned". So thats a awkward stretch.
FYI- He couldnt produce the rule. He didnt have a copy. So what was your point?
That if the first player that he played asked for clarification, this would have come out, and been addressed. My point is the idea that people shouldn't have to ask to see rules is a silly stance, that we should just trust that our opponent knows all the rules to their army, and is playing them correctly is a poor place to start for a tournament player.
As to how the event addressed him not having a copy of his rules. That is up to the event, but it would have come up round 1 if his opponent asked to see the rules. I have more issue with "not having copies of rules" than making a mistake in how rules are played.
Which words the one where you said if mistakes fall in favor of the player he is cheating?
First of all you're talking to the wrong person, second of all I did not say that. I said I would think/feel I was cheated. If I give you a twenty and find out later I got change for a ten I would think I was cheated, that does not mean I know the intent of the other person, but I have every right to think I was cheated. The same as if you are giving your close combat troops another attack they do not have, I have every right to feel like I was cheated. That's why doing something about these issues should matter because it effects the people he played due to no fault of there own.
ChainswordHeretic wrote: First of all you're talking to the wrong person, second of all I did not say that. I said I would think/feel I was cheated. If I give you a twenty and find out later I got change for a ten I would think I was cheated, that does not mean I know the intent of the other person, but I have every right to think I was cheated. The same as if you are giving your close combat troops another attack they do not have, I have every right to feel like I was cheated. That's why doing something about these issues should matter because it effects the people he played due to no fault of there own.
what are you even talking about, the post where I quoted a different poster? Who said exactly that the player making mistakes is cheating. And I responded to him not to you?
I also disagree that they have no fault in their results. They could have asked to see the rules. Your stance is that they should never have to question their opponents grasp on the rules. I disagree. It doesn't mean they have not right to feel salty about losing if the mistake resulted in their loss, but they are not devoid of responsibility any more than they would be if they forgot to move a unit turn 5 and lost the game.
That is up to the event, but it would have come up round 1 if his opponent asked to see the rules.
How would I know to ask? I am not playing his army I am playing mine. Why should I know the rules for his army and the guy that is playing it shouldn't? Are you serious or just Trolling I honestly do not know?
That is up to the event, but it would have come up round 1 if his opponent asked to see the rules.
How would I know to ask? I am not playing his army I am playing mine. Why should I know the rules for his army and the guy that is playing it shouldn't? Are you serious or just Trolling I honestly do not know?
If a rule seems strong to you, you ask to see the rule. You don't need to know anything about the other army at all. If I'm playing a guy and he says. This gun is Assault 40 S10 Ap -5 2D6 damage, I'm going to say "woah that's crazy, do you mind if I see the rules for that." Same as a stratagem that I'm unfamiliar with and my opponent tells me it lets him attack 3 times in a row. The problem is often more that people are too proud to admit that they don't know their opponents rules, and hear things from forums about chaos having a stratagem that lets khorne units attack again, and say. "oh yeah he can totally do that"
I just assume that if something feels too good it may well be. IT might not be, but why not assume that it is and see the rules.
Your "victimize the victims" approach is amateur. Dudes are playing one of the biggest players in the USA. Some assumptions can/could be made. Heck he probably help develop 8th edition through play testing and feedback.
At the highest level of play(players). A "headliner" should know his army and have the references. Dont be an enabler.
Unless the NOVA boss cares, which seems he doesnt. This is all a waste of time. Im done. Glad everybody had fun.
That is up to the event, but it would have come up round 1 if his opponent asked to see the rules.
How would I know to ask? I am not playing his army I am playing mine. Why should I know the rules for his army and the guy that is playing it shouldn't? Are you serious or just Trolling I honestly do not know?
If a rule seems strong to you, you ask to see the rule. You don't need to know anything about the other army at all.
Sorry mate but this is just silly amounts of contradictory nonsense.
How on earth are you seriously expecting someone to suspect a rule is BS without any knowledge of the army? This is so unreasonable in a timed event, why not ask them to read their opponents lists and codex completely prior to first turn? Seems just as reasonable to me. /s
Byte wrote: Your "victimize the victims" approach is amateur. Dudes are playing one of the biggest players in the USA. Some assumptions can/could be made. Heck he probably help develop 8th edition through play testing and feedback.
At the highest level of play(players). A "headliner" should know his army and have the references. Dont be an enabler.
Unless the NOVA boss cares, which seems he doesnt. This is all a waste of time. Im done. Glad everybody had fun.
To my knowledge he is not a playtester but I honestly don't know. I just don't understand the blind trust in players you all seem to have.
It was extra close combat attacks for Chaos, they are supposed to be good in close combat. I am not too proud to admit that I don't know my opponents rules and I feel it is rude to constantly question my opponent if he does. If he does know his rules and I keep questioning him, on what he is doing, how do you think he is going to feel? I will ask again why should I know, or know enough, of my opponent's rules but he should not?
I just assume that if something feels too good it may well be. IT might not be, but why not assume that it is and see the rules.
Why didn't the player follow this metric? It sure is odd we never see players misinterpreting the rules at a detriment too their army?
That is up to the event, but it would have come up round 1 if his opponent asked to see the rules.
How would I know to ask? I am not playing his army I am playing mine. Why should I know the rules for his army and the guy that is playing it shouldn't? Are you serious or just Trolling I honestly do not know?
If a rule seems strong to you, you ask to see the rule. You don't need to know anything about the other army at all.
Sorry mate but this is just silly amounts of contradictory nonsense.
How on earth are you seriously expecting someone to suspect a rule is BS without any knowledge of the army? This is so unreasonable in a timed event, why not ask them to read their opponents lists and codex completely prior to first turn? Seems just as reasonable to me. /s
It is not unreasonable at all. How can people not expect to question rules that seem off? Seriously asking, you all just blind trust all the rules your opponent quotes and assume they play them right? It literally takes 5 seconds to check a suspicious rule. he says "I'm using x stratagem, to attack again." I say, "you can attack 3 times in a row, can I see that rule." He opens to the page and hands me the book (or hands me the stratagem card if he has it.), I read the rule. It literally does not slow the game down a ton. Most things are going to seem pretty reasonable. I literally have copies of all my data sheets just incase my opponent wants to see a rule, I can provide it quickly. ( I also have a hard copy of the book on hand). If something does not seem too powerful you assume it is no issue and keep going. Is it only me that hears a powerful rule and goes "You can do what now!!!?" I guess I need to play you guys because I can cheat up a storm by making rules up. "I'll spend this command point to give my orks +6" to my charge roll." I mean you don't know my rules, so how can you suspect something might be wrong and ask me to see the stratagem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChainswordHeretic wrote: It was extra close combat attacks for Chaos, they are supposed to be good in close combat. I am not too proud to admit that I don't know my opponents rules and I feel it is rude to constantly question my opponent if he does. If he does know his rules and I keep questioning him, on what he is doing, how do you think he is going to feel? I will ask again why should I know, or know enough, of my opponent's rules but he should not?
I just assume that if something feels too good it may well be. IT might not be, but why not assume that it is and see the rules.
Why didn't the player follow this metric? It sure is odd we never see players misinterpreting the rules at a detriment too their army?
I see players misinterpret rules to their detriment all the time. Maybe he misread the rule and thought he knew it. Way back in 5e I played my Tervigon as S6 for a while, never realizing it was S5 because every other tyranid monster was S6. Someone asked me about it and I learned I had it wrong. Now this is something that might not get caught without knowledge, but bigger things like the rule in question likely will be.
How are you supposed to suspect something is off? Thats the part of your argument that is most ridiculous. There is no objective measure so basically your expecting players to guess which rules seem unreasonable OR question everything. Neither things presented there help the situation.
Red Corsair wrote: How are you supposed to suspect something is off? Thats the part of your argument that is most ridiculous. There is no objective measure so basically your expecting players to guess which rules seem unreasonable OR question everything. Neither things presented there help the situation.
So again if I'm playing orks and I tell you a 1 CP stratagem lets me add 6" to my charge, you don't think that might be off? Asking seriously? You won't catch every mistake, but you will catch most large mistakes, (or find horribly broken rules). I mean seriously you have no barometer for things that seem OP? Were it me I would have thought "Berserkers get to attack 3 consecutive times on the charge before I get to do anything. wow that is powerful." At which point what does it hurt to ask? Or when I played against a helforged Cerberus, I asked to see the rules for the main gun because they were crazy powerful and complex. So you are making "educated guesses" about which rules seem off to you? What is your alternative solution? No one makes mistakes? TOs retroactively fix things after mistakes have been made?
Another example from the GT but from a less successful and famous player:
I met a gentleman playing Sisters, and played against him. Told him the Exorcist did d3, not d6 damage. We looked it up, and sure enough, it did d3.
He immediately apologized, and 1) played it correctly henceforth and 2) expressed at least to me sincere regret that his previous opponents in the GT had suffered the Exorcist's d6 damage.
And it's an honest mistake! The rule doesn't seem "too powerful" - after all, they were fantastic anti-tank weapons in earlier editions - and it is an easy mistake to make, especially when writing lists. In fact, the only reason I happened to remember is it seemed ridiculously UNDERpowered so I read it and read it again to make sure.
People make mistakes, the guy was contrite and expressed his regret that he had erred, and we moved on with the game.
When people are playing 8 games in 3 days, fatigue sets in. Combined with a new rules edition vastly different from the old and a withering hail of new information about everything in your army, things become confused or mistaken.
Primark G wrote: With all the new rules it is very hard to say and who has time to read them all... you are being silly or trolling hard.
I specifically mentioned not needing to know all the rules and still catching at least major mistakes. I probably would catch the mistake in unit's example for instance because it does not seem way out of whack. Whereas attacking 3 times in a row does. Apparently I'm the oy one whoAsks to see my opponents rules.
Dude, you are saying we should question every rule written by GW that seems overpowered!?! Read that again slowly and think about it before responding.
Have your rulebook bookmarked within an inch of it's life.
Have your Codex also bookmarked within an inch of it's life.
Have printouts of FAQ's and stickinotes stating the new rules on the page affected referencing the FAQ.
It is dumb in the extreme to not have all your reference material: you have no evidence what you say is right.
As an opponent, seeing someone that could not be bothered to bring their books seems to push the "casual play" a bit too far in that setting.
I have met too many WAAC players that like to push a "make it up as I go" remembering of rules who conveniently forget their books so I am leary of that kind of thing.
MY problem is living through 2nd edition up to our present 8th edition and darndest stuff gets misremembered from prior editions.
In a way, the stats changes is a blessing: less to get confused over.
ChainswordHeretic wrote: Dude, you are saying we should question every rule written by GW that seems overpowered!?! Read that again slowly and think about it before responding.
Yes, if you are unfamiliar with it absolutely. Unless you plan to memorize every other Mary how else will you know you aren't getting cheated?
To be fair this edition is still on the fast and furious mode and hasn't really settled down yet. You can't get to worked up with mistakes unless someone's being a douche. I'm hoping things settle down after the release of the chapter approved books pay for FAQs point nerfs (apparently including fw) and the release of the astra militarum nerf codex. At that point other then a few underpowered codexs there should be more parity. That's if gw does a good job with the chapter approved book with points adjustments. I know that's asking a lot.
Nobody is getting worked up over it, the problem is there are people who simply don't take it seriously. How do they expect the fast and loose crowd to get their crap together if there are no repercussions? It's also completely asinine to suggest it's somehow the fault of the players being cheated for not catching it, which BTW, what would that matter since apparently after he was caught no action was taken?
Red Corsair wrote: Nobody is getting worked up over it, the problem is there are people who simply don't take it seriously. How do they expect the fast and loose crowd to get their crap together if there are no repercussions? It's also completely asinine to suggest it's somehow the fault of the players being cheated for not catching it, which BTW, what would that matter since apparently after he was caught no action was taken?
The point is if you catch a persons mistake you don't get cheated. There is a crowd of people that seem to want to see punishment for people making mistakes. They are apparently perfect and have never misplayed a rule, and want those that make mistakes to be disqualified because that will stop them from ever making mistakes again. The only way to really cut down on "mistakes" is to create an environment where people question rules and catch those mistakes regularly and early and allow players to correct
Things right off the bat.
Red Corsair wrote: Nobody is getting worked up over it, the problem is there are people who simply don't take it seriously. How do they expect the fast and loose crowd to get their crap together if there are no repercussions? It's also completely asinine to suggest it's somehow the fault of the players being cheated for not catching it, which BTW, what would that matter since apparently after he was caught no action was taken?
The point is if you catch a persons mistake you don't get cheated. There is a crowd of people that seem to want to see punishment for people making mistakes. They are apparently perfect and have never misplayed a rule, and want those that make mistakes to be disqualified because that will stop them from ever making mistakes again. The only way to really cut down on "mistakes" is to create an environment where people question rules and catch those mistakes regularly and early and allow players to correct
Things right off the bat.
Wait what? Now who is being dramatic?
First off, intent is basically impossible to prove.
Second, why should players EVER play accurately or correctly if there are absolutely no consequences for errors? All they need do is faint stupidity and they have folks like you to defend them.
Thirdly, you really are failing at defending your position when your suggesting it's somehow impossible for people to know the BASIC rules for THEIR unit entries. For such a pro I really am mind blown he manages to fuss up Khorne Berserkers. Nobody is perfect sure, but it's overly dramatic and bullcrap to suggest it requires perfection to know your units entries, or heck maybe have the source handy so you can check rather then assume an advantage. But wait he didn't have the source either, something that's required btw.
BTW did he voluntarily drop from standings when he was discovered?
I'm super entertained by lots of people who weren't at the con or the 40KGT arguing about what should have happened in an event that included only 10% of the attending population.
MVBrandt wrote: I'm super entertained by lots of people who weren't at the con or the 40KGT arguing about what should have happened in an event that included only 10% of the attending population.
So we raised nearly $60K for charity ...
No kidding. As someone who attended the GT, it was awesome and no more mistakes were made than I believe to be reasonable.
Also yay charity money! I bought all of my opponents a drink at the Foundation Lounge, and then some. Gin and tonics!
MVBrandt wrote: I'm super entertained by lots of people who weren't at the con or the 40KGT arguing about what should have happened in an event that included only 10% of the attending population.
Thanks for the link ... so a player was doing something wrong unwittingly, his opponent caught it, they amicably figured it out, and the game moved on with 0 angst. And it impacted nothing. Seems pretty legit to me!
For the audience of folks who don't go to GTs due to misconceptions like Byte's, they are not events for high level MTG-style play. They are events for socializing and making buddies. These 2 players in particular are common on the circuit, typically do well because they are good players (Whether or not they ace rules all the time), and are buddies. I would hope one player being in his pajamas would indicate the level of HARDCOAR GET IT ALL PERFEKTZ involved ... vs "play hard have fun do your best."
I think in most sporting events if there's a rules screw-up there's usually just a proportionate forfeit. In (American) football, for example, minor rules infractions generally just move the offensive team back down the field to negate any advantage (intentional or not) from the rules break.
In this case, we can't really figure out retroactively what would have happened if the rule was done right without a photographic memory and rolling a lot of hypothetical dice. Simple answer would probably have just been to put a bonus negative on the player's score for those two matches to counter-balance his standing.
If 40k becomes more competitive and popular, which it might not but GW seems to be trying for both, increasingly competitive people will attend tournaments. New faces will appear and we might not be able to fall back on "I know that guy". Probably good to have something as a contingency. Otherwise you can leave a bad taste in some peoples' mouths (like Byte).
On the other issue, I think it's insane to say that in a game this voluminous with its rules you should have to memorize your opponent's. Nu-uh. In an ideal world, we'd have a judge assigned to each table who would supervise every match, but no 40kGT has that kind of resources. So players have to pick up some of the burden and at least know their own rules thoroughly. I don't think we're so far gone we can't trust our opponents to not knowingly lie or cheat.
Byte wrote: Again, PJ Pants knew to ask(circuit regular, your words). Did his prior 3 opponents? Nobody cares. Sheep to the slaughter folks. Your money.
Yay! Fun! Fast and loose! We're all friends here!
Lipstick on a pig dude.
So since we're down to one particular uninvolved third-party hammering this particular dead horse for their own amusement completely devoid of context, I'll bite.
I've judged at both Adepticon and NOVA and numerous smaller regional events--I've both played at and been involved in running/judging games at the level of play being discussed here.
So I'm hopefully qualified to tell you why you're wrong, but first let's clarify a couple things:
Byte wrote: However, if this is the new normal/standard for Grand Tournaments endorsed by GW, NOVA and ITC, I get it.
This is not the "new" anything. This is how tournaments always have been run, and always will be run, as it's a concrete necessity of the game and the format. You don't understand why and are instead shouting about the bits that aren't perfect--nobody would argue that they are--and that's fine. I'm here to help.
Byte wrote: Just another good 'ol boys network. Check. I'll pass.
What a cute little means to imply that Nick's status as a known tournament player was the deciding factor in how this situation was handled, without actually saying it, since it's obviously untrue. This is exactly how this situation would be handled on table 202 between Little Timmy and Johnny Fluff, and anyone even remotely involved in the tournament scene knows that. Good thing that's out of the way.
So let's get to the heart of the situation--here's the quick-and-dirty as to how the judging situation works at a major 40k event:
The primary onus of ensuring your opponent plays correctly is on you. This one is bold because it's the most important one. It's the most important one because, unfortunately, 40k events cannot provide 250 trained judges to spectate each table and ensure the game is being played correctly. In my personal opinion, there's honestly about 10 people in the entire country qualified to perform judging at that level, were it actually required in the first place. But the game and the format do not allow for this to be the case even were it not entirely impossible from the outset.
Given that we've established that the primary responsibility for ensuring the game is played correctly is on the players themselves, what is the responsibility of the event?
The event is responsible for providing you the means to confirm and enforce the rules. If you say "hey, guy, I think you're doing that wrong" and he says "no I'm not" you've reached an impasse and it's time for the event to get involved. This is where judges come in (and, in an earlier fashion, FAQs/event format rulings) and are expected to provide coherent, consistent, and (when possible) correct rulings for players. But again--this can only occur once brought to their attention. The primary onus is still on the player to bring issues before the judges, as the ~10 staff members walking the halls at a major GT are not psychically aware of your rules dispute from across the hall. Once an issue has been brought to their attention, the issue should be resolved and the incorrect party should be forced to play correctly--anything less is a failure of the event or the judges, and these things do happen, but are certainly minimal by comparison to the number of issues brought up.
These two things are not up for debate--they are absolute truths, until trained high-level judges start growing on trees and major events find dumpsters full of cash to fly them out and pay them to do nothing but walk around and get yelled at all weekend.
So the only remaining issue is: what do we do when a rule is played incorrectly?
This is where you've taken your stand--insisting that, as a rule was incorrect, something must be done to teach someone a lesson lest we all devolve into madness and everyone openly cheats for their own benefit with nothing possibly being done to stop it.
The current situation plays out exactly as seen in the game being critiqued, and as I laid out above: the rule in question is corrected, and to be played correctly from then on.
But what about the other opponents from earlier rounds who were "cheated"? The primary responsibility was on them to question the rule during their game. Outside of physical, outright cheating (fixed dice, illegal lists, etc) a tournament is never going to alter a game result after the fact based on an incorrect rules play. This seems to be an enormous problem for some of you, so let's discuss why this is the case:
Currently, if your opponent misplays a rule, it's your responsibility to question it and notify a judge. That means if someone "cheats" you on a rule it is (in a way) "your fault," because the means were available to you to correct the situation, and you did not make use of them. That--as mentioned--is not a perfect situation. It sucks, and it happens at every tournament.
So let's flip the script and live in Byte's world for a moment where--as implied by prior comments--if you are found to have been playing a rule incorrectly, the game in which you did so (and any prior games) can retroactively be forfeited as a result.
Let's quickly make two things very, very clear:
99.99% of what you would refer to as "cheating" in the context being applied to the game in question is, obviously, not actually cheating. It's a player simply not playing a rule correctly by mistake. People get rules wrong all the time. Yes, even the top players. Ask them, because I make fun of them for it. Frequently.
The vast majority of the miniature wargaming community are great people, as evidenced by the fact that Mike was able to wring $60,000 out of them for charity even after they got done buying plastic men. However, a small handful of them are absolute dirtbags. You each know a couple of absolute dirtbags. They're out there, and some of them attend these events.
So what do you think happens when you, at a tournament policy-level, decide that misplaying a rule incorrectly is grounds for immediate disqualification? Aside from making the game into a paranoid nightmare, what is the primary fallout here?
Let's quickly combine those two facts above. What happens when Little Timmy accidentally thinks his Heavy Bolter is S6 against your local Absolute Dirtbag? Do you think Absolute Dirtbag is going to bring it to his attention for the good of the community?
No. You just disqualified Little Timmy. Congratulations.
By swapping the onus for correct play from the opponent to the players themselves (at threat of serious penalty), you immediately turn this game into an absolute trashfest. None of the games will be fun, because everyone is so scared of getting something wrong. The people who benefit the most are the people who are most willing to abuse minor mistakes to their benefit.
Now, there's obviously a counterpoint to this (because as mentioned, it's not a perfect system)--you can easily say the current situation allows the Absolute Dirtbag to intentionally misplay rules to his benefit until caught without penalty. That's unfortunately true, to a point--but even in a vacuum, that's a far better outcome than "gotcha!" disqualifications for any misplay. If you think otherwise, you must think you've been playing rules-flawless games of 40k, and I can assure you that you haven't. The worst-case in our current environment is that an Absolute Dirtbag gets to walk over a couple people until he runs into someone who knows better, but those people on the way had the opportunity and resources available to correct the misplays, and will know better in the future. The worst-case scenario in your environment is that misplays are intentionally ignored and later sprung upon lower-tier players for free wins.
In practice, there's much more going on here, because we know the vast majority of the Absolute Dirtbags of the wargaming community. Specific care is taken regarding people who are known problems, or who have a few too many rules corrected over the course of an event. These aren't the sort of things that can be written into tournament policy (as they're very case-by-case), but they're a real factor, and acted upon as necessary.
Now that the context for the decisions being made the way they are has been made clear, feel free to provide any insightful constructive thoughts on how you think that major events should change things for the betterment of the community without absolutely annihilating the game itself (and Little Timmy along with it), instead of just shouting and throwing garbage about how one tiny moment of one particular game (which bothered neither of the actual players in the slightest) was effectively a war crime.
First, of all, I did not say what I thought should happen until someone falsely stated I did, and it had nothing to do with banning. No prize and apologize to his previous opponents. No one said he should be banned that I saw. Second, you make it sound like this was between two fluff players and try to completely down play the competitive nature of these events. I know PJ pants and have played him; he is there to win having fun is secondary, that is fine, but don’t try to twist the competitive nature of these into some fluffy free for all to make your argument. People know what they are, and that is fine, there is nothing wrong with competitive events, I play in them too. The point you and others are trying to make is that it is on the opponent to catch someone playing wrong, but you completely make everything you said in your post meaningless with this statement
there's honestly about 10 people in the entire country qualified to perform judging at that level
. How can you think there are only ten judges that can possibly know all the rules but you expect the players too, and they should be able to catch every mistake, if not it's their fault? Yes it is up to the players to know their rules and you admit it's impossible for some one to know them all. So, you should at the very least know your rules for your army. That is what people are saying. It is nothing against the event, have never made but I only hear good things. It is nothing against judges, I would never want to do it. People just don't agree that it is OK for a top player to not know his own rules, and when called on it did not have the source materials availible. You can victim blame all you want but you will never get me or anyone else in this discussion to say that was not wrong. Know your rules and have them with you, isn't that a requirement of any tournament?
The worst thing about tournaments are the condescending/presumptive trolls who don't go to tournaments.
Actually your comments have been more condescending then most. In fact most of this debate was cause by your initial response which basically amounted to "You didn't attend? so off with your concerns..." which is a poor way to handle something like this. Myself and others have not blown this into any sort of major issue beyond stating it should at the very least be taken seriously and looked into. It's cheap and easy to just call us all the same mob though.
Players should know their own rules and despite that mistakes sill still happen but for me the most insane thing is him not having any of the needed rules to play with him. Hand wave that all you want, that is and has been a requirement of even the most laid back RTT since the games been out. You know something is off when a player actually asks a judge off table for a source he is supposed to have.
The worst thing about tournaments are the condescending/presumptive trolls who don't go to tournaments.
Actually your comments have been more condescending then most. In fact most of this debate was cause by your initial response which basically amounted to "You didn't attend? so off with your concerns..." which is a poor way to handle something like this. Myself and others have not blown this into any sort of major issue beyond stating it should at the very least be taken seriously and looked into. It's cheap and easy to just call us all the same mob though.
Players should know their own rules and despite that mistakes sill still happen but for me the most insane thing is him not having any of the needed rules to play with him. Hand wave that all you want, that is and has been a requirement of even the most laid back RTT since the games been out. You know something is off when a player actually asks a judge off table for a source he is supposed to have.
They have been. People pay far too much attention to the top table, and far too much attention to people making honest mistakes in events where their primary reason for being there is *not* "winning the tournament." I'm looking down my nose a bit because peanut gallery snipers who carp for multiple pages of thread on minor rules gaffes by the smallest % of players (the "top" guys) at massive events are a persistent problem in the hobby which often keeps interested passers-by from trying out what amounts to a giant gaming party for charity all weekend long. I *definitely* do not think all that highly of those who make too big a deal of what happens on the top tables. IDK what else to tell you. It is DEFINITELY hand wavey on my part; this issue is so comparatively irrelevant that I'm not exactly pleased with how much conversational space it's taken up. "I'm gonna do this thing." You're doing it wrong. "Oh, ok, I'll stop."
The worst thing about tournaments are the condescending/presumptive trolls who don't go to tournaments.
I do play at tournaments, I even have an overall trophy from a GWGT and best Team Theme from Adepticon, Real professional, stay classy.
So just to recap, there is no expectation the players in your tournament should know the rules for the army they are playing or have the source material available if a question arises, and if we disagree with that you resort to name calling.
The worst thing about tournaments are the condescending/presumptive trolls who don't go to tournaments.
I do play at tournaments, I even have an overall trophy from a GWGT and best Team Theme from Adepticon, Real professional, stay classy.
So just to recap, there is no expectation the players in your tournament should know the rules for the army they are playing or have the source material available if a question arises, and if we disagree with that you resort to name calling.
Once again stay classy.
I'm not presently trying to be classy. The expectation is the players who attend should know the rules and have the source material. If the question comes up and they don't, we talk to them, penalize if needed, and move along. This happened across the board. In this case, the mistake was honest and no penalty was needed. It also didn't impact the game. I'm glad you play at tournaments, and that you have an overall trophy, though once again winning a tournament means about as much to a tournament organizer as farting - you aren't the person the event is aimed at. Neither is Nick Nanavati. Maintaining a moderate approach to course corrections instead of penalties and forfeits at every error is vital to populating large events with a broad range of people there to have a good time. Applying harsh penalties to "good" players only is untenable, and I'm not about to go hunting down the mid-crowders and interrupting their fun to active judge every error they've made, identified, and corrected during play in order to penalize them. There's nothing logically actionable being suggested.
PS - Nick asking a judge what the rule was on the stream doesn't indicate he doesn't have the material to a guy who is busy supporting 212 attendees. People across the board ask rules they could look up all day long.
Byte wrote: A condescending troll? Peanut galley sniper? Wow.
Unexpected.
So I get labeled and flamed for pointing out a rule violation that (read slowly) may have mattered in his 3 prior games.
Your dismissive responses are annoying. Noted.
You went above and beyond merely pointing it out. If you had merely said: "hey, could this misinterpretation have affected earlier rounds?" Then the answer would be "Yup." And then we would have moved along.
So let's flip the script and live in Byte's world for a moment where--as implied by prior comments--if you are found to have been playing a rule incorrectly, the game in which you did so (and any prior games) can retroactively be forfeited as a result.
Let's quickly make two things very, very clear:
99.99% of what you would refer to as "cheating" in the context being applied to the game in question is, obviously, not actually cheating. It's a player simply not playing a rule correctly by mistake. People get rules wrong all the time. Yes, even the top players. Ask them, because I make fun of them for it. Frequently.
Reading comprehension.
I never said cheating.
I never said games should be forfeit.
Byte wrote: A condescending troll? Peanut galley sniper? Wow.
Unexpected.
So I get labeled and flamed for pointing out a rule violation that (read slowly) may have mattered in his 3 prior games.
Your dismissive responses are annoying. Noted.
You went above and beyond merely pointing it out. If you had merely said: "hey, could this misinterpretation have affected earlier rounds?" Then the answer would be "Yup." And then we would have moved along.
I did do that. The response was, "go away, you werent there'. Go back and read through.
Thank you Nick, that is the response I expected, and I am your target audience. I stopped playing competitive years ago and shoot for painting and batting .500 when I play. I get it is a thankless job and I at no point up until my last post did I attribute any blame on your tournament. What I was arguing, was people saying there is no responsibility on the player that was incorrect, and it is up to their opponent to catch them, and you confirmed that is not the case in your eyes. The only thing I would like to see in these situations is to get all of the opponents involved, let them know what happened, see if it effected them, and let the guy apologize. I little humble pie goes along way, I think the opponent's will appreciate it, and I think most of them will say no big deal. I would shoot for making everyone that was potentially involved happy instead of just the two guys in the current match, but I do understand sometimes that might not be feasible.
P.S. I did not watch the stream, I was going by what other people said, but if he did indeed have his material I apologize that is an accusation not to be taken lightly.
He didn't have the reference, he asked his opponent if he had the book. Just smoke and mirror bs. Like kids with chocolate figures claimng not to have gotten in the cookie jar.
Im not making this up. Its all clear as day.
There is no humble pie. Just elitists.
Its really is a damn shame. I guess "NOVA" is a community in itself. Not part of the gaming scene at large. Ok.
Byte wrote: Again, PJ Pants knew to ask(circuit regular, your words). Did his prior 3 opponents? Nobody cares. Sheep to the slaughter folks. Your money.
Yay! Fun! Fast and loose! We're all friends here!
Lipstick on a pig dude.
So since we're down to one particular uninvolved third-party hammering this particular dead horse for their own amusement completely devoid of context, I'll bite.
I've judged at both Adepticon and NOVA and numerous smaller regional events--I've both played at and been involved in running/judging games at the level of play being discussed here.
So I'm hopefully qualified to tell you why you're wrong, but first let's clarify a couple things:
Byte wrote: However, if this is the new normal/standard for Grand Tournaments endorsed by GW, NOVA and ITC, I get it.
This is not the "new" anything. This is how tournaments always have been run, and always will be run, as it's a concrete necessity of the game and the format. You don't understand why and are instead shouting about the bits that aren't perfect--nobody would argue that they are--and that's fine. I'm here to help.
Byte wrote: Just another good 'ol boys network. Check. I'll pass.
What a cute little means to imply that Nick's status as a known tournament player was the deciding factor in how this situation was handled, without actually saying it, since it's obviously untrue. This is exactly how this situation would be handled on table 202 between Little Timmy and Johnny Fluff, and anyone even remotely involved in the tournament scene knows that. Good thing that's out of the way.
So let's get to the heart of the situation--here's the quick-and-dirty as to how the judging situation works at a major 40k event:
The primary onus of ensuring your opponent plays correctly is on you. This one is bold because it's the most important one. It's the most important one because, unfortunately, 40k events cannot provide 250 trained judges to spectate each table and ensure the game is being played correctly. In my personal opinion, there's honestly about 10 people in the entire country qualified to perform judging at that level, were it actually required in the first place. But the game and the format do not allow for this to be the case even were it not entirely impossible from the outset.
Given that we've established that the primary responsibility for ensuring the game is played correctly is on the players themselves, what is the responsibility of the event?
The event is responsible for providing you the means to confirm and enforce the rules. If you say "hey, guy, I think you're doing that wrong" and he says "no I'm not" you've reached an impasse and it's time for the event to get involved. This is where judges come in (and, in an earlier fashion, FAQs/event format rulings) and are expected to provide coherent, consistent, and (when possible) correct rulings for players. But again--this can only occur once brought to their attention. The primary onus is still on the player to bring issues before the judges, as the ~10 staff members walking the halls at a major GT are not psychically aware of your rules dispute from across the hall. Once an issue has been brought to their attention, the issue should be resolved and the incorrect party should be forced to play correctly--anything less is a failure of the event or the judges, and these things do happen, but are certainly minimal by comparison to the number of issues brought up.
These two things are not up for debate--they are absolute truths, until trained high-level judges start growing on trees and major events find dumpsters full of cash to fly them out and pay them to do nothing but walk around and get yelled at all weekend.
So the only remaining issue is: what do we do when a rule is played incorrectly?
This is where you've taken your stand--insisting that, as a rule was incorrect, something must be done to teach someone a lesson lest we all devolve into madness and everyone openly cheats for their own benefit with nothing possibly being done to stop it.
The current situation plays out exactly as seen in the game being critiqued, and as I laid out above: the rule in question is corrected, and to be played correctly from then on.
But what about the other opponents from earlier rounds who were "cheated"? The primary responsibility was on them to question the rule during their game. Outside of physical, outright cheating (fixed dice, illegal lists, etc) a tournament is never going to alter a game result after the fact based on an incorrect rules play. This seems to be an enormous problem for some of you, so let's discuss why this is the case:
Currently, if your opponent misplays a rule, it's your responsibility to question it and notify a judge. That means if someone "cheats" you on a rule it is (in a way) "your fault," because the means were available to you to correct the situation, and you did not make use of them. That--as mentioned--is not a perfect situation. It sucks, and it happens at every tournament.
So let's flip the script and live in Byte's world for a moment where--as implied by prior comments--if you are found to have been playing a rule incorrectly, the game in which you did so (and any prior games) can retroactively be forfeited as a result.
Let's quickly make two things very, very clear:
99.99% of what you would refer to as "cheating" in the context being applied to the game in question is, obviously, not actually cheating. It's a player simply not playing a rule correctly by mistake. People get rules wrong all the time. Yes, even the top players. Ask them, because I make fun of them for it. Frequently.
The vast majority of the miniature wargaming community are great people, as evidenced by the fact that Mike was able to wring $60,000 out of them for charity even after they got done buying plastic men. However, a small handful of them are absolute dirtbags. You each know a couple of absolute dirtbags. They're out there, and some of them attend these events.
So what do you think happens when you, at a tournament policy-level, decide that misplaying a rule incorrectly is grounds for immediate disqualification? Aside from making the game into a paranoid nightmare, what is the primary fallout here?
Let's quickly combine those two facts above. What happens when Little Timmy accidentally thinks his Heavy Bolter is S6 against your local Absolute Dirtbag? Do you think Absolute Dirtbag is going to bring it to his attention for the good of the community?
No. You just disqualified Little Timmy. Congratulations.
By swapping the onus for correct play from the opponent to the players themselves (at threat of serious penalty), you immediately turn this game into an absolute trashfest. None of the games will be fun, because everyone is so scared of getting something wrong. The people who benefit the most are the people who are most willing to abuse minor mistakes to their benefit.
Now, there's obviously a counterpoint to this (because as mentioned, it's not a perfect system)--you can easily say the current situation allows the Absolute Dirtbag to intentionally misplay rules to his benefit until caught without penalty. That's unfortunately true, to a point--but even in a vacuum, that's a far better outcome than "gotcha!" disqualifications for any misplay. If you think otherwise, you must think you've been playing rules-flawless games of 40k, and I can assure you that you haven't. The worst-case in our current environment is that an Absolute Dirtbag gets to walk over a couple people until he runs into someone who knows better, but those people on the way had the opportunity and resources available to correct the misplays, and will know better in the future. The worst-case scenario in your environment is that misplays are intentionally ignored and later sprung upon lower-tier players for free wins.
In practice, there's much more going on here, because we know the vast majority of the Absolute Dirtbags of the wargaming community. Specific care is taken regarding people who are known problems, or who have a few too many rules corrected over the course of an event. These aren't the sort of things that can be written into tournament policy (as they're very case-by-case), but they're a real factor, and acted upon as necessary.
Now that the context for the decisions being made the way they are has been made clear, feel free to provide any insightful constructive thoughts on how you think that major events should change things for the betterment of the community without absolutely annihilating the game itself (and Little Timmy along with it), instead of just shouting and throwing garbage about how one tiny moment of one particular game (which bothered neither of the actual players in the slightest) was effectively a war crime.
Are you an auditor or something in your working life?
That was incredibly well written. Going through the steps of a system and how enforcement is maintained in a reasonable way was well outlined.
I agree as well it sucks at first needing to know the opposing army rules but honestly, if you like competition you are already trying to do that.
8th is a good time so-far since all the indexes are out and we are into out 3rd codex so-far so we have it "easy".
I have seen too many people who are quite enamored in "punishment" needing to be handed out.
It is more a matter of "compliance".
Not following a rule? Find rule, identify what is supposed to happen: all is good.
It is a valid consideration when in competitive play to understand the tournament rules and factor them in (leverage) as appropriate.
We are trying to have a game where a win has some measurable merit to it.
Gaining an auto-win by abusing the tournament rules would devalue the entire event if not the game.
ChainswordHeretic wrote: Thank you Nick, that is the response I expected, and I am your target audience. I stopped playing competitive years ago and shoot for painting and batting .500 when I play. I get it is a thankless job and I at no point up until my last post did I attribute any blame on your tournament. What I was arguing, was people saying there is no responsibility on the player that was incorrect, and it is up to their opponent to catch them, and you confirmed that is not the case in your eyes. The only thing I would like to see in these situations is to get all of the opponents involved, let them know what happened, see if it effected them, and let the guy apologize. I little humble pie goes along way, I think the opponent's will appreciate it, and I think most of them will say no big deal. I would shoot for making everyone that was potentially involved happy instead of just the two guys in the current match, but I do understand sometimes that might not be feasible.
P.S. I did not watch the stream, I was going by what other people said, but if he did indeed have his material I apologize that is an accusation not to be taken lightly.
The issue with getting all previous opponents involved is do we do that only for top players or for anyone that has made a mistake on a rule. I played a guy years ago in round 4 at a GT we were both 1-2, he was playing several rules incorrectly I assume all day. Should he be taken by TOs back to all his opponents and made to apologize? Or is it only relevant when someone is winning? That is the problem put up with those kinds of solutions, it is one thing if someone is hard cheating (fixed dice, not removing models etc.), but rules mistakes to me don't deserve extra shaming, and conversations like this basically ensure that top players will never want to play streamed games at tournaments in case they make a mistake (as every other game where mistakes were made don't get made public, and there are a ton) If he did not have the rules I view that as an issue. Of course players should strive to get their rules right (no one is saying otherwise), but there is no fitting punishment for mistakes that will not end up making the tournament environment worse for those participating, because unless the idea is "only top players should be held to this standard." we end up with a lot of people on bottom tables needing to spend time apologizing and judges walking people around the hall to find opponents to apologize to. And if only top players are held to this standard, it is a strange double standard. Also those of us saying the opposing players need to take initiative to ask about rules realize that this is the only way mistakes get avoided, or that people abusing rules get caught.
Lets use this example
Nick is playing the stratagem in question wrong in his games. His first opponent questions him, and the rules are determined to be wrong, for the rest of that game he is forced to play the rules correctly. In the case he doesn't have the rules, or things are unclear and a judge is called, the judge makes the rules call and the correct rules are enforced.
If in game 2 he returns to playing the rule wrong and his opponent calls it out, if a judge was involved the first time, guess that would be cheating caught. If knowing he was wrong game 1 and it was an honest mistake, he doesn't make it again, and future problems are avoided.
You need to start with the assumption that the rules are getting played wrong, and then determine that people questioning rules is the only way this ever gets solved in the first place.
It seems like a lot of people are saying, he should never play rules wrong in the first place. Sure in an ideal world that is the case, but it isn't reality, and if no one questions the rules, then no one ever finds out that the mistake was made in the first place.
Byte wrote: As far as I'm concerned all this has been a look behind the curtain.
It is ugly.
How would you make it better?
I think that's all anyone is asking for - no one wants everything to be awful. But there are certain things you cannot do, as D3J mentioned. So tell me how you'd improve the system, what you'd do if you caught someone making a mistake like that as a tournament TO.
Also those of us saying the opposing players need to take initiative to ask about rules realize that this is the only way mistakes get avoided, or that people abusing rules get caught.
Second part true, the first part no. Another way for mistakes to be avoided is to know the rules and play them correctly. I should be able to go to an organized event with the expectation I will be playing people with their rules available and that know how to play their army. Thinking I should go there with the expectation that I have to police my games to make sure I am not being cheated is bull. And where did anyone say only top players should be held to a certain standard. Bottom line it is a judgment call, except for what you call hard cheaters, loaded dice GTFO. For other things? pick up an extra dice when rolling for your heavy bolter a gentle please pay more attention to what your doing, Fine. This is described as an extra attack for Khorne Berserkers without the reference books when questioned, That is a lot bigger issue. Yes at that point I do think the other people he played should have been aware of the situation because ultimately it has the potential to affect their enjoyment for something they paid a lot of money to be a part of.
It seems like a lot of people are saying, he should never play rules wrong in the first place. Sure in an ideal world that is the case, but it isn't reality, and if no one questions the rules, then no one ever finds out that the mistake was made in the first place
That is were we disagree, yes no one is perfect, but the standard should be we try to know our rules and play correctly. You seem to think we should play it, that we can't trust anyone we're playing, and should watch them like a hawk. I don't see how that would be fun for anyone playing with that attitude?
The worst thing about tournaments are the condescending/presumptive trolls who don't go to tournaments.
So just to recap, there is no expectation the players in your tournament should know the rules for the army they are playing or have the source material available if a question arises, and if we disagree with that you resort to name calling.
Yes.
As demonstrated in this thread since the "topic" was brought up.
Byte wrote: As far as I'm concerned all this has been a look behind the curtain.
It is ugly.
How would you make it better?
I think that's all anyone is asking for - no one wants everything to be awful. But there are certain things you cannot do, as D3J mentioned. So tell me how you'd improve the system, what you'd do if you caught someone making a mistake like that as a tournament TO.
Not sure the target audience really cares what I have to say on the matter as I'm just a no show troll. But in order to avoid being rude Ill submit an answer.
Nothing can be done with NOVA in its current meta as long as its supposed to be a brofisting, backslapping evolution as proclaimed by its TO as a "non-competitive event".
For those events that may consider themselves competitive where everybody doesn't get a ribbon, I'm of the mind set of the following.
1. Have hard copy of army lists for your opponents(we all know this doesn't happen)
2. Have army reference material in any authorized form(")
3. Add a 5pt max rules score for each player for each match. Not sportsmen. "Rules Acumen". This is not a secret score. Its discussed openly by each player at end of game. no list -1, no references -1, etc. If there's a dispute. Call over a judge. work it out. If I'm teaching you the game -5!
Here's the hard part. Its also a self evaluation. I played amateur competitive golf so that may contribute as to why my expectations are higher than some. Golf is a self penalizing sport. The "final score card" isn't signed until the end of the match(tournament). So a player can and should dock themselves even if the opponent or judge cant agree/overlook. Integrity should go a long way.
So a grievous "mistake" can be back tracked and docked from the "Rules Acumen" score.
So if the "king ding-a-ling" goes from first to worst, so be it. None of the pairings changed. Still the final group(table). Just like golf. (If there was a post play penalty for some reason, like 3 players coming forward and saying they got face raped by zerks 3 times in a charge, or something like that)
Wow, everyone seems to be having a crabby hangover today.
Anyway, it seems like adding a whole new positive score might be complicated. Could just start at 0 and deduct 2 points for no list, 2 points for not bringing all your rules, e.t.c. If you try to deduct for lots of questions asked and stuff, however, you're just gonna bog things down and cause lots of fights. Keep it easy, keep it 3rd party verifiable.
If it's found out after the match that you played rules wrong we follow the same idea. Just deduct 50% of the offending player's score for placing and matchmaking purposes for each of those matches. Might change the winner, might not, but it's a simple and uniform solution.
Byte wrote: For those events that may consider themselves competitive where everybody doesn't get a ribbon, I'm of the mind set of the following.
1. Have hard copy of army lists for your opponents(we all know this doesn't happen)
2. Have army reference material in any authorized form(")
3. Add a 5pt max rules score for each player for each match. Not sportsmen. "Rules Acumen". This is not a secret score. Its discussed openly by each player at end of game. no list -1, no references -1, etc. If there's a dispute. Call over a judge. work it out. If I'm teaching you the game -5!
<snip>
So a grievous "mistake" can be back tracked and docked from the "Rules Acumen" score.
Good to throw that out there.
#1 I see a fair bit in tournament rules of providing a copy of your army list. to your opponent.
It only makes sense so they can see what you have and cannot claim being surprised and it does not hurt to show the points cost reasoning.
It also prevents any magic pencil changes during the course of a game. (Yeah, the holstered side arm is a PLASMA pistol... honest.)
I remember some guy making fun of me when I handed him my army list for a Hardboyz tournament way back when.
He asked for it later when I was beating the heck out of him in the game.
I also make a point of not pulling out my models till I see the actual hard copy committed (some people keep a few lists and select one once they see your list).
#2 That is just plain playing the game.
You need all the rules in front of you available for reference: you cannot remember it all.
Asking people to provide material or look up stuff for you is just plain not respecting other people's time.
#3 Unfortunately multiple rules would have to be made and applied as a "guide" for scoring on "Accumen".
- Knows game rules and his army rules and stats cold, knows squat about my army = 3/5.
- Tried to apply multiple times 7th edition rules to the game but did "OK" = 3/5.
- Thought the Heavy Bolters were strength 6 and had lots of them = 2/5(??)
- Guy was a pain in the rear questioning everything I did and requiring me to look the rules up and "Prove it" = 0/5.
- Guy kept doing questionable things, I kept telling him to "prove it" and look it up and he told me to "look it up yourself!" = 0/5.
I have seen so many "rose color glasses" views of rules it is weird when you have to spell-out the RAW meaning to them and this strange mix of "OH! Ok! OMG!" goes across their face.
I see that though and they are good in my books.
Why do you keep feeding this troll, just by his comments alone you should know that he does not care what you think. In his mind he has already decided how this works and looks and nothing said will convince him otherwise. Again you were NOT there, you are entitled to your opinion but that is all it is just like a butt hole everyone has one. But to drag on for 7 pages and cry about how your opinion is right is just sad. Go play in your small pond and enjoy your games, being an internet/40k forums troll is never going to provide you with what you really need.
Thousands of people had a good time and thanks to MVbrandt for actually doing the work with all the others that helped to make this a great event.
Amazes me even in my small pond when I run across people that have to argue every little thing, harmless mistake or otherwise when playing 40k. Even with travel, Prize support, hotels and event costs... you choose to play and deal with the good and bad of playing in events. Oh wait you don't play events... you just whine on the internet.
Cult of My Boy Blue wrote: Why do you keep feeding this troll, just by his comments alone you should know that he does not care what you think. In his mind he has already decided how this works and looks and nothing said will convince him otherwise. Again you were NOT there, you are entitled to your opinion but that is all it is just like a butt hole everyone has one. But to drag on for 7 pages and cry about how your opinion is right is just sad. Go play in your small pond and enjoy your games, being an internet/40k forums troll is never going to provide you with what you really need.
Thousands of people had a good time and thanks to MVbrandt for actually doing the work with all the others that helped to make this a great event.
Amazes me even in my small pond when I run across people that have to argue every little thing, harmless mistake or otherwise when playing 40k. Even with travel, Prize support, hotels and event costs... you choose to play and deal with the good and bad of playing in events. Oh wait you don't play events... you just whine on the internet.
I was answering a question tough guy. For you to be an enabler for those that play fast and loose does say a lot about yourself. Particularly those at events.
Group think. Echo chamber.
Its like folks are so blinded by the "hype/inclusion" that everything is untouchable. I'm not going to back down from calling things as a see it. Call me a troll if you wish. I'm certainly not a lemming.
The Open winning list was illegal as well. Is that not true? Or just a little untrue?
Cult of My Boy Blue wrote: Why do you keep feeding this troll, just by his comments alone you should know that he does not care what you think. In his mind he has already decided how this works and looks and nothing said will convince him otherwise.
Agreed. DJ3 already explained in a civil and detailed manner why he was wrong, and he could only ignore it. Don't take the bait, just let him declare victory while you talk about the actual event.
Cult of My Boy Blue wrote: Why do you keep feeding this troll, just by his comments alone you should know that he does not care what you think. In his mind he has already decided how this works and looks and nothing said will convince him otherwise. Again you were NOT there, you are entitled to your opinion but that is all it is just like a butt hole everyone has one. But to drag on for 7 pages and cry about how your opinion is right is just sad. Go play in your small pond and enjoy your games, being an internet/40k forums troll is never going to provide you with what you really need.
Thousands of people had a good time and thanks to MVbrandt for actually doing the work with all the others that helped to make this a great event.
Amazes me even in my small pond when I run across people that have to argue every little thing, harmless mistake or otherwise when playing 40k. Even with travel, Prize support, hotels and event costs... you choose to play and deal with the good and bad of playing in events. Oh wait you don't play events... you just whine on the internet.
I was answering a question tough guy. For you to be an enabler for those that play fast and loose does say a lot about yourself. Particularly those at events.
Group think. Echo chamber.
Its like folks are so blinded by the "hype/inclusion" that everything is untouchable. I'm not going to back down from calling things as a see it. Call me a troll if you wish. I'm certainly not a lemming.
The Open winning list was illegal as well. Is that not true? Or just a little untrue?
My point is made each time you reply "tough guy". You are not a lemming, I would love to go into detail what you truly are but why give you the time. Good luck to you sir, I hope I never have to play you and listen to you tell me how important your opinion is.
Back to the event did anyone happen to see any great lists that may be meta changing?
And one last shout out to MVbrandt - you sir are a pretty awesome guy! Thanks for your hard work and contributions to the hobby! It shows!
Primark G wrote: A lot of people knew going into this event conscripts with indirect fire is winner... so this was just a confirmation of the existing meta.
DO you think the new Astra Militarium book will nerf this finally? maybe a nerf to running HQ spam as well? GW is paying attention for the first time in a long time so I hope some of these new codex's helps fix the "broken parts" of 40k quickly.
Cult of My Boy Blue wrote: Why do you keep feeding this troll, just by his comments alone you should know that he does not care what you think. In his mind he has already decided how this works and looks and nothing said will convince him otherwise. Again you were NOT there, you are entitled to your opinion but that is all it is just like a butt hole everyone has one. But to drag on for 7 pages and cry about how your opinion is right is just sad. Go play in your small pond and enjoy your games, being an internet/40k forums troll is never going to provide you with what you really need.
Thousands of people had a good time and thanks to MVbrandt for actually doing the work with all the others that helped to make this a great event.
Amazes me even in my small pond when I run across people that have to argue every little thing, harmless mistake or otherwise when playing 40k. Even with travel, Prize support, hotels and event costs... you choose to play and deal with the good and bad of playing in events. Oh wait you don't play events... you just whine on the internet.
I was answering a question tough guy. For you to be an enabler for those that play fast and loose does say a lot about yourself. Particularly those at events.
Group think. Echo chamber.
Its like folks are so blinded by the "hype/inclusion" that everything is untouchable. I'm not going to back down from calling things as a see it. Call me a troll if you wish. I'm certainly not a lemming.
The Open winning list was illegal as well. Is that not true? Or just a little untrue?
My point is made each time you reply "tough guy". You are not a lemming, I would love to go into detail what you truly are but why give you the time. Good luck to you sir, I hope I never have to play you and listen to you tell me how important your opinion is.
Back to the event did anyone happen to see any great lists that may be meta changing?
And one last shout out to MVbrandt - you sir are a pretty awesome guy! Thanks for your hard work and contributions to the hobby! It shows!
totally agree with you on the troll. his pattern is to flame, then white knight... flame... then white knight... repeat. No answer will ever satisfy his narcissism.
Gonyo's list was solid and is meta defining. Its not spam, but it is a large amount of high quality units. I don't expect it to last past the guard codex coming out.... but the style of hordes + solid punches seems to be working currently.
Primark G wrote: A lot of people knew going into this event conscripts with indirect fire is winner... so this was just a confirmation of the existing meta.
DO you think the new Astra Militarium book will nerf this finally? maybe a nerf to running HQ spam as well? GW is paying attention for the first time in a long time so I hope some of these new codex's helps fix the "broken parts" of 40k quickly.
My prediction is there will be some changes like reigning in conscripts... maybe more too. GW knows they are too cheap for what they do.
I think some of the tricks from Nicks & Carlo's lists with CSM kinda caught me out personally. I didn't play anyone with those tricks at their caliber by any means but if I had pulled the two of them it might have been a rough surprise. Has me playing with some fun ideas personally. And they'll handle the horde + solid units thing while doing the horde + solid unit thing
Also GK with a sprinkling of guard to get more CP and stuff to deploy so they can deepstrike is sweet.....And that's not cause that's what I played at all
Primark G wrote: A lot of people knew going into this event conscripts with indirect fire is winner... so this was just a confirmation of the existing meta.
Which is what was dominating end of 7th. The alpha strike power of barrage artillery is IMMENSE.
Cult of My Boy Blue wrote: Why do you keep feeding this troll, just by his comments alone you should know that he does not care what you think. In his mind he has already decided how this works and looks and nothing said will convince him otherwise. Again you were NOT there, you are entitled to your opinion but that is all it is just like a butt hole everyone has one. But to drag on for 7 pages and cry about how your opinion is right is just sad. Go play in your small pond and enjoy your games, being an internet/40k forums troll is never going to provide you with what you really need.
Thousands of people had a good time and thanks to MVbrandt for actually doing the work with all the others that helped to make this a great event.
Amazes me even in my small pond when I run across people that have to argue every little thing, harmless mistake or otherwise when playing 40k. Even with travel, Prize support, hotels and event costs... you choose to play and deal with the good and bad of playing in events. Oh wait you don't play events... you just whine on the internet.
I was answering a question tough guy. For you to be an enabler for those that play fast and loose does say a lot about yourself. Particularly those at events.
Group think. Echo chamber.
Its like folks are so blinded by the "hype/inclusion" that everything is untouchable. I'm not going to back down from calling things as a see it. Call me a troll if you wish. I'm certainly not a lemming.
The Open winning list was illegal as well. Is that not true? Or just a little untrue?
My point is made each time you reply "tough guy". You are not a lemming, I would love to go into detail what you truly are but why give you the time. Good luck to you sir, I hope I never have to play you and listen to you tell me how important your opinion is.
Back to the event did anyone happen to see any great lists that may be meta changing?
And one last shout out to MVbrandt - you sir are a pretty awesome guy! Thanks for your hard work and contributions to the hobby! It shows!
totally agree with you on the troll. his pattern is to flame, then white knight... flame... then white knight... repeat. No answer will ever satisfy his narcissism.
Gonyo's list was solid and is meta defining. Its not spam, but it is a large amount of high quality units. I don't expect it to last past the guard codex coming out.... but the style of hordes + solid punches seems to be working currently.
He's not trolling. He's just got a different opinion. A bit of a crabby attitude too.
Yikes, I stop checking the tourney thread for one day post-Nova-hangover and look what happens...!
No more accusations of "trolling" "group thinking" "white knighting" "flaming" "echo chamber-ing" or any other rude descriptors for others participating in this thread!
I'm going to put this down to post-con craziness and avoid giving out any suspensions for now, but from here on make your point politely, with clear arguments to back it up, or just don't post.
Finally, we've discussed the particular rules misplay question enough, so let's move on from that, please.
Also those of us saying the opposing players need to take initiative to ask about rules realize that this is the only way mistakes get avoided, or that people abusing rules get caught.
Second part true, the first part no. Another way for mistakes to be avoided is to know the rules and play them correctly. I should be able to go to an organized event with the expectation I will be playing people with their rules available and that know how to play their army. Thinking I should go there with the expectation that I have to police my games to make sure I am not being cheated is bull. And where did anyone say only top players should be held to a certain standard. Bottom line it is a judgment call, except for what you call hard cheaters, loaded dice GTFO. For other things? pick up an extra dice when rolling for your heavy bolter a gentle please pay more attention to what your doing, Fine. This is described as an extra attack for Khorne Berserkers without the reference books when questioned, That is a lot bigger issue. Yes at that point I do think the other people he played should have been aware of the situation because ultimately it has the potential to affect their enjoyment for something they paid a lot of money to be a part of.
It seems like a lot of people are saying, he should never play rules wrong in the first place. Sure in an ideal world that is the case, but it isn't reality, and if no one questions the rules, then no one ever finds out that the mistake was made in the first place
That is were we disagree, yes no one is perfect, but the standard should be we try to know our rules and play correctly. You seem to think we should play it, that we can't trust anyone we're playing, and should watch them like a hawk. I don't see how that would be fun for anyone playing with that attitude?
No I think people should know their rules, but as you state no one is perfect (I've run very few tournaments where a ton of people were not making a bunch of rule mistakes.) I don't go into a game trusting that my opponent will never make mistakes, I'm not paranoid by it, but I also want to learn more about other armies, so when something surprises me I ask to see it. As for informing other players, I think doing so actually has a higher chance of affecting their enjoyment, than not doing so actually. Ignorance is bliss after all.
I think doing so actually has a higher chance of affecting their enjoyment, than not doing so actually. Ignorance is bliss after all.
Agreed, it most likely will affect their enjoyment, but which will affect it more? Meeting the issue head on, and showing those players possibly affected, that you take these issues seriously are our concerned if it affected them, or let them possibly find out second hand at the event, or from this thread, or some other place? If it was me that played him previously I would want them to let me know what happened, and I would probably say it was cool, some might not. By not addressing it with previous opponents It makes me think all you care about is getting through the tournament as fast as you can, and you don't really care about everyone having a good experience? I did have an experience like this years ago at Adepticon, I took a three wound model in Combat patrol, you can only take two wound models. I caught it after my third game and went to the judges, told them to give all my wins to my opponents, and took it upon myself to go to my previous opponents and apologize. They were all cool with it. But by not talking to them and pretending they weren't affected I would pretty muck guaranty that if they do find out by some other means they will have a much more negative opinion than if you just sucked it up and talked to them.
I think doing so actually has a higher chance of affecting their enjoyment, than not doing so actually. Ignorance is bliss after all.
Agreed, it most likely will affect their enjoyment, but which will affect it more? Meeting the issue head on, and showing those players possibly affected, that you take these issues seriously are our concerned if it affected them, or let them possibly find out second hand at the event, or from this thread, or some other place? If it was me that played him previously I would want them to let me know what happened, and I would probably say it was cool, some might not. By not addressing it with previous opponents It makes me think all you care about is getting through the tournament as fast as you can, and you don't really care about everyone having a good experience? I did have an experience like this years ago at Adepticon, I took a three wound model in Combat patrol, you can only take two wound models. I caught it after my third game and went to the judges, told them to give all my wins to my opponents, and took it upon myself to go to my previous opponents and apologize. They were all cool with it. But by not talking to them and pretending they weren't affected I would pretty muck guaranty that if they do find out by some other means they will have a much more negative opinion than if you just sucked it up and talked to them.
Except that was you going to them and forfeiting the games of your own volition. TO me that is quite a different feeling from: "The results of the games remain as is because we cannot redo all the tournament scoring, but your opponent in game 2 played a rule wrong, here he is to apologize." I'm not sure how I would feel about that, probably that I got cheated and now that might weigh on my mind the rest of the day, effect my mood in other games (really depends on the player in question, how the game went, how big the rule infraction was.) In your case they probably end up with a negative opinion of you, but not of the event, but in the case where they get feel cheated and it ruins their enjoyment of the rest of the event, that is a worse outcome than them finding out post event. I guess it is just my opinion that mistakes happen and what is done is done, I don't want to think about those mistakes in later games, and how maybe they cost me an earlier game that I no longer have any control over. Also for most people it is more likely than not that they won't actually ever find out, because the mistaken player wasn't on a stream and isn't getting discussed on forums. They might read the rules later, and think "oh hey that guy played x wrong." Or talk with a friend that says "that isn't how that rule works"
Now I might think a person should apologize to players they have wronged, but they should do so because they think they should, not because the tournament forces them to do so on pain of some other penalty. IT would not be a genuine apology. You going to someone and saying "hey it came up in my last game that I had been playing X wrong, sorry I did that." assuming it even mattered in the game in question is meaningful and likely to mean people don't form a negative opinion about you. It is a good thing to do.
I guess my overall point is: If no one brings up your mistake, how do you even address it?
zedsdead wrote: Had a great time at Nova .. cant wait till next year.
Yeah this is my thought as well.
I may even bring the same list, since going 4-4 meant I could have a fun weekend while not simultaneously getting stomped on. It was great! Thanks Mike!
Nova is the one event I look forward to every year with my gaming group. This drama is irrelevant. I had a blast and will continuing doing so! - See everyone next year
In your case they probably end up with a negative opinion of you
Actually they respected it and we spent the rest of the weekend chatting and hanging out.
But lets bow out. I agree we high jacked a thread that should be about nova not expectations of players and possible consequences. I might start something in discussion about what people expectations are for their opponents at tournaments, If I do I'll let you know. I don't want to articulate your views incorrectly and I would like to see other peoples views on this.
In your case they probably end up with a negative opinion of you
Actually they respected it and we spent the rest of the weekend chatting and hanging out.
But lets bow out. I agree we high jacked a thread that should be about nova not expectations of players and possible consequences. I might start something in discussion about what people expectations are for their opponents at tournaments, If I do I'll let you know. I don't want to articulate your views incorrectly and I would like to see other peoples views on this.
I'd be happy to join that thread as well, in a positive fashion. My frustration stemmed/stems from individuals (sometimes maliciously, sometimes innocently) making large stinks out of comparatively minor items, and in so doing both scare away potential folks from traveling to an AdeptiCon, NOVA, or LVO, and enjoying the awesome social experience it is, as well as direct attention away from the more important things (like rallying with a bunch of gamers to raise a bunch of money in support of making a meaningful / positive difference in the world).
Of course MVBrandt, Like I said It was never about you or the people involved for me. I have never heard anything but good things about your event, unfortunately at this point in my life there are other things competing for my dollars, IE the wife. But we are close to Chicago so she lets me have Adepticon every year I was going to put a disclaimer at the top of the discussion to keep events and individuals out of the discussion, that is not and should not be what it is about at least for me.
I'd also be interested in participating in a thread like that, Heretic, so please do link to it here if you post one! If it's specifically about tournaments, it could actually be in this section, too.
But I appreciate your not continuing it in this thread, and also think that a dedicated thread would be best served focusing on ideas / principles / etc, rather than specific individuals or instances, like we got side tracked on here.
Regarding Nova, I thought this year was extremely impressive - the vendor hall (where I spent most of my time at our booth!) was hugely improved, with FFG demo'ing Legion on one side of us, Shapeways on the other, and a huge Warlord stand across from us . The hall was really bustling!!
My one suggestion would be clearer (and probably shorter) vendor hall hours, as with the schedule listing 9am - 9pm we mostly had to confer among ourselves between booths about when to truly close, as most couldn't commit to being there the full 12 hours (I personally was about to fall over around 6 ). Also, the long listed hours meant sometimes attendees came when booths were closed, leading to one vendor (thankfully not us!) getting flamed on their FB page for closing
Otherwise, it was just awesome . Also, how did I not visit the lounge upstairs till this year, it was fantastic! And the few chances I got to visit the gaming halls looked like people were having a great time with a ton of smaller games well represented, too.
RiTides wrote: I'd also be interested in participating in a thread like that, Heretic, so please do link to it here if you post one! If it's specifically about tournaments, it could actually be in this section, too.
But I appreciate your not continuing it in this thread, and also think that a dedicated thread would be best served focusing on ideas / principles / etc, rather than specific individuals or instances, like we got side tracked on here.
Regarding Nova, I thought this year was extremely impressive - the vendor hall (where I spent most of my time at our booth!) was hugely improved, with FFG demo'ing Legion on one side of us, Shapeways on the other, and a huge Warlord stand across from us . The hall was really bustling!!
My one suggestion would be clearer (and probably shorter) vendor hall hours, as with the schedule listing 9am - 9pm we mostly had to confer along ourselves between booths about when to truly close, as most couldn't commit to being there the full 12 hours (I personally was about to fall over around 7 ). Also, the long listed hours meant sometimes attendees came when booths were closed, leading to one vendor (thankfully not us!) getting flamed on their FB page for closing . But otherwise, it was just awesome
Also, how did I not visit the lounge upstairs till this year, it was fantastic! And the few chances I got to visit the gaming halls looked like people were having a great time with a ton of smaller games well represented, too.
Mm, I think this was the first time the lounge was on the roof, but that was a great idea. Should definitely stay.
My wife vendors at other shows and they run into the same problem. Shrinking the window should help, though I know with how busy the schedule I'd signed up for was I wouldn't have been able to visit the vendor hall at all if there were reduced hours, ha!
I think the rationale for listing those hours was to allow vendors to be open late if they wanted to, but to avoid confusion with what's in the packet, I would err on the other side - list shorter hours, but tell the vendors they're free to open earlier and close later if they want. Obviously, the Bits Guy stays open 24/7!
But having run our booth at other cons, I think attendees adjust to more limited hours by making an effort to run over between events. So listing a shorter window (say 10 - 6) and just allowing for flexibility would probably help everybody
I am going try working on it now Rtides. I will start it in discussion, because I think more people will see it, but feel free to move it if you think it would be better served somewhere else. Also, I respect your Moderating, please keep an eye on it and if it starts going off the rails shut it down
Title will be Expectations of a tournament player and handling issued that may arise. Hope it fits
Primark G wrote: A lot of people knew going into this event conscripts with indirect fire is winner... so this was just a confirmation of the existing meta.
DO you think the new Astra Militarium book will nerf this finally? maybe a nerf to running HQ spam as well? GW is paying attention for the first time in a long time so I hope some of these new codex's helps fix the "broken parts" of 40k quickly.
The book had to be finished well before this even so no I don't think there will be a fic there. We can only hope for chapter approved this winter I would guess.
off with your concerns..." which is a poor way to handle something like this. Myself and others have not blown this into any sort of major issue beyond stating it should at the very least be taken seriously and looked into. It's cheap and easy to just call us all the same mob though.
. The hall was really bustling!!
