Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

First the player that was robbed by the TO should be given a full refund for the $40 entry fee. This is the worst case of running an event I have ever heard. The main organizers who run Genghis Khan should be contacted to request they this low life deuche can no longer ruin anymore events there. He himself ran big bugs at Ghenghis a few years back and won... What a complete hypocrite to say the least. This is no way to run an RTT. Basically if the TO dislikes nob bikers that much he should have not allowed them in the RTT. I would never play in any event run by this douche.

G

It sounds bad. However, were there any rules in the tourney that indicated that the TO could make the adjustments.

It's hard to say it's abusive w/o seeing the rules for the tourney.

Nothing was stated in the packet to say he could or couldnt. The rules were simply a 1750 tourney, were you could take 1500 and 2 250 side bars. Nothing said anything else.

He changed Kenny's comp and theme scores even after Kenny's opponent's argued with him not to change them. That's just plain wrong no matter how you slice it. It's underhanded to say the least and cannot be justified.

G

Here's what I found online:

http://home.comcast.net/~brprometheus/site/?/page/Genghis_Con_Warhammer_40K_and_Fantasy_Rules/

Genghis Con Warhammer 40K and Fantasy Rules

Warhammer 40K Event Rules



Players will build a single 1500 point list following the standard army building rules for their selected codex. The player may then build up to two 250 point attachments. The comination of the 1500 point list and either of the 250 point attachments cannot violate the standard army building rules within their codex. Alternatively the player can build a single 1750 point list.

The following codex's are allowed:
Codex: Space Marines
Codex: Space Wolves
Codex: Black Templars
Codex: Dark Angels
Codex: Blood Angels - White Dwarf Update
Codex: Imperial Guard
Codex: Daemonhunters
Codex: Witch Hunters
Codex: Eldar
Codex: Dark Eldar
Codex: Orks
Codex: Necrons
Codex: Tau Empire
Codex: Tyranids
Codex: Chaos Space Marines
Codex: Chaos Daemons

Special characters can be used providing they follow the rules for their codex.



Scoring

60% Battle Points

20% Sportsmanship

20% Painting

Up to 15% in bonus points can be recieved for outstanding theme and composition



Game Play

Players will be assigned an opponent based upon their battle point scores after the first round. Each player will review the mission and their opponents list before the game (including both attachments). The player will then select the attachment they wish to take for the mission. Set up and play will be detailed for each mission.

Games will follow the same rule for standard missions for game length under the "Ending the Game" Section on page 90 of the Warhammer 40K Rule Book.

The missions played will be selected from the following list:



1. Establish the Field of Battle

Both commanders are seeking to establish domination over the battlefield. The army that is abl to capture the better ground may have aninsurmountable advantage in the coming war.

Deployment: Follows the standard rules for deployment outlined on page 92 of the Warhammer 40K rule book for the Pitched Battle. This includes the rules for sieze the initiative.



Victory Conditions:

Primary Mission: The game wil follow the rules in the warhammer 40K rulebook for Sieze ground with the following exceptions. The game wil automatically have 5 objectives. One objective will be placed in the middle of the board. The other objectives wil be placed by the players following the normal rules starting with the player with the highest strategy rating in thier army.

Massacre - One player controls 4 more objectives than their opponent. Note the army must actually control the objectives with troops at the end of the game regardless of the state of the opponents army. Winner 30 / Loser 0

Major Victory- One player controls 3 more objectives than their opponent. Note the army must actually control the objectives with troops at the end of the game regardless of the state of the opponents army. Winner 22 / Loser 8

Minor Victory- One player controls 1 more objectives than their opponent. Note the army must actually control the objectives with troops at the end of the game regardless of the state of the opponents army. Winner 18 / Loser 12

Tie - Neither player controls more objectives than their opponent. 15 Points



Secondary Objective - Kill your opponents HQ. If you kill one of your opponents HQ slots gain 10 points.



2. Breakthrough

The battlefield has been set for too long and both commanders seek to break the stalemate.

Deployment: Follows the standard rules for deployment outlined on page 92 of the Warhammer 40K rule book for the Spearhead. This includes the rules for sieze the initiative.



Victory Conditions:

Primary Mission: Follows the rules in the Warhammer 40k rulbok for capture and control with the following changes to the victory conditions:

Massacre - One player controls both objectives and has acumulated more kill points than their opponent. Note the army must actually control the objectives with troops at the end of the game regardless of the state of the opponents army. Winner 30 / Loser 0

Major Victory- One player controls both objectives and has NOT acumulated more kill points than their opponent . Note the army must actually control the objectives with troops at the end of the game regardless of the state of the opponents army. Winner 22 / Loser 8

Minor Victory- One player controls 1 more objectives than their opponent. Note the army must actually control the objectives with troops at the end of the game regardless of the state of the opponents army. Winner 18 / Loser 12

Tie - Neither player controls more objectives than their opponent. 15 Points



Secondary Objective - Kill your opponents Fast Attack Slots. If you kill one of your opponents fast attack units recieve 10 points. If your opponent does not have any fast atack slots you automatically get these points. (you must have already killed them in another battle!).







3. Kill em'! Kill em' all!

The war has disolved into a madhouse of small conflicts raging over the entire planet. Both commanders seek to bring the core of the enemies army to battle and defeat it soundly.

Deployment: Follows the standard rules for deployment outlined on page 92 of the Warhammer 40K rule book for the Dawn of War. This includes the rules for sieze the initiative.



Victory Conditions:

Primary Mission: The mission will follow the rules for anhiliation for acquire kill points in the warhammer 40K rule book with the following alteration to the victory conditions. After each battle each player will calculate their "Kill Point Ratio." This ratio is calculated by taking the number of kill oints they earned during the game and dividing it by the total number of kill points their opponent has at the beginning of the game. For example: A space marine player with 12 kill points in his army is playing an ork player with 6 kill points. At the end of the game the ork player earned 8 kill points and the space marine player has earned 3 kill points. The ork player has a kill point ratio of 8/12or .66 the space marine has a kill point ratio of 3 / 6 or .5. The ork wins with the higher kill point ratio.

Massacre - Th -The winners "Kill Point Ratio" is more than three times their opponents "Kill Point Ratio". Winner 30 / Loser 0

Major Victory- -The winners "Kill Point Ratio" is more than two times their opponents "Kill Point Ratio" Winner 22 / Loser 8

Minor Victory- One player has a higher kill point ratio. Winner 18 / Loser 12

Tie - Neither player has a higher kill point ratio. 15 Points



Secondary Objective - Kill your opponents most expensive unit. Recieve 10 points for killing your opponents most expensive unit.




Painting Scoring


Army Appearance Checklist
Painting (worth up to 30 points)
Check One Box
o Army is fully painted, but only to the three-color standard of basecoating.
10 Points
o
Army is beyond fully painted, additional steps beyond the three-color standard.
15 Points
Check All That Apply to Bulk (80%+) of Army
o
Painting is Uniform: Not a mix of schemes, styles, and looks.
1 Point
o
Clean Basecoat Colors: Base colors are painted neatly.
1 Point
o
Details: Details are painted such as eyes, buckles, and jewelry.
1 Point
o
Clean Details: Details are painted well (clean, have highlights).
1 Points
o
Hand-Painted Details: Details (that are well executed) have been added such as unit markings, banner artwork, blood marks, dirt on cloaks, etc.
1 Points
o
Artistic: Banners, markings, and details are hand painted to an incredible degree!
1 Points
o
Discernable Highlights/Shading: Drybrushing, lining, shading, inking, etc. (not required to be clean) - 1 point
1 Point
o
Clean Highlights: Lines are neat, drybrushing is appropriate, inking is controlled and not sloppy.
1 Points
o
Layers of Highlights: More than one layer of highlight, which may include shading, highlights over inking, blending, etc.
1 Points
o
Beyond Basics: Highlights have been blended, shaded, or layered well – beyond the basic highlighting techniques of drybrusing and inking.
2 Points
o
Masterful Blending: Highlights have been masterfully blended, shaded, or layered.
2 Points
o
Overall Appearance: Overall appearance is amazing! Everything works great together to create an awesome scene.
2 Points
Basing (worth up to 4 points)
Check all that apply to bulk (80%+) of army.
o
Based/Detailed: Bases have basing materials (flock/sand/tiles) or details painted on them.
1 Point
o
Extra Basing: The bases have multiple basing materials (rocks/grass), extra details painted on them (cracks in tiles), or if extra basing is inappropriate, basing is done very well (eg. rolling desert dunes).
1 Point
o
Highlights: Bases have highlighting (shading/drybrushing).
1 Point
o
Special details: There are extra details on the larger bases (helmets, skulls, animals, building rubble, etc.)
1 Points
Conversions (Worth up to 4 points)
Check One Box for conversions that are appropriate and well executed.
o
Minimal: The army has some elementary conversions (head and weapon swaps, arm rotations) or a couple interesting swaps.
1 Point
o
Minor: Units have multi-kit conversions including head and weapon swaps. This is for more than a few models such as a unit.
2 Points
o
Major: The army has some difficult conversions that use things such as putty, plastic card, drilling, sawing, minor sculpts, etc. This could also apply to the entire army having very well done multi-kit conversions (see above)
3 Points
o
Extreme: The army has some extreme conversions, which could be: a scratch built conversion or sculpt of an entire model, a large amount of models with difficult conversions (see above), or the entire army is extremely converted
4 Points
Other (worth up to 2 points)
Check all that apply to bulk (80%+) of army.
o
Display Base: Basic based & highlighted or detailed display base.
1 Point
o
Something Special: There is something above and beyond about a model’s painting, the display base, a conversion, or the basing (eg. movement trays are based/highlighted).
1 Point



Sportmanship Scoring

While a tournament is an opportunity to crush your opponent with your best stuff, it is still just a game and we are all here to have a good time moving our toy soldiers around. Sportsmanship will be judged by your opponent each round.

1. Your opponent showed up on time and ready to play with rule books, dice and measuring tool. 1 Point

2. Your opponent measured movement, range and line of sight accurately. 3 Points

3. Your opponent amicably resolved all rules disputes by offering to show the appropriate pages in the rule book or codex or by asking a judge to arbitrate. Please remember that with a new rule book we expect a number of these to arise during this tournament. Please do not be afraid to request to see the rule for something your opponent is doing that you are unsure of. Do not be insulted if your opponent asks to see the rules, there is NO negative sportsmanship category for requesting to see a rule. 3 Points

4. Your opponent was polite through the entire game. 3 Points

5. You enjoyed the game with your opponent. 3 Points

looks like the website says more than the packet did and everything in there is right. Note the painting was done by the judge, and it did not seem that the rubric was used.

Nope, not trolling, just pointing out that the final word is the tournament organizer's. As others have said, if you have a problem with it, then go over the organizer's head if you can.

The fact remains that the organizers of tournaments, like the administrators of websites, and the owners of private property such as bars, get to make the rules however they see fit.

Sure, it's a dick move on part of the organizer, but you can't act as if it was some sort of public forum. This is just like those morons that complain about their free speech being violated when their forum posts are deleted or edited by the admin; acting as if some sort of right was violated.

All you can do about these things is tell other people, not go there next year, and watch out for the entitlement complex that seems endemic to this thread.

Darkness wrote:looks like the website says more than the packet did and everything in there is right. Note the painting was done by the judge, and it did not seem that the rubric was used.

Well, it's probably a work in progress on his site. I just went through the links, assuming
that I found the right places, etc.

So it's the right one?

Problem is that all the major events in CO are run by the DGA, Denver Gamers Association. The other TO that ran it last year is always fair and nice. I think he took it off because of Valentines day, so hopefully this is a one time thing.

As for the TO for having the authority, sure he can make rulings. But he should have let it known before the first game was played, so the Nob player could have brought his nurgle instead.

@malfred, yes it is

I believe the name of the TO is Robert O'Bryne.

G

The TO exceeded his authority. Typically, I have the opinion that the TO is first after God when it comes to decisions. If they make a decision, learn to love it or at least be at peace with it. However, he violated his own tourney rules. Burn 'em.

It's important to note that I'm not an attorney, and this is not legal advice.

I don't know about colorado law, but in Ohio a tournament jusge has final say, barring fraud, malice, etc. In a case like this, where it appeared to be a personal vendetta, it looks more like a case of a TO exceeding his broad discretion.

The rationale behind this is in contract theory: you pay your money, and while you have to follow the rulings of the TO, that TO owes a duty of fairness to the participants. If you get singled out and hosed by the judge, than there is an argument to be made that you didn't get what you bargained for in the contract.

To extend the example, a bar owner can enforce any rules he would like, but he can't charge for a drink and never serve it.

Polonius wrote:
To extend the example, a bar owner can enforce any rules he would like, but he can't charge for a drink and never serve it.

I can't wait until I start hearing this at tourneys.

"Oh I PAID for my drink. You just the fool ain't serve it yet."

Now I'm curious about what product or service the person in question purchased from the tournament organizer, and wasn't served with. He was admitted to the tournament, right?

Nurglitch, your acceptance of this behavior is disturbing.

The man takes a legal army list to a "tournement" that you pay money for and gets penalised for it with no forewarning...and you're ok with this?

I hope you dont run any tournements.

Judges should "judge" not determine points for a round when PLAYERS are supposed to determine said points between themselves. THAT is not a TO's domain.

You're paying for a service - someone to run the tournament. They give you a rules packet, post stuff on the web, etc. Of course it's not ok for them to just violate their own rules, regardless of their intention. Especially taking points away from someone when the rules state they are granted by someone else (the opponent, not the TO).

The problem of course is the TO DOES have the right to refuse entry to people into the tournament. Sure it will make him a jerk, but he can do it. If he had said "hey, your army is cheesy, I don't want it in my tournament, here's your $40 back, sorry you drove 2.5 hours but I don't feel like that's my problem if you think that army is fun to play", well, he's a jerk, but at least he's being straightforward about it and reasonable within his role as TO. And if he added a rider "If you want to play, go ahead, but you get a 0 for comp every round no matter what your opponent says with that army" then...well I guess he's still within his rights, just as the player has the option to not play.

The problem here seems to be more the hostility level involved and the fact that he didn't approach him before the first game (or better yet, post it before the tournament that certain armies are unacceptable). It is completely ridiculous to take someone's money, let them in a tournament with specific rules, and then break those rules as the TO just because you don't like their army. If you don't like the army, make some rules ahead of time to ban it specifically, or just to make it unfieldable.

Here's the best I could find on colorado statute. I don't have the time or inclination to search the common law on the issues:




18-5-402. Rigging publicly exhibited contests.





(1) A person commits a class 3 misdemeanor if, with the intent to prevent a publicly exhibited or advertised contest from being conducted in accordance with the rules and usages purporting to govern it, he:




(a) Confers or offers or agrees to confer any benefit upon, or threatens any detriment to a participant, official, or other person associated with the contest or exhibition; or




(b) Tampers with any person, animal, or thing; or




(c) Knowingly solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit the conferring of which is prohibited by paragraph (a) of this subsection (1).




(2) A person commits a class 3 misdemeanor if he knowingly engages in, sponsors, produces, judges, or otherwise participates in a publicly exhibited or advertised contest knowing that the contest is not being conducted in compliance with the rules and usages purporting to govern it, by reason of conduct prohibited by this section.





Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 443, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-5-402.

I find it ridiculous that he did that. Honestly, if he didn't set something beforehand he should not be messing with the standings like that. Maybe it was personal or something, but if it was simply an issue with the current powerlist then he should have addressed it in a different manner. Personally, if I hated the Nob Bikers list and was organizing a tourney where I didn't want it to dominate I would address the real problem. Simply put, I would put a small paragraph explaining that at my tourney, the use of multiple wound groups for differently equipped models would not apply for 2 wound units and would follow the normal "fill up and die" rules that used to be. Simple, easy and it allows anyone to play what they want, while killing what is the real problem with nob bikers.

Based on what has been posted, it appears pretty clear it was abusive. A judge reviewing scores and making adjustments is nothing new. It's been done in the past, especially when club members end up playing each other. Not saying it's right, but I've seen abuses on scoring from judges as well as players. But, if the TO wanted to avoid armies like Nob bikers from entering, maybe he should have organized the tourney a bit differently. Once the rules are set, that is what players have to go on. It's hard to justify how a TO is acting impartial by making arbitrary changes.

However, if a judge sets up a player on a particular table b/c it creates a huge disadvantage, that is just plain low and I can't fathom how that works.

I am very curious if the TO will post (any forum) the reasoning behind his decisions. Personally, I'd be pretty upset if I drove to another town, paid my money and then get the decked stacked against me.

Was this a GW indy GT for this year?

Polonius wrote:Here's the best I could find on colorado statute. I don't have the time or inclination to search the common law on the issues:

18-5-402. Rigging publicly exhibited contests.

(1) A person commits a class 3 misdemeanor if, with the intent to prevent a publicly exhibited or advertised contest from being conducted in accordance with the rules and usages purporting to govern it, he:

(a) Confers or offers or agrees to confer any benefit upon, or threatens any detriment to a participant, official, or other person associated with the contest or exhibition; or

(b) Tampers with any person, animal, or thing; or

(c) Knowingly solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit the conferring of which is prohibited by paragraph (a) of this subsection (1).

(2) A person commits a class 3 misdemeanor if he knowingly engages in, sponsors, produces, judges, or otherwise participates in a publicly exhibited or advertised contest knowing that the contest is not being conducted in compliance with the rules and usages purporting to govern it, by reason of conduct prohibited by this section.

Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 443, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-5-402.

I guess Kenny deserves a public apology at the least?

(Kenny was running this Dave? Who was the WC that won?)

Sarigar wrote:
Was this a GW indy GT for this year?

Not on the circuit...its really a meaninless little tournement. However, that doesnt give the TO an excuse.

The Dundracon TO told everyone up front that he was going to modify the would allocation rules to force players to take off whole models. That's all that was needed.

One of the unwritten laws of being a TO is to be unbiased and to give every player the same chance of winning as every other player and not go out of their way to force a player to lose.

the TO violated what is basically the trust between player and judge. There may be bad calls or oversights but we all do believe that the judges made their decision based on fairness. This TO did not.

Polonius wrote:It's important to note that I'm not an attorney, and this is not legal advice.

I don't know about colorado law, but in Ohio a tournament jusge has final say, barring fraud, malice, etc. In a case like this, where it appeared to be a personal vendetta, it looks more like a case of a TO exceeding his broad discretion.

The rationale behind this is in contract theory: you pay your money, and while you have to follow the rulings of the TO, that TO owes a duty of fairness to the participants. If you get singled out and hosed by the judge, than there is an argument to be made that you didn't get what you bargained for in the contract.

To extend the example, a bar owner can enforce any rules he would like, but he can't charge for a drink and never serve it.

In the same vein, I think that he may have more than an argument. I'm about as much an attorney as I am Robert Oppenhiemer, but the rules for the tourney posted earlier in the thread expressly state that the opponent gives out the soft scores, NOT the TO. The only way I could see the TO changing soft scores would be if the opponent(s) in question were thrown out of the tourney. Even then, I could really only see deletion of the scores, not wholesale re-scoring.

Anyway, the twists and turns are irrelevant at this point I think. What's done is done. I would be interested to see what kind of damage this TO's behavior will do to this event in the long term. What an ass hole.

I've written about an experience that I had with a TO fooling with the scores a few years ago that was similar in nature. It occured at a Gaming convention that hosted a RTT in Austin, Texas.

I took my Squat army to said tourny, and proxied them as IG. Apparently the TO, was one of those tiresome Squat haters that you encounter online with depressing regularity. When I was registering my army, this clown gave me a lecture about how "you Squat players just need to give it a rest and get over it". I blew the guy off and went on to play. The other players were of a very different mind. They all, without exception, loved the army. Squat armies are rare enough as it is, and mine always gets alot of attention and praise when I trot it out.

Anyway, I didn't do well in the event. I had a couple of bad games, and was not suprised when I fialed to place in any of the categories. But a few minutes after they handed out the prizes at the end of the event one of the employees of the store that was hosting the tourny took me me aside and told me that I had actually won the "best army" award and that the Squat hating TO had fudged the results so that I did not take the prize. I quietly asked several of the other players who they had voted for in that catagory and without exception they confirmed that my Squats had been their choice. Every. Single. One.

Needless to say I was not too happy about this. Not only was it a personal slap in the face, but it was a voctory for a Squat hating scumbag. I never confronted the TO about his unethical actions, but I made it a practice of never giving that particular store a cent of my money ever again and encouraged other not to do so either. They went out of business a couple of years later anyway.

So yes, the sort of thing mentioned by the OP does happen on occasion.

TR

Nurglitch wrote:I don't see the problem. If you go to a tournament, you play by the tournament organizer's rules, and according to the organizer's discretion.

Nurglitch is 100% on the money and I couldn't agree with him more.

Wha... actually hold on a sec...

*re-reads OP*

Ok, let me edit that slightly:

Nurglitch is 100% on the money and I couldn't agree with him more if and only if the Tournament Organiser had informed the players before the Tournament that he would be doing that with Nob Biker armies

The TO overstepped his bounds, and while I'm a big supporter of the whole 'What the TO says goes' line of thinking, he has to tell the fing players before, not yell at them and vilify them after the fact, change rules during the tournament and make his opponent's jump through hoops (and then ignore them) to get better scores. That's beyond the joke, and the TO should both apologise and refund the money the player paid to participate in the tournament. If not, the Wrecking Crew should do everything within their power to get the word out that this TO is not to be played with and that no one should attend his events. It's only fair.

BYE

I don't think that writing off a CON because of the douchebag running it is the best course of action. You deserve to meet folks and play with folks as much as anyone else.

I think the right answer here is to find out who is "in charge" and bring up the issues as they happened, citing people who were involved. Ask for a refund; the tournament organizer took exceptional behavior to you, was rude to you from the beginning of the event, and established from the beginning of the event that he was going to do everything in his power to see that you failed in every possible aspect regardless of your wins, losses, or what other players voted you as.

I would do everything possible to insure that the TO doesn't organize another tournament because his unprofessional behavior, personal displays of immaturity and segregationist behavior are driving away the tournament's customer base.

Oh yes, and one off topic point that is a pet peve of mine:

Painting is Uniform: Not a mix of schemes, styles, and looks.
1 Point
o

I hate that. I really do.
Every army does not look good in a uniform style (Orcs, Space orks, and all sorts of Chaos spring to mind) and it's irritating that some guidelines would penalize armies that do not resemble the current practice in WD and the like of painting EVERYTHING uniform.

TR

You know HBMC, I think WC is doing jus tthat by coming here, at least. I hear there are many gamers on dakka; mebbe even some from CO. I think you are right.

However, I would be interested to hear the TO's side of what happened. On the one hand I cannot think of anythign off-hand that anyone could add that would have made this a reasonable sounding course of action for the TO, but on the other hand I am not comfortable condemning someone without giving them a chance to make their side known.

Give him a fair trail. And a speedy hangin.

Seriously, if anyone knows this guy (and you don't have to admit it here. it's just dakka, we don't bite), is he on dakka, or another forum? If ha has an online presence, would he be interested in coming to this thread for his side? I'd love ot see it.

Grizgin - You're right there. The public flogging has essentially already started with this thread. I would love to hear the other side of this though.

Trench-Raider wrote:

Painting is Uniform: Not a mix of schemes, styles, and looks.
1 Point
o

I hate that. I really do.

I have to agree there. Ever since I read an ancient article in WD back in the 90's (written by Jervis, ironically) I've always wanted to do a Crusading Marine army that consists of multiple Chapters working together. Even wrote up a whole fluff document about why my the three Chapters would come together. Against a needless painting score like this, the army would fail - as it has three distinct Chapters in there.

And what about Guard players who like different regiments. Would you get penalised because your Artillery units are of Mordian origin, your Battle Tanks are Tallarn and your Infantry is Cadian? Seems overly harsh there.

BYE