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.

 Redbeard wrote:

Rynner wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

...
Wow - those are embarrassingly bad models for a GT. (The vendettas, not your dreadknights)

I'd have called a judge over, informed my opponent that his models didn't meet the requirements for the event, and asked for them to be removed from play, per the rules of the event.

In our last game of the TT the opposing team had models that had been thrown out due to not meeting the painting requirements. Despite that we were perfectly fine with them using the models. At the end of the day I think we all want to win but I think we all also went to the event/paid the entry free to have good, fun, and challenging games. Where would the fun have been if the OP had called over a judge and had the models removed? Besides unless you really have to win at all costs do you really want to be that guy or remembered for having your opponents models thrown out just to gain the upper hand?

We all play these games for different reasons. I pay my entry fee with the expectation that I'm going to get a number of games against fully painted WYSIWYG opponents. That's important to me. If I just wanted to play a game, I could do so at the local game store with the kids and their half assembled grey plastic.

It's not about trying to get his models removed so that I get an easy win, it's about trying to get the event to enforce the rules so I can get the sort of games I paid for.

I played against Tony Kopach in the third round of adepticon championships. He's a smart guy, funny, and a good sport, as well as a great challenge to play against. Our game came down to a single dice roll - an FNP save on one of my tervigons.

His guardsmen contained several models with meltaguns who didn't actually carry said meltaguns, but instead had lasguns, as they were the old, metal vostroyan models. He never claimed otherwise, and in fact made it very clear they didn't have meltaguns, and never once tried to misplay it with any sort of advantage. What purpose would it have served to call a judge over to complain? All that would have happened was that it would have soured the game - certainly, his other 7 opponents didn't care either.

I understand your viewpoint, I really do, but is it really worth ruining the game for both of you just so you can get your grievances out? Not to mention it just smacks of seeking an advantage to your opponent, even if you aren't actually seeking one.

I could understand making such complaints known to the judges if the opponent was a massive tool, but it will just utterly ruin the game otherwise. It's not as though it will change the fact that you still had to deal with such models - in fact, it will forever just further the sour taste in your mouth over the game when you look back on it in the future.

 Fxeni wrote:

I played against Tony Kopach in the third round of adepticon championships. He's a smart guy, funny, and a good sport, as well as a great challenge to play against. Our game came down to a single dice roll - an FNP save on one of my tervigons.

His guardsmen contained several models with meltaguns who didn't actually carry said meltaguns, but instead had lasguns, as they were the old, metal vostroyan models.

Just as a question, but why does it matter what kind of model they are? My guardsmen are old metal vostroyans as well, but I (and many others) made the effort to convert some of them to actually carry meltaguns. Don't make it sound like this is some sort of impossible task.

He never claimed otherwise, and in fact made it very clear they didn't have meltaguns, and never once tried to misplay it with any sort of advantage. What purpose would it have served to call a judge over to complain? All that would have happened was that it would have soured the game - certainly, his other 7 opponents didn't care either.

I understand your viewpoint, I really do, but is it really worth ruining the game for both of you just so you can get your grievances out? Not to mention it just smacks of seeking an advantage to your opponent, even if you aren't actually seeking one.

I could understand making such complaints known to the judges if the opponent was a massive tool, but it will just utterly ruin the game otherwise. It's not as though it will change the fact that you still had to deal with such models - in fact, it will forever just further the sour taste in your mouth over the game when you look back on it in the future.

Wow. Just... So you're now turning this around so that a person who wants to abide by the rules of an event is a jerk, and a person who knowingly breaks such rules is being commended? No, just no. Tony Kopach is not some newbie, and should know better. Tony Kopach has played at enough events to be expected to follow the rules (well, maybe he hasn't been asked to at many of them.) It's not like the model policy was a surprise to anyone. It's not like they obfuscated the website, made the link hard to find, and had a lone print copy that they dragged out of the back room just to screw people over.

This is an EVENT RULE. From the adepticon packet:

http://www.adepticon.org/13rules/2013modelpolicy.pdf wrote:
Units must always be represented by appropriate models. This is the single, most important rule. The 'What You See Is
What You Get' (WYSIWYG) rule is in effect for all tournaments. That means all units MUST be easily identifiable as the
particular choice they represent and that any and all weapons/options taken for a unit MUST be clearly represented on
the model(s). Models not appropriately represented will be removed from the game.

The emphasis is not added. The text in bold is bold in the rules. So, you're now telling us that Tony Kopach broke the single most important rule, and you think this is acceptable, you think he should get a pat on the back because he played competitively? I cannot find the words to say to express how wrong you are. Maybe if you had called the judge over in the 3rd round, his next five opponents wouldn't have had to face an army that broke the rules. You know, there is a word for breaking the rules, right. Would you call the judges over if you thought he had loaded dice? If you thought his army was over in points? That probably would have ruined the game for both of you too, probably would have left a sour taste in your mouth, but I guess it's okay to let rules get broken if enforcing them would sour a game.

I think it's a bit wrong to ruin your opponent's experience simply because you are too stubborn. The Vendetta beef seems more legitimate than the Kopach Meltagunner beef. If he has a few meltagun models and clearly explains that they do not have them, what is the issue? All his opponents were okay with it, i'd go ahead and say that the one guy who did complain to have models removed would be the unreasonable one.

It's a competitive event before it's a painting or modeling event, at least that is how I look at it. I've had experiences where people had things that were counts as, as long as it wasn't too much of a stretch or too confusing, I wouldn't raise a fuss about it. You can't know the circumstances your opponent may have gone through. Things could have happened to prevent him from having a few extra models ready, or from completing the paintjob on a model or two. These things happen.

I don't think the loaded dice or points discrepancies are good to bring up in this conversation. They are very clearly different. One gives you an edge in the game, the other is purely aesthetic.

 LValx wrote:
I think it's a bit wrong to ruin your opponent's experience simply because you are too stubborn. ... All his opponents were okay with it, i'd go ahead and say that the one guy who did complain to have models removed would be the unreasonable one.

Wow, again with the complete logical disconnect. How am I responsible for ruining my opponent's experience, when they're the one who broke the rules?

It's a competitive event before it's a painting or modeling event, at least that is how I look at it. I've had experiences where people had things that were counts as, as long as it wasn't too much of a stretch or too confusing, I wouldn't raise a fuss about it. You can't know the circumstances your opponent may have gone through. Things could have happened to prevent him from having a few extra models ready, or from completing the paintjob on a model or two. These things happen.

It IS a competitive event. Competitive events have rules. Part of participating in a competitive event is both knowing and following the rules.

I don't think the loaded dice or points discrepancies are good to bring up in this conversation. They are very clearly different. One gives you an edge in the game, the other is purely aesthetic.

So you don't think that it's possible that having meltaguns that don't look like meltaguns could provide an edge? In an event where people will quibble that you need to rebase your models whenever GW randomly ships a different size base in the box? So maybe you can keep such things straight in your mind after 12 hours of gaming, that doesn't mean everyone can. There are reasons for these rules. It is up to the participants to follow the rules laid out in advance.

Think about it. In this scenario, you have one player, a very experienced tournament veteran - this isn't his first rodeo - who came to the event knowing that he did not have the models for the list he was running. Rather than change his list, or obtain those models (seriously - guard with meltaguns? The GW bunker was minutes away), he ran them anyway. How is it that it's on his opponents to be okay with this or be considered jerks, or stubborn, or looking for an easy win? You're putting the onus of responsibility on the wrong person here. The player who knowingly, willingly, and blatantly disregarded event rules is the player who is in the wrong, and any opponent who calls him on it is doing the event a service.

I suppose i'm less inclined to follow every rule to a tee. I know I have fielded unbased models and some models with meltabombs that didn't have them. No one complained, just as I expected. Apparently most folks in the gaming community are fairly reasonable. I'm sure Tony let his opponent's know about the models. I'm not saying you'd be technically wrong to call him out and make a stink of it. But I would say you are being unreasonable and I think lots of folks will agree with me when I say as much (I expect at the very least his Adepticon opponents would).

How do you do the event a service by ruining a person's experience? Are you telling me a few meltaguns clearly explained as not being meltaguns ruins your experience? The player who cannot play or has to play without models is the one who will have the sour taste.

If you can't understand your opponent's "counts-as" then that's fine, make something of it and tell the judges. But, I would always first try to be reasonable. If it is easy to understand then i'd rather just play the game. You paid for games, by DQ'ing your opponent you are still losing out on what you paid for. I'd only ever cause a fuss over a broken rule that gave my opponent an advantage. Confusing counts-as could constitute that, but generally won't.

And for what it's worth, Tony would probably be effected by his "questionable" modeling. Judges can dock painting scores which effects your ability to qualify for certain awards. It's a penalty some people choose to accept.

The Adepticon rules on WYSIWYG are quite clear. Failure to follow those rules is entirely the fault of the player violating the rules, with some responsibility also shared by any player to chooses not to object and thereby enables the behavior. If having those models pulled ruins the event for the violator; good. Next time maybe he'll follow the rules.

Most gamers are bad at confrontation, and no one wants to be the mean guy and ruin someone else's fun by insisting that the rules be followed. Most players look at it, are disappointed and a bit let down, but resolve to accept it anyway because they don't want to start a confrontation, and rationalize it as not being a big deal. This attitude, sadly, enables cheaters and rules violators to go on breaking rules and impinging on the enjoyment of other attendees and players without consequence to themselves.

It's a bad cycle and I'm entirely in agreement with Redbeard. Folks should stand up for the rules and expect better, especially of top players and competitors.

This is all speaking in general, of course. Those Vendettas are clearly an embarrassment and should never have been allowed on a table under the Adepticon rules, but I don't remember Tony being non-WYSIWYG. I was one of the judges for the Champ Finals and we did a model review of every one of the top 16 players. I didn't review Tony's army. I reviewed Jesse Newton's Tyranids, along with a couple of other armies which were fine. Jesse's Hive Tyrants had two different conversions for their paired TL devourers, which to my mind wasn't ideal, as the look wasn't consistent through the army (his Carnifexes actually had four devourers, so there were a total of three different appearances for the same weapon configuration), but was ruled okay by the head judge, in part because we were confident that it wouldn't confuse any of the guys in the top 16.

Like I said, I see where Redbeard is coming from. But I think if the issues eluded judges and everything is clearly explained, it ought to be let go. I don't see the point in making a mountain of a mole-hill.

Also, every large event is going to have a ton of armies who dont meet painting/basing/modeling standards. If anyone needs to take the blame, it should (not calling you out Mannahain) fall on the judges for allowing these sorts of things to slip through. If WYSIWYG is truly your most important rule, then make sure to enforce it.

And also, cheating is generally defined as deception in order to gain an advantage. Tony wasn't deceiving as apparently he explained the situation clearly to his opponent. Explaining it to his opponents would also take away any conceivable advantage he could gain.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The Adepticon rules on WYSIWYG are quite clear. Failure to follow those rules is entirely the fault of the player violating the rules, with some responsibility also shared by any player to chooses not to object and thereby enables the behavior. If having those models pulled ruins the event for the violator; good. Next time maybe he'll follow the rules.

Most gamers are bad at confrontation, and no one wants to be the mean guy and ruin someone else's fun by insisting that the rules be followed. Most players look at it, are disappointed and a bit let down, but resolve to accept it anyway because they don't want to start a confrontation, and rationalize it as not being a big deal. This attitude, sadly, enables cheaters and rules violators to go on breaking rules and impinging on the enjoyment of other attendees and players without consequence to themselves.

It's a bad cycle and I'm entirely in agreement with Redbeard. Folks should stand up for the rules and expect better, especially of top players and competitors.

This is all speaking in general, of course. Those Vendettas are clearly an embarrassment and should never have been allowed on a table under the Adepticon rules, but I don't remember Tony being non-WYSIWYG. I was one of the judges for the Champ Finals and we did a model review of every one of the top 16 players. I didn't review Tony's army. I reviewed Jesse Newton's Tyranids, along with a couple of other armies which were fine. Jesse's Hive Tyrants had two different conversions for their paired TL devourers, which to my mind wasn't ideal, as the look wasn't consistent through the army (his Carnifexes actually had four devourers, so there were a total of three different appearances for the same weapon configuration), but was ruled okay by the head judge, in part because we were confident that it wouldn't confuse any of the guys in the top 16.

I think a lot of players who attend GT's really could care-less about small modeling mistakes or poor painting/basing. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are non-confrontational and simply let it slide. But, I'd guess that most players really don't mind because they are there to play first and foremost. I'd rather play a Tony Kopach with primed models than someone of lesser skill with a beautifully painted and converted army. It's a competitive event before a modeling event, at least the way that I see it. I'd want to play the best players I can and wouldn't be too happy to see one of the better players get DQ'd over such a small issue.

I just don't believe breaking a rule that is aesthetic-based should have a player kicked out of a competitive event. If anything the penalty should be poor painting and modeling scores. Obviously this all changes on a case by case basis. Fielding an army of Eldar as Space Marines is vastly different than having a few Meltaguns that aren't being used.

I agree that a lot of the onus has to go on the judges as well. If you make a concrete rule you need to take responsibility to enforce it. Some stuff is inevitably going to slip through the cracks, but you've got to do your best.

For me WYSIWYG is a prerequisite to competitive play. If you haven't put in the work, you don't deserve to compete, or should be forced to compete at a handicap (models pulled) rather than imposing on everyone else's goodwill (and their memory, to remember what you've failed to model clearly) to tolerate your choice not to honor the rules of the event.

Especially at big events, where some of us are traveling thousands of miles and spending thousands of dollars (I think the Swedes spend an average of 10-15 thousand kroner per guy on their trip), the failure to follow through on basic modeling really sticks in my craw, to be honest.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I agree that a lot of the onus has to go on the judges as well. If you make a concrete rule you need to take responsibility to enforce it. Some stuff is inevitably going to slip through the cracks, but you've got to do your best.

For me WYSIWYG is a prerequisite to competitive play. If you haven't put in the work, you don't deserve to compete, or should be forced to compete at a handicap (models pulled) rather than imposing on everyone else's goodwill (and their memory, to remember what you've failed to model clearly) to tolerate your choice not to honor the rules of the event.

Especially at big events, where some of us are traveling thousands of miles and spending thousands of dollars (I think the Swedes spend an average of 10-15 thousand kroner per guy on their trip), the failure to follow through on basic modeling really sticks in my craw, to be honest.

It's all subjective though. For plenty of players the most important thing is getting to play vs. high level competition, not seeing well converted or painted models. And I agree that WYSIWYG should be followed, I always try to make my models represent clearly what they are equipped with, I also expect the same out of my opponent. I can however let certain things slide, provided the transgression is a small one.

This analogy is poor in certain respects, but if you take a look at pro sports there are a ton of rules that include rules for competition and aesthetics (uniformity with clothing and gear). When a player breaks the aesthetic rules he won't be penalized in game but rather out of the game (fines usually). Not every broken rule is equal to another, in a competitive event I'd say that breaking rules that give you an advantage (cheating) is very different from modeling that may fall short of expectations. I think it makes more sense to simply dock those players on their painting and modeling scores removing them from being eligible to win certain awards.

 LValx wrote:

It's all subjective though. For plenty of players the most important thing is getting to play vs. high level competition, not seeing well converted or painted models.

It's not subjective at all. It might even be that the majority of players don't care about conversions or painted models, as long as the rules say that's what's expected, then that IS what is expected.

This analogy is poor in certain respects, but if you take a look at pro sports there are a ton of rules that include rules for competition and aesthetics (uniformity with clothing and gear). When a player breaks the aesthetic rules he won't be penalized in game but rather out of the game (fines usually).

Not true. Uniform violations and sportsmanship violations can include in-game penalties as well as out-of-game. Endzone celebrations in the NFL draw fines, but they also come with a 15 yard penalty.

Not every broken rule is equal to another,

So now you're going to be the arbiter of what rules count?

in a competitive event I'd say that breaking rules that give you an advantage (cheating) is very different from modeling that may fall short of expectations. I think it makes more sense to simply dock those players on their painting and modeling scores removing them from being eligible to win certain awards.

So, this fails basic analysis. Let's make a rule that matters a lot to some people, and not at all to others. And then, when the others break it, we'll penalize them in the way that doesn't matter to them. Sure, that'll do wonders for enforcing the rule.

All of your posts so far have been of the nature, "this rule doesn't matter to me, so it shouldn't matter to you, and shouldn't be enforced." Maybe that's how you feel, but it's kind of a crappy approach to a communal game. Certainly, some players only care about competitive gaming (and, really, if you're one of them, you should take up chess instead, it's far more competitive, and no one will expect you to paint your men), but a lot of gamers do care about painting and WYSIWYG standard and that's why the rule exists. If a player cannot be bothered to play by the rules of the event, they shouldn't sign up for the event.

This is an exact quote from Hank Edley, one of the principle organizers of Adepticon on another board just a day ago.

"The vast majority of those playing at AdeptiCon do not fall into the competitive gamer bucket"


I would have to say LVlax's statement that the majority of people at Adepticon were their for competitive games a false statement based on the words of one of the guys who knows.

The competitive gaming circle is quite small in 40k land, much to the shagrin of the competitive players. I find it amusing they seem to think they are in the majority when they a very clearly not. A great many people went to Adepticon with no intention of winning all their games and no desire to. Only a desire to play miniatures against an opponent with fully painted and modeled miniatures. A cinematic tour de force if you will.

@ the sports comparison, I was referring to aesthetics, so uniforms and what not, AFAIK (and I follow NFL/NBA obsessively) players cannot be suspended or penalized in-game for breaking or bending rules as they pertain to what they wear or look like.

I never said I would determine what rules count, or which ones do not. But I am sure we can agree that certain rules are worse to break than others.

We see it differently. That is apparent. It seems that none of Tony's opponent's minded his approach. I've seen plenty of tourney Batreps on here or elsewhere where players have unpainted/unfinished/unbased models. In my own experiences, the general community doesn't care much about small transgressions to painting standards or even WYSIWYG. Some people might and in that case you wouldn't be wrong to say something. I would however say that you were being unreasonable. And that is my opinion. Just as you have yours. I'm sure plenty of folks on here would find it reasonable to bring over a judge.

Also @ Darth, it doesn't have to do with competitive, but it does have to do with playing. The majority of players are probably there to play the game. I don't see how a few modeling or painting issues actually effect gameplay.

It seems that none of Tony's opponent's minded his approach.

This is an assumption I have to take issue with. IF he did violate the rules, we don't actually know whether or how many of his opponents minded. We don't know whether they objected at all. We don't know whether they might have been disappointed and let down by seeing non-WYSIWYG models, but decided to play on anyway, feeling that they were stuck choosing the lesser of two evils- play against an army in violation, or raise a stink. Just having to make that choice is putting an unreasonable burden on the non-violating player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LValx wrote:
@ the sports comparison, I was referring to aesthetics, so uniforms and what not, AFAIK (and I follow NFL/NBA obsessively) players cannot be suspended or penalized in-game for breaking or bending rules as they pertain to what they wear or look like.

You can be penalized for removing your helmet or other gear in a lot of sports. Failure to wear the proper equipment or having gear that doesn't meet certain standards for safety check and/or proper colors (or number display, etc.) can also cause a person to be disallowed to participate in a lot of sports.

Was there not painting scores factored into the final results?, instead of reporting the player could you not have marked them down as a bad person to face?, whether they were the nicest person on the planet (probably would have affected your opinion maybe) but you are expecting to play against a painted WYSIWYG army rather then calling over a judge when you are about to play a game with someone

It isnt exactly pretty to see but I cant say I would have called over a judge because someones models were not finished to my standard

His opponents and the judges are just as much at fault if not more so.

Good Report, I enjoyed it!

MarkyMark wrote:
Was there not painting scores factored into the final results?, instead of reporting the player could you not have marked them down as a bad person to face?, whether they were the nicest person on the planet (probably would have affected your opinion maybe) but you are expecting to play against a painted WYSIWYG army rather then calling over a judge when you are about to play a game with someone

Painting scores are factored into the awards for the day 1 qualifier. With painting and sportsmanship scores included, Eric Hoerger was the Overall Champ on day 1. The Championship has both that and a second day for the top 16 competitors on pure battle scores. Some folks focus primarily on the battle aspect, although the rules require them to meet a minimum standard in WYSIWYG and painting.

MarkyMark wrote:
It isnt exactly pretty to see but I cant say I would have called over a judge because someones models were not finished to my standard

The point isn't that they're not finished to your standard. The idea we're talking about here is that they're not modeled properly to the event's clearly-stated and printed standards. The person's made a decision to disregard the rules rather than put in the effort to meet the standard. A standard a lot of other people work hard to achieve, including staying up late or getting up early before the tournament starts fixing up models broken in transit, or what have you.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Sorry I failed to say thanks before and give my compliments on the report! It's a good 'un, and I really enjoyed it. Congrats on your performance!

 hazrd wrote:
Hey Jason here from day 1 round 4 great job on the battle report and i had just as much fun in our game, great close fight till the end.

Also sorry I missed saying hi to Jason, who managed to knock me out in round 2 of the Championship qualifier. I can attest that he's a very good player and an excellent sport. Nice to see you on here, man!

HELLO, sorry i missed this in the earlier of the thread had a great game with you as well looking forward to the next adepticon.