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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Interesting still - so BattleScribe (which is often recommended to new players and generally held out as the list builder currently) is not representative of anything but a tournament is. Also while it may not be free to play in a tournament it is certainly 'free' to judge one (i.e. judges are all volunteers). I think instead of trying to hold the tournament accountable we should probably hold the players accountable.

Battlescribe is a symptom, not the disease itself--at least in my opinion. Daedalus81 and Auticus both posted about how people don't want to buy the codex--and Daedalus further had a point earlier on regarding that "people don't have four months between releases to learn new books"(I'm kind of coopting this point to discuss people not wanting to buy the books rather than just them not having time to learn the books but both have merit as arguments) and others have commented on the rapid pace of book releases this edition.

There are people who genuinely, for whatever reason, feel that they're entitled to owning all of the rules for every single army and they shouldn't have to pay for it or it should all be made cheaper/"more streamlined" so as they don't get inconvenienced. So Battlescribe and torrents/leaked stuff ends up being their 'solution' to the issue.

If it isn't BattleScribe's fault that people don't proof read or double check then it isn't a tournament organizers - its just that person.

I can't agree with you on this point. The tournament organizers are supposed to be the ones organizing the event and, ideally, ensuring that everyone follows the same rules.
Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

Ideally that would mean that the TO would ensure that measures are taken to prevent these kinds of things from happening. How we've had at least 2 notable instances of people writing lists with invalid Relic setups and no measures being put into place to avoid them raises some serious questions regarding organizers for myself.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
In my younger days when I first perused the Internet, People were asking dumb questions like what's the maximum unit size for bikers and stuff.

Rybrook wrote:

I just want to know how many bikers are in a squadron for 8th ed?

That was from four days ago.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Battlescribe is only a reference and nothing else, and is even said as such. No different than writing stuff on Notecards like how many CP you have, and which units go where, and the only Strategems you choose to use (which is very few in the Marine codex, trust me!).

But that's the thing at the heart of this issue. Battlescribe might bill itself as "only a reference", but some people think it a substitute for a codex.

People were always trying to acquire the rules for free. In my younger days when I first perused the Internet, People were asking dumb questions like what's the maximum unit size for bikers and stuff. I of course never called people out on it in fear of my identity being found out (I was kinda paranoid as a kid haha), but at least other people did. Or they'd ask in reference to rules on the Pariah because their codex "didn't come with the page the rules were on".

Sure people have always been trying to acquire the rules for free; I'm not trying to pretend that "back in my day..." everyone bought everything or there weren't people using pirated/scanned material.

It just wasn't something that you saw as often since digital formats didn't exist legally and people couldn't have multiple army books on their daggone cell phone or tablet.
*goes back to his rocking chair*

To belabor an earlier point. This is how disinformation spreads in groups.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Battlescribe is only a reference and nothing else, and is even said as such. No different than writing stuff on Notecards like how many CP you have, and which units go where, and the only Strategems you choose to use (which is very few in the Marine codex, trust me!).

But that's the thing at the heart of this issue. Battlescribe might bill itself as "only a reference", but some people think it a substitute for a codex.

People were always trying to acquire the rules for free. In my younger days when I first perused the Internet, People were asking dumb questions like what's the maximum unit size for bikers and stuff. I of course never called people out on it in fear of my identity being found out (I was kinda paranoid as a kid haha), but at least other people did. Or they'd ask in reference to rules on the Pariah because their codex "didn't come with the page the rules were on".

Sure people have always been trying to acquire the rules for free; I'm not trying to pretend that "back in my day..." everyone bought everything or there weren't people using pirated/scanned material.

It just wasn't something that you saw as often since digital formats didn't exist legally and people couldn't have multiple army books on their daggone cell phone or tablet.
*goes back to his rocking chair*

All it did was make it slightly easier. Nothing more, nothing less. Battlescribe is simply just a wonderful tool if you need to do quick crunching.

Saying it's bad because people are using it like that is similar to banning knives because somebody might stab somebody else, ya know?

Again they should crowdsource list checking. People like myself - who aren't attending - could sign up to vet lists. For free. I'd do it. It helps the integrity of the game, and takes very little time to do a thorough check.

People flag the lists that they think have errors with an explanation. Either the TOs get a ton of stupid feedback and it's a horrible idea, or people don't ruin it and it really helps improve the lists and alleviates the burden from TOs.

 Marmatag wrote:
Again they should crowdsource list checking. People like myself - who aren't attending - could sign up to vet lists. For free. I'd do it. It helps the integrity of the game, and takes very little time to do a thorough check.

People flag the lists that they think have errors with an explanation. Either the TOs get a ton of stupid feedback and it's a horrible idea, or people don't ruin it and it really helps improve the lists and alleviates the burden from TOs.

This is a good idea, that will improve tournaments if it works and is an actionable suggestion!

 Marmatag wrote:
Again they should crowdsource list checking.

I second this notion.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
People at the local store wondered why I stripped my Knights of Blood and repainted them as Blood Angels when I told them about the relics...

Totally glad I did now, not worth the hassle when a new player shows up and calls me out on cheating. They also said tournaments wouldn't care haha.

It makes no difference how they are painted, you can still have <blood angels> as your chapter.

What you can't do is take a character that requires you to be chapter <something else> and still take relics that are <blood angels> only no matter how they're painted.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

Yeah, I'd say that's fair.

Battlescribe is an unoffical free mod, no-one is compelled to use for anything that has no concequences on anything. [Unless you argue it's responsible for people neglecting to read their Codex's, but I'm fairly sure if you deleted Battlescribe people would still fail to read their Codex's.]

Tournaments, [And I assume here we are talking about GT type events, not you and 7 mates in a garage.] are -

Not Free.
Representative of the hobby to a wider community, including being streamed.
Judged.
Direct Datapoints for GW to make actual rules changes to the actual game.

It feels perfectly reasonable to me that we hold them responsible.
If Battlescribe was an offical app, that I paid to use, and mandatory at events then I'd hold them more accountable, too.

Interesting still - so BattleScribe (which is often recommended to new players and generally held out as the list builder currently) is not representative of anything but a tournament is. Also while it may not be free to play in a tournament it is certainly 'free' to judge one (i.e. judges are all volunteers). I think instead of trying to hold the tournament accountable we should probably hold the players accountable. If it isn't BattleScribe's fault that people don't proof read or double check then it isn't a tournament organizers - its just that person.

You don't give any supporting evidence here. Yes it's free to judge an event, you give no reason as to why this is relevent. If I am paying money to do something, I expect a service as a result. If I am paying to attend the event, I expect the event to have standards, including but not limited to, fair play. It's their responsibility to manage that, be that with free judges, paid judges, or some entirely alternative method.

While I can never claim to have managed a GT, I have managed smaller 20 people events, and I have managed Science Fiction conventions with hundreds of attendees. I don't disagree with your claim that list checking would be difficult, but I flat out disagree that it would be impossible, and I respectfully suggest that if you want to hold the single largest, and thus most important Warhammer Event in the _Entire World_ you should be prepared to be better organised. Volunteer list checkers are a thing.

Or are you suggesting that if Adeptacon asked Dakka for volunteer list checkers, we wouldn't have at _least_ half a dozen people super eager to crawl through all those lists and nitpick any faults for free? And that's just here on this one forum, not counting any friends, offical gaming organisations, stores...

"All lists checked and verified by [Insert name of organisation here." is free publicity.
There are options. This is not an impossible task, it is one that's perfectly within reason if you want to be credited with running such a high level hobby event. Defending it is excusing laziness.
People write sloppy crap lists _Because they can get away with it_ if they know their lists are going to be checked, and they're going to be penalised/disqualified if they've made errors _They Will Make Better Lists_ I promise you that.

I do agree that you're paying to play in an event that it is generally fair to expect a level of service. It definitely varies with the size of the event and the cost of entry.

The question is, how much would you be willing to pay for this specific 'list-audit' service? Since the current cost of entry doesn't cover that.

Crowdsourcing would be the best way to do it - but might also pose some challenges.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

You don't give any supporting evidence here. Yes it's free to judge an event, you give no reason as to why this is relevent. If I am paying money to do something, I expect a service as a result. If I am paying to attend the event, I expect the event to have standards, including but not limited to, fair play. It's their responsibility to manage that, be that with free judges, paid judges, or some entirely alternative method.

While I can never claim to have managed a GT, I have managed smaller 20 people events, and I have managed Science Fiction conventions with hundreds of attendees. I don't disagree with your claim that list checking would be difficult, but I flat out disagree that it would be impossible, and I respectfully suggest that if you want to hold the single largest, and thus most important Warhammer Event in the _Entire World_ you should be prepared to be better organised. Volunteer list checkers are a thing.

Or are you suggesting that if Adeptacon asked Dakka for volunteer list checkers, we wouldn't have at _least_ half a dozen people super eager to crawl through all those lists and nitpick any faults for free? And that's just here on this one forum, not counting any friends, offical gaming organisations, stores...

"All lists checked and verified by [Insert name of organisation here." is free publicity.
There are options. This is not an impossible task, it is one that's perfectly within reason if you want to be credited with running such a high level hobby event. Defending it is excusing laziness.
People write sloppy crap lists _Because they can get away with it_ if they know their lists are going to be checked, and they're going to be penalised/disqualified if they've made errors _They Will Make Better Lists_ I promise you that.

You're paying for terrain, rules packs, trophies/prize support, venue space, table rentals, and a host of other things. So to act like you're just dumping money in the pocket of the TO and they're providing you with nothing in return is fallacious. And as to crowd list sourcing that's why they have people submit lists to BCP ahead of the tournament so anyone can go on to BCP and check those lists. Ultimately I don't agree people don't write sloppy lists because they think they can get away with it, people make mistakes. Oh and if they're crowd sourced no one is getting DQ'd or penalized outside having to correct the list error. And to be clear I'm not saying we should never check lists - I agree with the crowd sourcing concept. The issue I have and have stated several times is that it is unreasonable to expect the TOs to personally validate every list at a major event and I don't want to discourage people from running events simply because they're not actual tournaments. I'd rather they continue to run them - flawed or not.

 Marmatag wrote:
Again they should crowdsource list checking. People like myself - who aren't attending - could sign up to vet lists. For free. I'd do it. It helps the integrity of the game, and takes very little time to do a thorough check.

People flag the lists that they think have errors with an explanation. Either the TOs get a ton of stupid feedback and it's a horrible idea, or people don't ruin it and it really helps improve the lists and alleviates the burden from TOs.

Can tournaments find enough volunteers for that to run through every list through several?

tneva82 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Again they should crowdsource list checking. People like myself - who aren't attending - could sign up to vet lists. For free. I'd do it. It helps the integrity of the game, and takes very little time to do a thorough check.

People flag the lists that they think have errors with an explanation. Either the TOs get a ton of stupid feedback and it's a horrible idea, or people don't ruin it and it really helps improve the lists and alleviates the burden from TOs.

Can tournaments find enough volunteers for that to run through every list through several?

Why stop at volunteers? Put a bounty on every player caught and DQed for an illegal list. People will go find those mistakes if they get paid for finding them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Ultimately I don't agree people don't write sloppy lists because they think they can get away with it, people make mistakes.

You can disagree all you want, but you're wrong. People get sloppy because they know the chances of any meaningful consequences are low. I guarantee that if the price of submitting an illegal list was getting DQed at the beginning of the tournament after paying for airline tickets, hotel rooms, etc, and getting to watch in frustration as everyone else has fun without you people would suddenly stop having these "accidents". There is no excuse for making a mistake with something that is as black and white as list construction.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

You don't give any supporting evidence here. Yes it's free to judge an event, you give no reason as to why this is relevent. If I am paying money to do something, I expect a service as a result. If I am paying to attend the event, I expect the event to have standards, including but not limited to, fair play. It's their responsibility to manage that, be that with free judges, paid judges, or some entirely alternative method.

While I can never claim to have managed a GT, I have managed smaller 20 people events, and I have managed Science Fiction conventions with hundreds of attendees. I don't disagree with your claim that list checking would be difficult, but I flat out disagree that it would be impossible, and I respectfully suggest that if you want to hold the single largest, and thus most important Warhammer Event in the _Entire World_ you should be prepared to be better organised. Volunteer list checkers are a thing.

Or are you suggesting that if Adeptacon asked Dakka for volunteer list checkers, we wouldn't have at _least_ half a dozen people super eager to crawl through all those lists and nitpick any faults for free? And that's just here on this one forum, not counting any friends, offical gaming organisations, stores...

"All lists checked and verified by [Insert name of organisation here." is free publicity.
There are options. This is not an impossible task, it is one that's perfectly within reason if you want to be credited with running such a high level hobby event. Defending it is excusing laziness.
People write sloppy crap lists _Because they can get away with it_ if they know their lists are going to be checked, and they're going to be penalised/disqualified if they've made errors _They Will Make Better Lists_ I promise you that.

You're paying for terrain, rules packs, trophies/prize support, venue space, table rentals, and a host of other things. So to act like you're just dumping money in the pocket of the TO and they're providing you with nothing in return is fallacious. And as to crowd list sourcing that's why they have people submit lists to BCP ahead of the tournament so anyone can go on to BCP and check those lists. Ultimately I don't agree people don't write sloppy lists because they think they can get away with it, people make mistakes. Oh and if they're crowd sourced no one is getting DQ'd or penalized outside having to correct the list error. And to be clear I'm not saying we should never check lists - I agree with the crowd sourcing concept. The issue I have and have stated several times is that it is unreasonable to expect the TOs to personally validate every

list at a major event and I don't want to discourage people from running events simply because they're not actual tournaments. I'd rather they continue to run them - flawed or not.

I've never claimed that anyone is "Putting money in the pocket of the TO", I am paying for a service, if that service is flawed, why am I paying for it? Look at the example we're discussing. He got to the top 16, and then dropped because of a list error that should of been picked up. Someone else _should_ have been in the top 16 instead. We don't know who they are, but they were cheated out of their place. It certainly wasn't fair they paid to enter, and arguably nor was it for everyone else that lost to him, or anyone else that paid and lost to people with list errors that were never caught.

If I pay for a service, and you only give me 75% of it, that's not on. I'd rather there were fewer, better run 40k events, Particularly if GW is going to use them as a basis to change the actual rules of the game.

The issue is that list checking was never stated as part of said service, so you were not shorted on anything you were promised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Again they should crowdsource list checking. People like myself - who aren't attending - could sign up to vet lists. For free. I'd do it. It helps the integrity of the game, and takes very little time to do a thorough check.

People flag the lists that they think have errors with an explanation. Either the TOs get a ton of stupid feedback and it's a horrible idea, or people don't ruin it and it really helps improve the lists and alleviates the burden from TOs.

Can tournaments find enough volunteers for that to run through every list through several?

Why stop at volunteers? Put a bounty on every player caught and DQed for an illegal list. People will go find those mistakes if they get paid for finding them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Ultimately I don't agree people don't write sloppy lists because they think they can get away with it, people make mistakes.

You can disagree all you want, but you're wrong. People get sloppy because they know the chances of any meaningful consequences are low. I guarantee that if the price of submitting an illegal list was getting DQed at the beginning of the tournament after paying for airline tickets, hotel rooms, etc, and getting to watch in frustration as everyone else has fun without you people would suddenly stop having these "accidents". There is no excuse for making a mistake with something that is as black and white as list construction.

How much would you pay them exactly to find errors? What if 2 people find the same error do you pay them both? Where exactly is this money coming from? Increased entry fees to events? The idea of an error bountry borders on rediculous.

As to people cleaning up their act, some people might do a better job, but honestly if you ran your tournament with gotcha DQs for bad lists, lots of people would stop attending because of the negative experience. If doing advanced list checking the proper response is to allow players to correct their lists not to DQ them for it, especially after they spend a ton of money.

The other issue with that approach is that it assumes the list checkers are perfect, and miss nothing. If you pre check lists you don’t guarantee no illegal list makes the tournament but you assume the responsibility for it.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue is that list checking was never stated as part of said service, so you were not shorted on anything you were promised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Again they should crowdsource list checking. People like myself - who aren't attending - could sign up to vet lists. For free. I'd do it. It helps the integrity of the game, and takes very little time to do a thorough check.

People flag the lists that they think have errors with an explanation. Either the TOs get a ton of stupid feedback and it's a horrible idea, or people don't ruin it and it really helps improve the lists and alleviates the burden from TOs.

Can tournaments find enough volunteers for that to run through every list through several?

Why stop at volunteers? Put a bounty on every player caught and DQed for an illegal list. People will go find those mistakes if they get paid for finding them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Ultimately I don't agree people don't write sloppy lists because they think they can get away with it, people make mistakes.

You can disagree all you want, but you're wrong. People get sloppy because they know the chances of any meaningful consequences are low. I guarantee that if the price of submitting an illegal list was getting DQed at the beginning of the tournament after paying for airline tickets, hotel rooms, etc, and getting to watch in frustration as everyone else has fun without you people would suddenly stop having these "accidents". There is no excuse for making a mistake with something that is as black and white as list construction.

How much would you pay them exactly to find errors? What if 2 people find the same error do you pay them both? Where exactly is this money coming from? Increased entry fees to events? The idea of an error bountry borders on rediculous.

As to people cleaning up their act, some people might do a better job, but honestly if you ran your tournament with gotcha DQs for bad lists, lots of people would stop attending because of the negative experience. If doing advanced list checking the proper response is to allow players to correct their lists not to DQ them for it, especially after they spend a ton of money.

The other issue with that approach is that it assumes the list checkers are perfect, and miss nothing. If you pre check lists you don’t guarantee no illegal list makes the tournament but you assume the responsibility for it.

I'm sorry, wait what? You're concerned that the people who get DQ'd for incorrect lists might be upset and not come this time? As opposed to our current system where they get DQ'd if they get caught? So you'd prefer the system that only disqualifies people who get caught, and anyone who cheats but doesn't gets encouraged to come again? And this is for the people we hail as the best of the best in the hobby? That's completely unreasonable. If you get DQ'd because your list was illegal, and that upsets you to the extent you'll never compete "Professionally" again, that's... a good thing for the hobby? Either learn to list write, or don't compete?
We're not saying people can't play the hobby, here. Just that if they can't write a list, maybe tournment level events arn't for them? You don't get into a magic tournament until you've learned to make a legal deck. They don't stop deck checking for fear that if they caught people those people might not come back next time!

Breng77 wrote:
What if 2 people find the same error do you pay them both?

First one to find and submit the error gets the bounty.

Where exactly is this money coming from? Increased entry fees to events?

That's for the TO to figure out. Given the harsh penalty for making a mistake I would expect errors to be very rare, and how to fund an occasional bounty payment to be a very easy problem to solve.

but honestly if you ran your tournament with gotcha DQs for bad lists, lots of people would stop attending because of the negative experience.

Alternatively, they could just stop being careless and create legal lists. This is not exactly a difficult requirement to meet, and if a few people who are incapable of following the rules decide to stop attending, well, nothing of value is lost. They're probably cheating elsewhere too.

If doing advanced list checking the proper response is to allow players to correct their lists not to DQ them for it, especially after they spend a ton of money.

No, the proper response is to DQ them and let them deal with the financial loss. If there is effectively zero penalty for an illegal list then there is zero incentive to get it right. If submitting an illegal list costs you $1000 in wasted airline tickets and hotel reservations, plus the embarrassment of being publicly DQed and outed as a cheater then you're going to have a lot of incentive to get it right the first time. Players will check their lists several times, ask friends to look at it, etc, and illegal list submissions should become virtually nonexistent.

The other issue with that approach is that it assumes the list checkers are perfect, and miss nothing.

You're right, it isn't perfect. But it's sure better than the current system, and it can be supplemented by a zero-tolerance policy for illegal lists if you're caught during the event. Delay prize payouts for a few days after the event and let the community go over the top 16 (or whoever gets prizes) in obsessive detail, and if any illegal lists are found no prize is paid. Don't let demands for perfection get in the way of implementing significant improvements.

If you pre check lists you don’t guarantee no illegal list makes the tournament but you assume the responsibility for it.

The TO already has responsibility for it. They just, as a general rule, aren't living up to their obligations right now.

 auticus wrote:
Thats what happens when a free army builder is available. People don't want to buy codex, so they use free army builder. And then have no idea how their army works. And then any errors in app buildier carry over to their games since they don't know better.

I don't use Battlescribe, so I wouldn't know, but isn't it just a list builder, and you'd still need the codex for statlines, rules, etc?

It also has stats and rules. Not bullet proof though with errors which isn't surprise since it's made by humans

So if the first person gets the reward how do you communicate that it has been found. Sounds like a lot of time replying to people who don’t get the bounty. Do that enough checkers will stop checking because they get nothing.

If you expect mistakes to be rare you’ve never list checked an event. List errors are super common. Which is the problem with the dq at the door response. When I ran events and list checked I would have been DQing 25-30% of the field. If they had to travel pay for hotels, con badges etc. embarrassed is not how they will feel. It will be pissed. There is nothing to be gained by the DQ approach it is not as if I can stop checking lists after a few times, and checking good lists is the same time commitment as checking bad lists, so all I gain is angry people, which I can avoid by allowing corrections. Which still allows for playing with fewer illegal lists. Sorry your suggestions hold no water when talking about the reality of organizing events. The idea in any device industry is to please the customers, and your way will puss if significantly more than it will please.

tneva82 wrote:
It also has stats and rules.

How can that be legal?

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
It also has stats and rules.

How can that be legal?

Battlescribe is safe as it's program without data. Suing them would be like suing pc companies because you can read pirated codex with pc. As fordatafiles maybe gw just figures hunting anonymous guys for them just ain't worth as in practice you still need codex due to errors

Breng77 wrote:
So if the first person gets the reward how do you communicate that it has been found. Sounds like a lot of time replying to people who don’t get the bounty. Do that enough checkers will stop checking because they get nothing.

You can put the lists up for public review and then flag illegal ones once they're caught, and put a "questionable" flag on any list that has a report submitted as a warning that trying to check that list might not pay out for you. The whole thing can be automated except for actually reviewing the list once it is flagged.

If you expect mistakes to be rare you’ve never list checked an event. List errors are super common. Which is the problem with the dq at the door response. When I ran events and list checked I would have been DQing 25-30% of the field. If they had to travel pay for hotels, con badges etc. embarrassed is not how they will feel. It will be pissed. There is nothing to be gained by the DQ approach it is not as if I can stop checking lists after a few times, and checking good lists is the same time commitment as checking bad lists, so all I gain is angry people, which I can avoid by allowing corrections. Which still allows for playing with fewer illegal lists. Sorry your suggestions hold no water when talking about the reality of organizing events. The idea in any device industry is to please the customers, and your way will puss if significantly more than it will please.

Yes, of course people will be unhappy. And some of them will blame the TO for the DQ instead of admitting their own laziness and stupidity. The first group will take the lesson and show up with a legal list next time. The second group are a bunch of whiny TFGs that can't stand they fact that they got caught cheating, and losing them is a benefit to the community.

The problem with the "make changes at the door" approach is that there's no penalty to getting caught with an illegal list. If you're careless (or attempting to cheat) and get caught you just fix your mistake. So you can pretty much bet that you'll have that same 25-30% error rate every single time. DQ those people and let them eat a $1000 bill for their stupidity and your error rate for all subsequent events should drop to essentially zero.

So TOs now need to program websites to automate list checking, that is eliminating a majority of them off the top. The reality until someone else develops the checking site (and thus assumes the pay out in your case at least as a go between) is that list checking would function an email or forum style review, that the TO(s) would need to manually verify. The forum style might work as a method of not having double reporting. But TOs would still need to verify every found error.

As to the people being upset being TFGs that are upset they go caught cheating. Sorry you are wrong, they are regular guys that made mistakes and lost $1000 because of it. That is likely to piss off a lot of people to the point where it is not worth the risk to them where they might make such a costly error. I know I wouldn’t attend those events because I cannot afford that kind of lesson even though to my knowledge I’ve never run an illegal list at an event. Most people aren’t going to several big events a year they go to 1, and that might be their vacation for the year. Risking that on easy to make errors will turn people away. If you are checking you do it at least a week in advance and allow players to correct what typically amount to minor errors. You have it in your mind that all list mistakes are people trying to cheat. That is the disconnect from reality, 80+% are lower level players/new players, harsh penalties are a good way to push them out of the hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also most won’t blame the TO for DQ, but instead blame them for the harsh policy that cost the. A ton of money when it is not necessary.

Breng77 wrote:
So TOs now need to program websites to automate list checking, that is eliminating a majority of them off the top. The reality until someone else develops the checking site (and thus assumes the pay out in your case at least as a go between) is that list checking would function an email or forum style review, that the TO(s) would need to manually verify. The forum style might work as a method of not having double reporting. But TOs would still need to verify every found error.

Even a forum would be pretty easy. Make the forum public, give the bounty to the person with the earliest timestamp on their post pointing out the error. Anyone going to the site to review a list would be able to look and see which mistakes have already been pointed out and avoid reviewing any list with a pending error report if they're concerned about missing the bounty.

Sorry you are wrong, they are regular guys that made mistakes and lost $1000 because of it.

No, they're "regular guys" who were too ing lazy to bother writing a correct list. Getting a correct list is not some kind of impossible obstacle, mistakes here are inexcusable. Write your list. Check it twice a day until the submission deadline. Ask your friends to check it. Post it on a public forum for people to check it. If people can't be bothered to follow the rules in a competitive tournament then they don't need to play in one.

You have it in your mind that all list mistakes are people trying to cheat.

No I don't. Some of them are trying to cheat, but I'm sure most of them are just people who are too lazy to bother following the rules and don't care if they cheat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Also most won’t blame the TO for DQ, but instead blame them for the harsh policy that cost the. A ton of money when it is not necessary.

You're wrong, it is necessary. It may not be necessary for one particular event to run well, but it's necessary to kill off the mindset that cheating is ok as long as you can claim it's an accident. It's simple, you have two choices:

1) Have an event or two where people learn painful lessons and get DQed for their own stupidity, and permanently fix the problem because people will now put the effort into making sure their lists are correct. People are unhappy (though they have only themselves to blame) in the short term, but things are greatly improved in the long run.

or

2) Keep letting people get away with no meaningful consequences for illegal lists, and keep having problems with people bringing illegal lists. People are happier in the short term, but competitive 40k continues to be a joke and there continue to be fights and disputed winners over illegal lists.

The choice should be obvious. Deal with the problem permanently.

Breng77 wrote:
So TOs now need to program websites to automate list checking, that is eliminating a majority of them off the top. The reality until someone else develops the checking site (and thus assumes the pay out in your case at least as a go between) is that list checking would function an email or forum style review, that the TO(s) would need to manually verify. The forum style might work as a method of not having double reporting. But TOs would still need to verify every found error.

No-one send anything about a website that automatically checks the list. Having a site with the lists which flags a list as questionable when someone submits a possible issue and then removes it when the TO verifies the issue is a trivial thing to implement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Getting a correct list is not some kind of impossible obstacle, mistakes here are inexcusable.

Ha. I had a club player who played very loose with the rules but would only play against people that would let him get away with it.

We implemented list checking at a club event specifically because of him - he made three failed attempts to write a legal list and then quit in a huff. Apparently he'd spent so long cheating on his lists that he actually couldn't create a legal list.

Nothing of value was lost.

It seems some of you are unfamiliar with the express "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained with incompetence". There are definitely people who knowingly cheat, but for the most part, list building mistakes are just that: mistakes. This is a complicated system with multiple inconsistency.

Breng77 wrote:

How much would you pay them exactly to find errors? What if 2 people find the same error do you pay them both? Where exactly is this money coming from? Increased entry fees to events? The idea of an error bountry borders on rediculous.

When you submit your list, you put a 5 dollar deposit down. If your list is fine you get it back. If your list is invalid, the TO's remove the offending units and you play the event without them and the 5 bucks goes to the first person who noticed your error/cheat. Hell, that 5 bucks can even buy a pair of nice beers.

"congratulations, your list was fine, enjoy two beers/sodas/hotdogs/etc"

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So TOs now need to program websites to automate list checking, that is eliminating a majority of them off the top. The reality until someone else develops the checking site (and thus assumes the pay out in your case at least as a go between) is that list checking would function an email or forum style review, that the TO(s) would need to manually verify. The forum style might work as a method of not having double reporting. But TOs would still need to verify every found error.

Even a forum would be pretty easy. Make the forum public, give the bounty to the person with the earliest timestamp on their post pointing out the error. Anyone going to the site to review a list would be able to look and see which mistakes have already been pointed out and avoid reviewing any list with a pending error report if they're concerned about missing the bounty.

Sorry you are wrong, they are regular guys that made mistakes and lost $1000 because of it.

No, they're "regular guys" who were too ing lazy to bother writing a correct list. Getting a correct list is not some kind of impossible obstacle, mistakes here are inexcusable. Write your list. Check it twice a day until the submission deadline. Ask your friends to check it. Post it on a public forum for people to check it. If people can't be bothered to follow the rules in a competitive tournament then they don't need to play in one.

You have it in your mind that all list mistakes are people trying to cheat.

No I don't. Some of them are trying to cheat, but I'm sure most of them are just people who are too lazy to bother following the rules and don't care if they cheat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Also most won’t blame the TO for DQ, but instead blame them for the harsh policy that cost the. A ton of money when it is not necessary.

You're wrong, it is necessary. It may not be necessary for one particular event to run well, but it's necessary to kill off the mindset that cheating is ok as long as you can claim it's an accident. It's simple, you have two choices:

1) Have an event or two where people learn painful lessons and get DQed for their own stupidity, and permanently fix the problem because people will now put the effort into making sure their lists are correct. People are unhappy (though they have only themselves to blame) in the short term, but things are greatly improved in the long run.

or

2) Keep letting people get away with no meaningful consequences for illegal lists, and keep having problems with people bringing illegal lists. People are happier in the short term, but competitive 40k continues to be a joke and there continue to be fights and disputed winners over illegal lists.

The choice should be obvious. Deal with the problem permanently.

You’d be surprised how much cut you could check your list post ignore on forums, have friends check it and still get mistakes. And I’m the end you end up punishing the guy who is a new player and doesn’t know to check their list 85 times. Say what you want I still think a non-dq list checking method is superior for the health of the game. Because it won’t be 2 guys get caught once and the problem self corrects it will be 10-20 guys every year. Your fix might work for top guys, other guys will just stop showing up, and get hammered. There is a large issue with the people here that want every mistake to be auto-dq. I’d prefer submit list, it is checked, if errors resubmit if errors are still present then dq. I would also issue the dq prior to the event, not force someone to get on a plane, fly 1000 miles, then say “oh btw you’re dq’d“.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 davou wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

How much would you pay them exactly to find errors? What if 2 people find the same error do you pay them both? Where exactly is this money coming from? Increased entry fees to events? The idea of an error bountry borders on rediculous.

When you submit your list, you put a 5 dollar deposit down. If your list is fine you get it back. If your list is invalid, the TO's remove the offending units and you play the event without them and the 5 bucks goes to the first person who noticed your error/cheat. Hell, that 5 bucks can even buy a pair of nice beers.

"congratulations, your list was fine, enjoy two beers/sodas/hotdogs/etc"

Somewhat possible, it would need cleaning out. If you are 2 points over which unit isn’t offending? What if removal of that unit makes the list illegal?