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.

I almost never see games played completely correctly, even by top players. Part of it is the way GW writes rules, part of it is there being so many Codexes and rules to know/opponent army unfamiliarity, part of it (less common now) is 4th edition memories...and unfortunately part of it is players taking favorable interpretations of their own armies stuff and hoping their opponent doesn't argue. I don't really think Tony was trying to pull a fast one, but it doesn't appear to be correct from the FAQ.

Which I think is another reason to make the stakes "more models" or "a big trophy". It's just too easy to decide games based mostly on rules errors. Someday mini games will all be on 3d generated terrain with a machine judge that knows all the rules...but until then a pretty big percentage of games will have large rules mistakes influence them greatly

DarthDiggler wrote:It of course takes away the accomplishment. It turned the game big time. Tony plays Njall all the time. He should know that one. He's got the Baron's leadership memorized from the DE codex, but he forgets the one thing that kills Njalls Tempest power. The one rule that hampers him and cuts his powers in half. Of course he knew. In fact when Alan questioned it Tony didn't back down.

You can say the 2000pts and the format of the tourney is to much for seasoned players who play all the time with their armies. It's to much for those 'great' tourney players that they need to rush and make mistakes. That doesn't sound to good for futire 2k tourneys, but this wasn't the case. The game wasn't rushed and they finished early.

People make mistakes, mis-read rules, and interpret things in different ways. Calm down with the e-drama.

DarthDiggler wrote:It of course takes away the accomplishment. It turned the game big time. Tony plays Njall all the time. He should know that one. He's got the Baron's leadership memorized from the DE codex, but he forgets the one thing that kills Njalls Tempest power. The one rule that hampers him and cuts his powers in half. Of course he knew. In fact when Alan questioned it Tony didn't back down.

You can say the 2000pts and the format of the tourney is to much for seasoned players who play all the time with their armies. It's to much for those 'great' tourney players that they need to rush and make mistakes. That doesn't sound to good for futire 2k tourneys, but this wasn't the case. The game wasn't rushed and they finished early.

Again, it doesn't dim the accomplishment because if you take absolutely ANY game of 40K at any level and put it under the microscope of having hundreds of people watching from the comfort of their home watching to see any mistake you will encounter plenty.

The fact is, if the rule seemed to good to be true, then Blackmoor should have asked to see the Codex, and even if he had he probably wouldn't have realized that it was an issue because its a RAW FAQ ruling by GW that you wouldn't necessarily notice if you just read the rule at first glance.

Its obvious that Tony screwed up and wasn't aware of that FAQ ruling, but so what? Blackmoor tried to argue that the Aegis affected Psychic Hood tests. The only reason that didn't happen is because Tony had a hankering that it was wrong. If Blackmoor had known that ruling from the SW codex then he could have called Tony on it.

It is the nature of the beast in a complicated game with time pressure and long days.

That is a bad rule to misplay, with a significant effect on the game.

That said, Blackmoor made multiple mistakes in the game, and I do think Tony outplayed him.

If nothing else the last 3 days of streaming 40k has taught me that a large portion of the internet drama about GT players is manufactured by monday morning quarterbacks. It makes me feel a lot better about my rules confusions, etc.

thehod wrote:I remember forgetting to make use of combat drugs back in 4th edition in some games due to mental fatigue.

I'm sure there is a lesson somewhere.

Then the games are to big and there are to many games in a weekend. Whats the point of playing so many games that at the end, in the championship game, the players are so tired that they are just making stuff up and no one notices. If the mistakes get to be so much, then did the best player win or the one who's "honest screw ups" help him the most.

If that's the case I don't want to read anything anywhere about how the best player won - no matter who it was. It's like have a footrace for the worlds fastest man after all participants just swam 15 miles. Did the fastest man really won?


It was interesting that all of Njalls Tempest powers were ignored until the difficult terrain test came up. If he thought they should have worked on the following turn, then where was Driving Gale making Alans BS minus 1? It's a 24" range power and all of Alans shots are 24". He should have been in range of that.

I was really impressed with Tony outplaying Blackmoor and keeping the game at a fast pace. It was really enjoyable to watch.

Here's another lesson. Never have your games taped. Nothing good will ever come from it. I have talked with some people and I'm in the minority, but I would have never played if the game was going to be taped. I wouldn't want all the fuss, just as I'm doing now.

This is why more active judges would probably be better. But they'd slow the game down. And an active judge that made an incorrect ruling that changed the game would be even worse.

I also think that having games taped invites this kind of analysis. Complaining about armchair quarterbacking is ridiculous. Unlike say, commenting on the NFL...all of us here actually (kind of) know how to play! The Nova open could easily quadruple the amount of players and not have the strength of the field diluted at all. What would you expect other than people saying "Good move, bad move, lucky roll" and "this rule was used wrong"?

Julnlecs wrote:I was really impressed with Tony outplaying Blackmoor and keeping the game at a fast pace. It was really enjoyable to watch.

I don't think Alan got outplayed, until turn 6 and he just didn't shoot the right unit and didn't move his dreads to cover an objective.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

lambadomy wrote:This is why more active judges would probably be better. But they'd slow the game down. And an active judge that made an incorrect ruling that changed the game would be even worse.

Here's another way to fix it. Have fewer games each day and with fewer points. Players are more rested. And don't tape anything and the baby momma drama has no legs. In the past the cry of TO's have been "you weren't there, you don't know." Not anymore. We were all there and with better views than someone standing next to the table.

2 judges on a final table with $1000 on the line would have been an ok decision imo but oh well.

Congrats to everyone that played! Good matches all around

DarthDiggler wrote:Then the games are to big and there are to many games in a weekend. Whats the point of playing so many games that at the end, in the championship game, the players are so tired that they are just making stuff up and no one notices. If the mistakes get to be so much, then did the best player win or the one who's "honest screw ups" help him the most.

If that's the case I don't want to read anything anywhere about how the best player won - no matter who it was. It's like have a footrace for the worlds fastest man after all participants just swam 15 miles. Did the fastest man really won?


It was interesting that all of Njalls Tempest powers were ignored until the difficult terrain test came up. If he thought they should have worked on the following turn, then where was Driving Gale making Alans BS minus 1? It's a 24" range power and all of Alans shots are 24". He should have been in range of that.

I don't remember him ever rolling up Driving Gale. What turn was that?


And as for your analogies, anyone who thinks the player who wins a tournament is the 'best player' is living in a dream world. The person who wins a tournament was the best man on that day, playing through the particular set of circumstances laid before him in that one tournament. If he had run up against a different opponent or played on a slightly different table or had a bad set of rolls, everything could have been totally different...but that doesn't change the skill or greatness of the player.

In fact, the only real way to judge greatness IMHO, is by a track record of quality and by that measure both Blackmoor and Tony have proved their worth. Is it possible that Tony has gone 24-0 in W/L tournaments because he constantly and knowingly abuses the rules and only happens to play against people who don't know enough to call him on it? I'm sure anything is possible. But isn't it a bit more likely that he *is* a good player and like all of us (I'm guessing you too) makes mistakes sometimes when he plays?

In reality, playing in 40K tournaments *is* like swimming 15 miles before running a foot race. The endurance of playing so many games in such a short time is part-and-partial to the event. The only 'mistake' comes in when you try to shoe horn what winning an event actually means. Tony winning today does not make him the best player, nor does it make Space Wolves the best codex. But the fact that Tony has gone 24-0 in W/L tournaments does make a strong case for him being, one of, if not the best player.

Yes, repeating at the Nova Open is just insane!

Also, it seems to me that we have some reallllllly strong warhammer players around here (greater DC area / MD-VA). Scooter (who I think was helping run the fantasy tourney at Nova Open) has won a bunch of the fantasy tournies at Adepticon, and now Tony is just on a tear in 40k both at Nova and Adepticon.

Makes the smaller local events quite hard to win (of course the top players were from all over, just saying it's a tough crowd!)

Sounds like it had a pretty significant impact in the game, but I wasn't there.

I'm not sure if I can entirely agree with you Jon. I agree tournament flubs happen all the time and usually you realize the day after...but not every 40k game is a net broadcast with a (likely) handful of judges nearby. Then again, I don't know what thje judge policy is at Nova (only at request or if a screw up is spotted). I would have expected a judge to speak up when Alan brought it up....if anything else then to avoid this thread.

Great job to both players...and specifically Alan with your Draigo list! I expect a blog post with details!

yakface wrote:
I don't remember him ever rolling up Driving Gale. What turn was that?

On turn 2 he rolls a d3 and adds 2. He gets Driving Gale, Living Hurricane or Howling Cyclone. On turn 2 none of those came up.

lambadomy wrote:This is why more active judges would probably be better. But they'd slow the game down. And an active judge that made an incorrect ruling that changed the game would be even worse.

The problem is also, at what point are the judges/referees then really partially playing the game for the players? And the other issue that comes up with an 'active' judge is that if they are then essentially tasked to 'speak up' when they see a rules infraction. Therefore, if they do fail to catch a mistake then their failure to speak becomes silent permission that the mistake was 'okay' by them.

So say a rule is broken in the first few turns and then the judge realizes it was a mistake late in the game and calls it on the opponent (who is now doing the same thing). The fact that it is a judge failing to call something early on and then trying to enforce it later in the game makes the situation far worse IMHO.

BTW I agree with all of what you said Yak.

good show. now Tony has to try another codex or he is just a good player with a broken list.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Sounds like it had a pretty significant impact in the game, but I wasn't there.

I'm not sure if I can entirely agree with you Jon. I agree tournament flubs happen all the time and usually you realize the day after...but not every 40k game is a net broadcast with a (likely) handful of judges nearby. Then again, I don't know what thje judge policy is at Nova (only at request or if a screw up is spotted). I would have expected a judge to speak up when Alan brought it up....if anything else then to avoid this thread.

Great job to both players...and specifically Alan with your Draigo list! I expect a blog post with details!

The one time they needed a ruling they called over a judge. There was no indication that judges were lording over them and even if they were, I do not believe it is policy for the judges to step in...and even if that WAS their job, this is a rule that lots of people can miss really, really easily. There is literally no guarantee that even if an active judge was monitoring this table they would have caught the mistake just as Blackmoor, who is a longtime player did not.

Until everyone realizes that every single game of 40K is likely played with questionable or mistaken rules (just not under this kind of scrutiny), this sort of drama will go on forever and ever and ever.

Yakface: Extremely well said. It happens all the time, even at "top level" events.

I myself was often screwy with TLOS unintentionally at first in fifth until my gaming group beat it out of me.

Yeah, I agree with all of this - it would be an interesting experiment to see if active judges added anything, but there are too many ways they could instead just make things worse.

I do agree with Darth on the points levels and # of games...maybe I'm just a little burned out on 2000 points but it just seems like things would be better if you played smaller games. They need to play 8 games so they can have one undefeated player with such a large field though.

1500 is a grand level for a game. But really, I dunno if Warhammer (either game) are particularly well set up for tournament play like that.
I mean, compared to warmachine, it's a heck of a job getting your games in for a 40K tournament.

Smaller points games would limit army choices and lists....without some of the extras and points for characters, you'd end up seeing cookie cutter lists.

At that point, you might as well play chess.

1850-2000 allows almost all the armies to field a competitive list, with all the bells and whistles a player could want.

Local game store has 1500 pt tournies...all the marine armies look the same...tac squads in razors or rhinos....and they lose to Orks who outman them because they don't have the points for the firepower they need.

yakface wrote:
Until everyone realizes that every single game of 40K is likely played with questionable or mistaken rules (just not under this kind of scrutiny), this sort of drama will go on forever and ever and ever.

I understand where you are coming from Jon and given the state of 40k rule clarity, most games do have a handful of mistaken interpretations.

That said, I cannot agree (as someone that is a basement gamer) that it was a particulary obscure FAQ...given the popularity of both Njal and the SW codex in general. I also can't be as dismissive about the casuality of this particular game..given how competitive the event is billed, the number of people likely watching and the fact it was at least asked about.

Rambling aside, I do think we agree that it illustrates that as a whole 40k is not overtly competitive in one off tournaments over a weekend...regardless of structure or having a judge at each table. And it doesn't take away from the success of either player (as both have proven they are top players time and time again).

From what I saw of the final round Blackmoor made 2 huge mistakes.

#1. In a table quarter as primary and objectives as the secondary he should have made his non-troops scoring with the Grand Stratigy.
#2. He needs to keep his paladins together when he combat squads them. When he has such a slow army they need to support each other so they do not get picked off by themselves.
#3. He should have not waited until turn #4 to realize that the game will come down to objectives and been so out of position.

Blackmoor wrote:From what I saw of the final round Blackmoor made 2 huge mistakes.

#1. In a table quarter as primary and objectives as the secondary he should have made his non-troops scoring with the Grand Stratigy.
#2. He needs to keep his paladins together when he combat squads them. When he has such a slow army they need to support each other so they do not get picked off by themselves.
#3. He should have not waited until turn #4 to realize that the game will come down to objectives and been so out of position.

Yeah but how good of a view of the game did you have and did you really know what he was thinking?


/Nice job dude

KGatch113 wrote:

Smaller points games would limit army choices and lists....without some of the extras and points for characters, you'd end up seeing cookie cutter lists.

At that point, you might as well play chess.

1850-2000 allows almost all the armies to field a competitive list, with all the bells and whistles a player could want.

Local game store has 1500 pt tournies...all the marine armies look the same...tac squads in razors or rhinos....and they lose to Orks who outman them because they don't have the points for the firepower they need.

Well, my argument would be that said marine players need to adjust their list building and tactics if they are being over-run. If the meta has changed then you bring a new counter.
I'd advocate 1500 because it allows a game to be played easily within time without putting any strain on the players. I'm cool with bigger tournies (I'm a fast-ish player, though I do play horde orks), I just think that 1500 is better for a weekend event.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
That said, I cannot agree (as someone that is a basement gamer) that it was a particulary obscure FAQ...given the popularity of both Njal and the SW codex in general. I also can't be as dismissive about the casuality of this particular game..given how competitive the event is billed, the number of people likely watching and the fact it was at least asked about.

Rambling aside, I do think we agree that it illustrates that as a whole 40k is not overtly competitive in one off tournaments over a weekend...regardless of structure or having a judge at each table. And it doesn't take away from the success of either player (as both have proven they are top players time and time again).

Well, if I were playing I would not have remembered the ruling and it would have happened to me too.

And god forbid I ever play on a televised table, as I make mistakes constantly. People think I know every rule off the top of my head because of my work on the INAT, but the reality is I'm much better at remembering where rules are (to look them up) then I am actually remembering every single rule.

So if I were on a televised table I would make a bunch of mistakes, ask my opponent for leniency and the internet would apparently claim:

1) I obviously don't know any of the rules so I have no business working on the INAT.
2) If I won and made any number of mistakes then apparently my achievement is somehow suspect.


Do you see the double-edged sword this opens up? There is a reason that sporting events tend to not reverse a bad call by a referred after the game has ended...because that kind of second guessing ruins the whole point of competition. What happens in the moment happens in the moment and it is what it is. Tony should not have made that mistake and Blackmoor should have called him on it, but he didn't and even if we did, we have no idea how the game would have progressed.

So at the end of the day Tony won the game fair and square because what happened on the table happened on the table, right or wrong.

yakface wrote:So at the end of the day Tony won the game fair and square because what happened on the table happened on the table, right or wrong.

This is the bottom line.

Does anyone here ever actually watch sports? There's blown calls all the time, particularly in baseball! There was a pitcher last year that got completely robbed of a perfect game by a blatantly blown call by the first base umpire. At the end of the day, however, the stats hit the books and that blown call was a base hit. I only bring it up to say this: mistakes and calls made by officials are part of any competitive event. Don't even make me bring up Bill Buckner.