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.

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.

That's completely false. 1500 has long been the standard outside the US, and lists are extremely varied. And you see cookie cutter lists at 2000 and 2500 much more so.

The meta is different at 1500. Infantry armies do better, so people who take heavy antivehicle are in trouble. But then if you take heavy antihorde, you might get screwed by a heavy armour list. Then people are sad that they can't spam antivehicle and antitroop, which they can spam easily at the higher point levels. So then they want to raise point levels, because the alternative is not spamming, and we can't have 40K without that.

I watch sports all the time. 40k is a tabletop game with set rules. Most sports blown calls are made in wham-bam plays in which it is difficult to determine what happened. And most sports are trying to incorporate more and more instant replay in order to minimize mistakes. None of this is true of 40k.

Now, I do agree with the sentiment that the game is over, Tony won fair and square, because the players are adults and are working together to make rules decisions with the help of a judge and mistakes get made. But pretty much every ruling could have the time and thought behind it to be comparable to the longest instant-replay reviews in a sport like football, with the added bonus of the possibility of always getting it right with no "well it's too close to call" type rulings. Until that happens I think it's pretty fair to say that ref mistakes in a 40k game are not as forgivable as they are in a sporting event.

lambadomy wrote:I watch sports all the time. 40k is a tabletop game with set rules. Most sports blown calls are made in wham-bam plays in which it is difficult to determine what happened. And most sports are trying to incorporate more and more instant replay in order to minimize mistakes. None of this is true of 40k.

I'm not saying it's the exact same thing, but there are parallels. Even at that high level of competition, like a Superbowl or a World Series or something, there are still errors and penalties and blown calls. To act like a game of space manz should be immune to this sort of thing is kind of mind boggling.

lambadomy wrote:I...it's pretty fair to say that ref mistakes in a 40k game are not as forgivable as they are in a sporting event.

I'd say that they are more forgivable given the lack of all of the tools that sports have at their disposal, but this is probably a discussion for another time. I think we both understand each other's points.

Relic_OMO wrote:

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.

That's completely false. 1500 has long been the standard outside the US, and lists are extremely varied. And you see cookie cutter lists at 2000 and 2500 much more so.

The meta is different at 1500. Infantry armies do better, so people who take heavy antivehicle are in trouble. But then if you take heavy antihorde, you might get screwed by a heavy armour list. Then people are sad that they can't spam antivehicle and antitroop, which they can spam easily at the higher point levels. So then they want to raise point levels, because the alternative is not spamming, and we can't have 40K without that.

IMHO, you are right in your comments. I would also like to add that you have to think on your choices more at the 1500 point level than at the higher level games.

yakface wrote:
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.

Now, I don't believe that's completely fair--as I stated a few times that this takes nothing away from either Tony's or Alan's success, in fact I went out of my way to point out they have obviously proven themselves a couple of the top 40k players (several times over).

In addition, I think that analogy of reversing an entire game is a bit poor. We do have a system of stopping the game 'in the moment' before play proceeds--and it's utilized in major sporting events as well. It would be silly to attempt to reverse a game after the fact and I certainly wouldn't (and haven't) advocated doing so.

I do agree that it would be a terrible idea to use taped games to reverse standings. I don't agree that it's a terrible idea for a table dedicated judge at the final game for a sizable amount of money to speak up and say "Hey, actually since he brought that up---the FAQ specifically addresses that question and XYZ is the answer". Then again, I don't know what the judge directive was/is--and maybe they weren't aware of the FAQ either.

Relic_OMO wrote:

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.

That's completely false. 1500 has long been the standard outside the US, and lists are extremely varied. And you see cookie cutter lists at 2000 and 2500 much more so.

The meta is different at 1500. Infantry armies do better, so people who take heavy antivehicle are in trouble. But then if you take heavy antihorde, you might get screwed by a heavy armour list. Then people are sad that they can't spam antivehicle and antitroop, which they can spam easily at the higher point levels. So then they want to raise point levels, because the alternative is not spamming, and we can't have 40K without that.

I actually kind of agree, 1500 certainly makes list-building harder, and can limit the normal spam that is seen. That said, it merely changes the common meta-game into something new and inevitably we'd still be left with certain lists that were able to bring "everything they need" at that points level, so you'd likely just see a redefining of the tiers.

Can I just say there was none of this drama there... and there was a good 20-30 of us watching the second half of both the final games. I am not sure I agree that there need to be REFs enforcing rules on players if the players don't ask for intervention... not to mention I am not sure the judges are any more experienced than the players and may not catch many of these 'issues' unless they look it up.

Day 1 was fine with time and breaks. I had time for lunch, dinner and a run to the room. Today, Day 2 was brutal... No lunch, no dinnfer. Barley 30 Minutes between games if you played a full game, and people were being late like mofos so if you were 'on time' for your match you probably spent 15-20 waiting for delayed matches.

Fantastic event despite the internet metadrama! Eff i'm tired.

Friggin awesome event and some epic games today. Gotta say tgellhere were some stunning results such as dash being tied for best Sportsman.

Hell somehow I ended up going 4-0 today! All in all, NOVA is already getting my time request put in.

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.

Congrats on an awesome tourney, Blackmoor!! The third person analysis is pretty great

@ yak- I really don't think it has to be so black and white. A mistake was made, there's no denying it. Blown calls in sports are scrutinized aplenty... it's a part of having a televised competition, after all. I don't think the analogy is a good one, though- in warhammer you're often making the calls on yourself... as Tony was in this case. Blackmoor asked about the ruling and took his word for it. Those things happen, and it's really hard to know the FAQ entries for other armies- you're usually hoping that your opponent has those rules down stone-cold.

Totally agreed that it doesn't take away from either player, it's just the nature of the beast.

Tony won fair and square and props to him.

Another mistake I made was that I should have charged him with my paladin squad when he got out and rapid fired me. That would have slowed him down if I could have won the combat to deal with them. Instead I tried to run back to my objective.

I shot the scout squad because there was a good chance that we were going down to tie breakers and I was looking for easy kill points.

I did not move my Dreds to contest because Tony seemed unaware of the objectives and I did not want to draw his attention to them. Still they were pretty far away and I thought that he would have trouble getting to it.

I failed my assault into that rhino and I gave up shooting that squad to do it. The reason why I went after it was I needed the extra movement to go after Tony' objective. I was going after his so he would end up with the middle and the other objective. That way we can tie and go to kill points. That failed assault meant that I had to abort that plan because I did not have enough turns to get there and kill what needs killin'.

I really need to make my interceptors scoring so they could have held an objective. I also regret throwing them away, but at the time they seemed unnessisary.

I think Tony won fair and square. But it is really odd that he doesn't know about such a clear and explicit ruling on his preferred HQ from his own FAQ. It's weird.

Unholy_Martyr wrote:Friggin awesome event and some epic games today. Gotta say tgellhere were some stunning results such as dash being tied for best Sportsman.

Hell somehow I ended up going 4-0 today! All in all, NOVA is already getting my time request put in.

Congrats! Awesome job! Which bracket did you win, U_M? And what army did you field?

Unholy_Martyr wrote:Gotta say there were some stunning results such as dash being tied for best Sportsman.

Way to go Dash!

Relic_OMO wrote:

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.

That's completely false. 1500 has long been the standard outside the US, and lists are extremely varied. And you see cookie cutter lists at 2000 and 2500 much more so.

The meta is different at 1500. Infantry armies do better, so people who take heavy antivehicle are in trouble. But then if you take heavy antihorde, you might get screwed by a heavy armour list. Then people are sad that they can't spam antivehicle and antitroop, which they can spam easily at the higher point levels. So then they want to raise point levels, because the alternative is not spamming, and we can't have 40K without that.

Completely wrong. Players end up taking the same lists because they can' t afford characters etc....you might see variations, but they are the same variations.

Again, the game becomes vastly different...you might as well play chess.

Blackmoor wrote:Another mistake I made was that I should have charged him with my paladin squad when he got out and rapid fired me. That would have slowed him down if I could have won the combat to deal with them. Instead I tried to run back to my objective.

Nick Rose and I were debating the moves on the live feed while you were in-progress. Nick thought you should have consolidated your pallies all on the center objective. I argued that you should have driven the non-Draigo squad deeper into his quadrant or made an assault on Njal's unit to assassinate him. Either way you're moving the fight more toward that side of the board and keeping his stuff off your two (from your perspective right-side) quadrants.

Blackmoor wrote:I shot the scout squad because there was a good chance that we were going down to tie breakers and I was looking for easy kill points.

I did not move my Dreds to contest because Tony seemed unaware of the objectives and I did not want to draw his attention to them. Still they were pretty far away and I thought that he would have trouble getting to it.

I failed my assault into that rhino and I gave up shooting that squad to do it. The reason why I went after it was I needed the extra movement to go after Tony' objective. I was going after his so he would end up with the middle and the other objective. That way we can tie and go to kill points. That failed assault meant that I had to abort that plan because I did not have enough turns to get there and kill what needs killin'.

I really need to make my interceptors scoring so they could have held an objective. I also regret throwing them away, but at the time they seemed unnessisary.

Yeah, the choice of Grand Strategy puzzled me. More scoring units would have been good. The Dread thing made us wonder too, but I can see what you were thinking there. Should have realized that a player who's won as many as Tony and has that many scoring units in his army is not going to forget about objectives.

Blackmoor wrote:Tony won fair and square and props to him.

Another mistake I made was that I should have charged him with my paladin squad when he got out and rapid fired me. That would have slowed him down if I could have won the combat to deal with them. Instead I tried to run back to my objective.

I shot the scout squad because there was a good chance that we were going down to tie breakers and I was looking for easy kill points.

I did not move my Dreds to contest because Tony seemed unaware of the objectives and I did not want to draw his attention to them. Still they were pretty far away and I thought that he would have trouble getting to it.

I failed my assault into that rhino and I gave up shooting that squad to do it. The reason why I went after it was I needed the extra movement to go after Tony' objective. I was going after his so he would end up with the middle and the other objective. That way we can tie and go to kill points. That failed assault meant that I had to abort that plan because I did not have enough turns to get there and kill what needs killin'.

I really need to make my interceptors scoring so they could have held an objective. I also regret throwing them away, but at the time they seemed unnessisary.

Class Act as always Blackmoor!

KGatch113 wrote:

Relic_OMO wrote:

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.

That's completely false. 1500 has long been the standard outside the US, and lists are extremely varied. And you see cookie cutter lists at 2000 and 2500 much more so.

The meta is different at 1500. Infantry armies do better, so people who take heavy antivehicle are in trouble. But then if you take heavy antihorde, you might get screwed by a heavy armour list. Then people are sad that they can't spam antivehicle and antitroop, which they can spam easily at the higher point levels. So then they want to raise point levels, because the alternative is not spamming, and we can't have 40K without that.

Completely wrong. Players end up taking the same lists because they can' t afford characters etc....you might see variations, but they are the same variations.

Again, the game becomes vastly different...you might as well play chess.

This is not going to end well. Most of the world still plays 1500 as the primary point size. The US did too in past years, when the GTs were newer and more similar to the UK originals.

Variety exists at 1500 as at 2000.

@Mannahnin

I was in bracket 10 with Aardvark85 (I think, he's the guy from 19th legion. I played Space Wolves and will probably post the list later on after a few drinks.

Mannahnin wrote:Nick Rose and I were debating the moves on the live feed while you were in-progress.

Was this connected to the video at all? I'm sorry I missed it! I mostly just heard the table being mic'ed and then a commentator afterwards... but I didn't tune in until the very end of turn 3.

I dont even know if it was still a debate, but I didnt see Tony roll to hit with JotWW. I guess that settles it in my mind.

KGatch113 wrote:

Relic_OMO wrote:

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.

That's completely false. 1500 has long been the standard outside the US, and lists are extremely varied. And you see cookie cutter lists at 2000 and 2500 much more so.

The meta is different at 1500. Infantry armies do better, so people who take heavy antivehicle are in trouble. But then if you take heavy antihorde, you might get screwed by a heavy armour list. Then people are sad that they can't spam antivehicle and antitroop, which they can spam easily at the higher point levels. So then they want to raise point levels, because the alternative is not spamming, and we can't have 40K without that.

Completely wrong. Players end up taking the same lists because they can' t afford characters etc....you might see variations, but they are the same variations.

Again, the game becomes vastly different...you might as well play chess.

That argument makes NO sense. Might as well play chess? So... you need to think and play strategically instead of just throwing dice?

This was a lot of fun to watch; I'm pretty new to the game, but I'm ravenous for it, and I found this format extremely followable. I knew for the most part what was going on, who was doing what, and it was clear and made sense.

Now, from the perspective of someone who can count on his fingers the number of times he's actually played a game of warhammer 40k, I find it absolutely unbelievable that someone wouldn't know a FAQ ruling about their own army, and a marquee HQ at that. I am not making a personal judgement here on anyone, but I do think it is unacceptable for someone to be at a final table, and not know their FAQ backwards and forwards. I just played in my first 'Ard Boyz as Blood Angels, and I can tell you I knew my FAQ, and had it printed out. Whether he knew and was pushing for advantage, or didn't know and let it slip, it's unacceptable either way.

Again, I'm not trying to take away from the victory, but at this level there are no excuses, not even TV, or a long weekend, for not knowing important information like that. It's really a bit stunning to me.

Nova's FAQ said that you do not need to roll to hit with JotWW.

Awesome event, mvbrandt and co! The zero comp team will be there next yeaf, money was an issue this year.

Way to be blackmoor. I wss pulling for you, bud. You almost had it.

RiTides wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Nick Rose and I were debating the moves on the live feed while you were in-progress.

Was this connected to the video at all? I'm sorry I missed it! I mostly just heard the table being mic'ed and then a commentator afterwards... but I didn't tune in until the very end of turn 3.

UStream has the Social tab and the Chat tab. The Chat tab was full of people discussing the game in progress and generally shooting the breeze.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40ktwitch wrote:I dont even know if it was still a debate, but I didnt see Tony roll to hit with JotWW. I guess that settles it in my mind.

As Blackmoor said, NOVA's FAQ specifically ruled that it didn't have to.

Blackmoor wrote:Nova's FAQ said that you do not need to roll to hit with JotWW.

Nice contradiction of the main rule book FAQ.

Bummer SW won again......

Congrates to the guy who won, just not his army

I would also like to point out that I was not feeling very well after game #2 today. It is hard the play 13 games over a weekend and since I am from the west coast I was starting at 5:00am pst. The jet lag was kicking my butt.

I watched you on ustream you kept your spirits up and played well. Class act all the way!

Blackmoor wrote:I would also like to point out that I was not feeling very well after game #2 today. It is hard the play 13 games over a weekend and since I am from the west coast I was starting at 5:00am pst. The jet lag was kicking my butt.

You did great, was rootin' for ya the whole time. Total class act and I loved hearing the 80's movie references

Did not see the last game with Tony but I enjoyed the hell out of the game with Neil.

*Stallone on top of the Russian summit..*

DRAIIGGOOOOOOOOO...........DRRRAIIIGOOOOOOOOO

FeindusMaximus wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:Nova's FAQ said that you do not need to roll to hit with JotWW.

Nice contradiction of the main rule book FAQ.

Not a FAQ contradiction... JOtWW has no effect on "hitting" so rolling to hit is pointless. The initiative test is triggered by being touched by the line drawn, not by being"hit".

wisdom like silence wrote:

FeindusMaximus wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:Nova's FAQ said that you do not need to roll to hit with JotWW.

Nice contradiction of the main rule book FAQ.

Not a FAQ contradiction... JOtWW has no effect on "hitting" so rolling to hit is pointless. The initiative test is triggered by being touched by the line drawn, not by being"hit".

Wrong all physcic shooting attacks roll to hit