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.

Thats not entirely true though, you still just wreck your opponent turn 1 then essentially play with your food the rest of the mission. It's also interesting how so many scores were as high as they were in 2 turn games then. I wonder how many tables just talked through hypothetical endings to agree on end scores. This is not an ITC problem per say, again it's a 40k problem.

Oh and btw, ITC missions for some bizarre reason always favor going second lol.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2,1,3) You're right, sorry. Even if the players decided to correct this error and not the judges, it's still evidence that games can be corrected after the fact. So the claim that "judges can't correct games after the fact" is wrong; a better claim is "judges won't correct games after the fact."

5) Why is this relevant? If you must know I adjudicate USMC wargames for the U.S. DoD, and while it's not a tournament, I would hope you'd understand my argument, instead of saying "you just don't know how it is, man."

6) I organize the iterative wargames performed by the USMC OAD after the major Title X games. I also participate in organizing and adjudicating the Ellis Group weekly research games. EDIT: I know they're not tournaments. But I still don't understand why me being or not being a TO has anything to do with me determining whether or not TOs can control attendance numbers and judge numbers.

5 & 6) Thank you for sharing. I was interested because it helps me understand your perspective on what is important (and possible) in a table-top miniature wargaming event designed for entertainment (and to make money).

To continue: If you have the time and willingness, would you mind outlining the baseline expectations for the events you organize and/or adjudicate, resources (staffing, etc.) available to you, the rules system (for the games and for personal conduct) in effect (including consequences for breaking those rules), how competing forces are 'built' (the equivalent of army construction rules, I imagine), how performance is assessed, whether participants pay (or if their participation is even voluntary), and whether these events are classified as entertainment?

 Red Corsair wrote:
Thats not entirely true though, you still just wreck your opponent turn 1 then essentially play with your food the rest of the mission. It's also interesting how so many scores were as high as they were in 2 turn games then. I wonder how many tables just talked through hypothetical endings to agree on end scores. This is not an ITC problem per say, again it's a 40k problem.

Oh and btw, ITC missions for some bizarre reason always favor going second lol.

No they did not - the last mission pack clearly favored going first.

Also can you show evidence of your claim to high scores for any game that only went to turn 2?

To continue: If you have the time and willingness, would you mind outlining the baseline expectations for the events you organize and/or adjudicate, resources (staffing, etc.) available to you, the rules system (for the games and for personal conduct) in effect (including consequences for breaking those rules), how competing forces are 'built' (the equivalent of army construction rules, I imagine), how performance is assessed, whether participants pay (or if their participation is even voluntary), and whether these events are classified as entertainment?

I don't no why you want to insinuate that Unit does not have the prerequisite knowledge to have an opinion on the matter, but why don't you answer your own questions for LVO. Other wise none of this is relevant or any of your business. I don't think we need a masters degree in toy soldier judging to be able to deduce the situation was handled poorly.

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:

To continue: If you have the time and willingness, would you mind outlining the baseline expectations for the events you organize and/or adjudicate, resources (staffing, etc.) available to you, the rules system (for the games and for personal conduct) in effect (including consequences for breaking those rules), how competing forces are 'built' (the equivalent of army construction rules, I imagine), how performance is assessed, whether participants pay (or if their participation is even voluntary), and whether these events are classified as entertainment?

I don't no why you want to insinuate that Unit does not have the prerequisite knowledge to have an opinion on the matter, but why don't you answer your own questions for LVO. Other wise none of this is relevant or any of your business. I don't think we need a masters degree in toy soldier judging to be able to deduce the situation was handled poorly.

Haven't insinuated anything; genuinely interested.

DCannon4Life wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2,1,3) You're right, sorry. Even if the players decided to correct this error and not the judges, it's still evidence that games can be corrected after the fact. So the claim that "judges can't correct games after the fact" is wrong; a better claim is "judges won't correct games after the fact."

5) Why is this relevant? If you must know I adjudicate USMC wargames for the U.S. DoD, and while it's not a tournament, I would hope you'd understand my argument, instead of saying "you just don't know how it is, man."

6) I organize the iterative wargames performed by the USMC OAD after the major Title X games. I also participate in organizing and adjudicating the Ellis Group weekly research games. EDIT: I know they're not tournaments. But I still don't understand why me being or not being a TO has anything to do with me determining whether or not TOs can control attendance numbers and judge numbers.

5 & 6) Thank you for sharing. I was interested because it helps me understand your perspective on what is important (and possible) in a table-top miniature wargaming event designed for entertainment (and to make money).

To continue: If you have the time and willingness, would you mind outlining the baseline expectations for the events you organize and/or adjudicate, resources (staffing, etc.) available to you, the rules system (for the games and for personal conduct) in effect (including consequences for breaking those rules), how competing forces are 'built' (the equivalent of army construction rules, I imagine), how performance is assessed, whether participants pay (or if their participation is even voluntary), and whether these events are classified as entertainment?

I can send you my resume if you want .

Seriously though, I don't understand your line of questioning. Can you explain to me why it's relevant?

 Red Corsair wrote:
Thats not entirely true though, you still just wreck your opponent turn 1 then essentially play with your food the rest of the mission. It's also interesting how so many scores were as high as they were in 2 turn games then. I wonder how many tables just talked through hypothetical endings to agree on end scores. This is not an ITC problem per say, again it's a 40k problem.

Oh and btw, ITC missions for some bizarre reason always favor going second lol.

Well at least I think it's possible to wreck your opponent TOO much that you don't have enemy units to score objectives left after turn 1 wipeout. But yeah I can see how later turns one side would actively KEEP enemy alive to avoid wipeout to score more points with wrecked enemy army no threat any more.

Would be kinda funny winner running away and refusing to shoot while enemy goes "kill me!"

 Red Corsair wrote:
But the ITC scenarios are no better. They are just over complicated. Number one solution to gunlines is terrain not missions.

This I'm going to disagree with quite a bit. They're solid scenarios that in my own group have lead to closer games. They're only really complicated at first glance, once you've played them a few times they're fairly intuitive and actually do a decent job of limiting alpha strike because going 2nd is a bonus in the missions.

Yeah exactly these missions were designed with both NOVA and GW... and they did a really good job too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I can send you my resume if you want .

Seriously though, I don't understand your line of questioning. Can you explain to me why it's relevant?

If your resume answers my questions, I'd be happy to have it. Otherwise, if there are publicly available materials, I'd be glad to have links to those. I enjoy examining systems and appreciate efficiencies where I can find them.

As to the line of questioning: I'm wondering if you're projecting, from your experience with military wargames, a degree of responsibility/competence/etc. onto 40K tournament events that the people running those events don't see as being reasonable, given a number of various (and disparate) constraints including time, space (storage), money, human resources, etc.

For example: Everyone knows, and acknowledges, that slowplay happens. Everyone agrees that slowplay is unsportsmanlike, and every (major) tournament has a clause either explicitly prohibiting slowplay, or implicitly prohibiting it by prohibiting unsportsmanlike conduct in general [side note: unsportsmanlike conduct in 40K events is its own, largely inexhaustible topic]. There is reasonable disagreement about the frequency with which slowplay occurs, and (so far as I'm aware) no one has written a clear definition for it. There is further disagreement about the general impact slowplay has on tournament outcomes (e.g. was the player accused of slowplay likely to win anyway?), and disagreement about how to regulate it, disincentivize it, or prevent it all together. This, and some combination of the constraints under which these events operate, seems to slide us into a position where we end up thinking: "Yeah, it sucks when it happens, and when we catch it we try to take care of it, but most players don't do it intentionally and implementing more complicated solutions won't give much return on the investment of time and energy, so...".

perrin23860 wrote:Wow. Just wow. Can't even put into words how disappointing that would be for me, if I spent the money, took the time off work, and eagerly anticipated this event for months, only to have that happen. Unreal...

ChainswordHeretic wrote:

Only two of my six games went beyond turn two.

I would consider that a pretty serious issue.

Too you two cherry picking 1 players experience isnt the example of the totality of the event. I also attended and only had 1 game go to turn 2 and we both played fast. He had over a hundred infantry rushing at me. Was going to take a while. He even let me help him. Other games went until turn 6 and ended with 30minutes to spare.

Also to the gentlemen you are hearing from was playing an army that had a instant lose ability which drastically reduced his game time capabilities.

Thridly warhammer 8th is often completely decided by turn 3. Due to thr fact that everything just dies this edition. Even primarchs can fall in 1 turn or two.

I wish the itc scene handled slow playing better, but really it needs to handle sportsmanship better. However scoring or handling sportsmanship is challenging because players are often sore losers and will take revenge in one form another. Tony demonstrates a perfect example of poor sportsmanship in my opinion.

Check this out:

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/practical-approach-slow-play-2007-09-24

It is not rocket science.

 cormadepanda wrote:

Spoiler:

perrin23860 wrote:Wow. Just wow. Can't even put into words how disappointing that would be for me, if I spent the money, took the time off work, and eagerly anticipated this event for months, only to have that happen. Unreal...

ChainswordHeretic wrote:

Only two of my six games went beyond turn two.

I would consider that a pretty serious issue.

Too you two cherry picking 1 players experience isnt the example of the totality of the event. I also attended and only had 1 game go to turn 2 and we both played fast. He had over a hundred infantry rushing at me. Was going to take a while. He even let me help him. Other games went until turn 6 and ended with 30minutes to spare.

Also to the gentlemen you are hearing from was playing an army that had a instant lose ability which drastically reduced his game time capabilities.

Thridly warhammer 8th is often completely decided by turn 3. Due to thr fact that everything just dies this edition. Even primarchs can fall in 1 turn or two.

I wish the itc scene handled slow playing better, but really it needs to handle sportsmanship better. However scoring or handling sportsmanship is challenging because players are often sore losers and will take revenge in one form another. Tony demonstrates a perfect example of poor sportsmanship in my opinion.

Come on, you know anecdotal evidence always carries the weight of fact when it proves a negative narrative.

perrin23860 wrote:
Wow. Just wow. Can't even put into words how disappointing that would be for me, if I spent the money, took the time off work, and eagerly anticipated this event for months, only to have that happen. Unreal...

I expected it. I actually didn't care that much, because I did still get to play, had a great weekend!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cormadepanda wrote:

perrin23860 wrote:Wow. Just wow. Can't even put into words how disappointing that would be for me, if I spent the money, took the time off work, and eagerly anticipated this event for months, only to have that happen. Unreal...

ChainswordHeretic wrote:

Only two of my six games went beyond turn two.

I would consider that a pretty serious issue.

Too you two cherry picking 1 players experience isnt the example of the totality of the event. I also attended and only had 1 game go to turn 2 and we both played fast. He had over a hundred infantry rushing at me. Was going to take a while. He even let me help him. Other games went until turn 6 and ended with 30minutes to spare.

Also to the gentlemen you are hearing from was playing an army that had a instant lose ability which drastically reduced his game time capabilities.

Thridly warhammer 8th is often completely decided by turn 3. Due to thr fact that everything just dies this edition. Even primarchs can fall in 1 turn or two.

I wish the itc scene handled slow playing better, but really it needs to handle sportsmanship better. However scoring or handling sportsmanship is challenging because players are often sore losers and will take revenge in one form another. Tony demonstrates a perfect example of poor sportsmanship in my opinion.

This is indeed true, however I mean even before my loss due to boots on the ground, my games still struggled to make it to turn two due to BCP app problems, set up time, etc.

In fact, if you go back into the early first 4-5 pages of this thread, way back in early January I asked if the problems with the app had been fixed and was told yes by one of the TO's. Obviously this wasn't the case.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
ITC and other big setups do attempt to stop alpha lists. They only let you score so many points per turn, meaning if you table your opponent by turn 2 you don't get max points. You have to actually play through 4-5 turns to max out.


Yes winning is more important in the overall scheme, but if your only getting wins and min points you will not hit top table. This means alpha lists cannot win the overall.

You know it's perfectly possible to effectively table an opponent and keep the game going to score points, right? My encounter with a Alaitoc/Ynnari list went to six turns, but that's because I had a two infantry squads from bottom of turn three onward.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I can send you my resume if you want .

Seriously though, I don't understand your line of questioning. Can you explain to me why it's relevant?

The core point he appears to be making--in far more polite terms than I would have--is that it's very easy to throw dirt from the sidelines.

This does not require any malicious intent or willful ignorance, as the reality is very few people actually have the context, understanding, or any meaningful stake in/for the sort of changes that get shouted about (on forums like these) any time there's a problem at a major event.

DCannon is one of those people, he's a highly respected judge who works multiple major tournaments. He knows the impact the changes you're discussing would have.

From that perspective, you're basically playing the Greatest Hits compilation of "things that sound good but would be a nightmare in practice." You're promising everyone you'll give them all ice cream for lunch if they vote you onto student council because the consequences really aren't your problem, you're just arguing on dakka.

Judges changing game results after input (for anything other than a mistake agreed upon by both players) is practically the highest level Pandora's Box we have. Game results have to stand as entered, because after that nobody has any clue what actually happened. It's impossible to corroborate any cheating allegations or know what happened in that game to any degree.

But most importantly (and as another poster mentioned, I've written extensively about this before--feel free to poke through my post history) is any alteration by a judge of anything other than the game state presented in front of them when they're called upon to get involved would completely annihilate the foundation our entire tournament system is built upon.

If you create a situation where to get a meaningful (ie points changed) ruling in your favor, all you've got to do is convince a judge that X happened, without actually getting them involved while X was happening, I assure you these events will become absolute misery.

The core responsibility has to remain on the players to get the judges involved, or you'll see stuff that makes anything that occurred at Vegas look like absolutely nothing. You think "gotcha" rules enforcement is bad?

Take ten seconds and consider where every judge's mind goes when somebody on the sidelines suggests retroactive rulings should be a reality: maliciously allowing someone to "cheat" you, so that you can spring it on them with a judge later for a free win.

Off the top of your head, that might not even sound so bad. The other person was playing wrong, right? They're cheaters, then, screw them. Right?

Because nobody has ever had to correct you on a rule you legitimately didn't know during a game. Nobody has ever had to help out Timmy on Table 194 with some rules because he was new to the edition. And if they do, you and Timmy both deserve to be DQ'd.

Instead of incentivizing people to police their own games (and request immediate assistance from judges for disagreements), we should create a situation where we're all playing in a mental minefield, desperate to never make any mistake that benefits us in an incredibly complicated game because that would allow your opponent to file it away to spring on you later and have the game result reversed.

Yeah, that sounds super fun.

This is the bare minimum short version of why "well why CAN'T you change game results after the fact," and insight into why even suggesting it set off a bunch of "this guy hasn't been involved in running a tournament" alarms in the minds of those who have.

Now, you're more than welcome to continue throwing dirt from the sidelines. The point I'm trying to make is that you at least consider you might not have the full context of the potential fallout of the "simple" changes you're requesting that would totally fix everything.

I heard that prior to third round the scores were accidentally reset requiring everyone to have to manually re-enter their scores which took about 1.5 hours.

Hind sight is 20-20.

 Primark G wrote:
I heard that prior to third round the scores were accidentally reset requiring everyone to have to manually re-enter their scores which took about 1.5 hours.

Hind sight is 20-20.

People shouldn't be poking around in the production database while the biggest event of the year is using it.

 Primark G wrote:
I heard that prior to third round the scores were accidentally reset requiring everyone to have to manually re-enter their scores which took about 1.5 hours.

Hind sight is 20-20.

...what

Technical difficulties with BCP have literally nothing to do with the conversation at hand, now you've devolved to the point of "I heard a bad thing happened at Vegas."

It's a good thing it didn't rain last weekend or I bet you'd have some angry words about that, too.

 Primark G wrote:
I heard that prior to third round the scores were accidentally reset requiring everyone to have to manually re-enter their scores which took about 1.5 hours.

Hind sight is 20-20.

It did happen, and it was a nightmare for the players. In some cases many had to re-enter not once, but two or three separate times beyond the original.

DJ3 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
I heard that prior to third round the scores were accidentally reset requiring everyone to have to manually re-enter their scores which took about 1.5 hours.

Hind sight is 20-20.

...what

Technical difficulties with BCP have literally nothing to do with the conversation at hand, now you've devolved to the point of "I heard a bad thing happened at Vegas."

It's a good thing it didn't rain last weekend or I bet you'd have some angry words about that, too.

Although it might be irrelevant to the topic discussion in the current page, it is relevant to the topic. And maybe if the software is improved and there would be no errors time tables can be worked better. More time can be given to games and less games will finish before their natural end.

@DJ3 , although some posters are fanatically negative on some stuff about this years LVO, you are fanatically positive about defending it. Not even about the event itself but your opposition to the detractors specially.

DJ3 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
I heard that prior to third round the scores were accidentally reset requiring everyone to have to manually re-enter their scores which took about 1.5 hours.

Hind sight is 20-20.

...what

Technical difficulties with BCP have literally nothing to do with the conversation at hand, now you've devolved to the point of "I heard a bad thing happened at Vegas."

It's a good thing it didn't rain last weekend or I bet you'd have some angry words about that, too.

You'd probably do yourself some good to walk away from this thread. You seem way to invested in it.

 pizzaguardian wrote:
@DJ3 , although some posters are fanatically negative on some stuff about this years LVO, you are fanatically positive about defending it. Not even about the event itself but your opposition to the detractors specially.

That's kinda funny actually, because anyone who knows me knows I'm traditionally overly critical of ITC/FLG events. I've never been a fan of the mission packet and I was pretty hugely opposed to their old FAQ in a very vocal way.

Your last sentence, however, is absolutely correct--if I'm "fanatically opposed" to anything, it's the Anonymous Internet Forum Hyperbole heights these threads tend to reach when they get overrun by uninvolved third parties with no context for the events that actually transpired, who are more than happy to turn everything into a drama fest because it has no effect on them.

Dakka sits on a weird fissure in that way--we're a really small community in the end, particularly the tournament community, and plenty of us can call each other out by username on here and interact frequently at events. But in the end, it's still a forum on the internet with more than enough anonymity available to those who aren't directly involved.

It's a very weird intersection--imagine your average internet flame war, except you personally knew the targets and half the people involved, while the other half were just anonymous bystanders.

These circumstances make it very hard to have a conversation on equal footing when the "detractors," as you put it, appear to mostly be people who didn't attend tournaments in the first place looking for an opportunity to stand up and yell "see! that's why I don't go to tournaments! and you're wrong for doing so!" at the first hint of controversy.

This was my first ever tournament, and I had a blast. I went 2-1-2, and skipped the last game to hang out with my wife.

I did bring a 120-model Ork army and never had a game go past Round 3, but I assumed that was just my problem.

The ungentleman-like conduct in the final two games was very off-putting. These guys and I don't play the same game/hobby, but I am OK with that.

I think in the future I will stick to the European tournaments, like the Warhammer World GT, where the hobby element is actually embraced. The fact that Tony admitted to (1) copying a list and (2) not even playing with his own models confirms what I said - he is playing a different game/hobby than me. And that's OK.

Pepin wrote:
This was my first ever tournament, and I had a blast. I went 2-1-2, and skipped the last game to hang out with my wife.

I did bring a 120-model Ork army and never had a game go past Round 3, but I assumed that was just my problem.

The ungentleman-like conduct in the final two games was very off-putting. These guys and I don't play the same game/hobby, but I am OK with that.

I think in the future I will stick to the European tournaments, like the Warhammer World GT, where the hobby element is actually embraced. The fact that Tony admitted to (1) copying a list and (2) not even playing with his own models confirms what I said - he is playing a different game/hobby than me. And that's OK.

I couldn't agree more

I'll try and hit Warhammer World instead of LVO or any west coast tournaments. It'll be about the same money for me.

He didn't even play his own models? This kid

DJ3 wrote:

 pizzaguardian wrote:
@DJ3 , although some posters are fanatically negative on some stuff about this years LVO, you are fanatically positive about defending it. Not even about the event itself but your opposition to the detractors specially.

That's kinda funny actually, because anyone who knows me knows I'm traditionally overly critical of ITC/FLG events. I've never been a fan of the mission packet and I was pretty hugely opposed to their old FAQ in a very vocal way.

Your last sentence, however, is absolutely correct--if I'm "fanatically opposed" to anything, it's the Anonymous Internet Forum Hyperbole heights these threads tend to reach when they get overrun by uninvolved third parties with no context for the events that actually transpired, who are more than happy to turn everything into a drama fest because it has no effect on them.

Dakka sits on a weird fissure in that way--we're a really small community in the end, particularly the tournament community, and plenty of us can call each other out by username on here and interact frequently at events. But in the end, it's still a forum on the internet with more than enough anonymity available to those who aren't directly involved.

It's a very weird intersection--imagine your average internet flame war, except you personally knew the targets and half the people involved, while the other half were just anonymous bystanders.

These circumstances make it very hard to have a conversation on equal footing when the "detractors," as you put it, appear to mostly be people who didn't attend tournaments in the first place looking for an opportunity to stand up and yell "see! that's why I don't go to tournaments! and you're wrong for doing so!" at the first hint of controversy.

You've literally reinforced ALL the stereo types in this one post.

 Stevefamine wrote:

Pepin wrote:
This was my first ever tournament, and I had a blast. I went 2-1-2, and skipped the last game to hang out with my wife.

I did bring a 120-model Ork army and never had a game go past Round 3, but I assumed that was just my problem.

The ungentleman-like conduct in the final two games was very off-putting. These guys and I don't play the same game/hobby, but I am OK with that.

I think in the future I will stick to the European tournaments, like the Warhammer World GT, where the hobby element is actually embraced. The fact that Tony admitted to (1) copying a list and (2) not even playing with his own models confirms what I said - he is playing a different game/hobby than me. And that's OK.

I couldn't agree more

I'll try and hit Warhammer World instead of LVO or any west coast tournaments. It'll be about the same money for me.

He didn't even play his own models? This kid

That's sometimes more common than you might think. In Warmahordes it was not at all uncommon for someone to borrow certain models from somebody else to fill out your list e.g. your list has 6 of something but you only have 4. You go to the tournament and expect that you'll be able to bum an extra 2 off of somebody (although I expect this was more pre-arranged rather than hoping some random person would lend you a model). I actually heard, but don't quite remember, there was someone who would go and basically just borrow an entire army to play; they did not bring any models with them but had a friend or somebody who may not be playing bring an army for them so they could travel light.

I completely would expect the same thing in 40k. It's very unrealistic for somebody to own some of the amounts of things you see at tournaments, so instead you go with what you have, and borrow the rest from other people to have the required number.

Back in the day I ran and was head judge of the Adepticon Gladiator event. This was back when the Gladiator was the premier competitive event - just battle point. I would walk around the hall and if I saw a rule being misplayed I interfered. It didn't happen much but I did. I remember two distinct instances. One was Marc Parker vs a big guy from Ohio with a reputation. Marc was getting very upset and agitated about rule lawyering. I stayed at the table and made sure both players played on the up and up. I didn't sit back and let misplays happen. Drama was minimized and the game played to conclusion.

Another instance occurred in either the finals or semi-finals. Hank Edley was up against another player who was stalling out and slow playing to get the win. Hank had an all assault Khorne list and needed the game to go to completion to have a chance. The stalling was obvious and I told both players this game would continue until Saturday morning if it needed to, but it would finish to natural conclusion. Neither questioned my decision and the slow player stopped putzing around and began to play at a regular pace immediately. The difference was stark.

If I had sat back on my hands and said I would not interfere without being summoned, then either I get summoned for every move or I let a misplay happen and let it go because one player doesn't know the rules well enough. This would leave a bad taste in the mouth of the offended person.

If I would have said 'slow play happens, but since I can't quantify that with a time comparison over a 3 hour game I won't stop it from happening' then I allow someone to steal a win by slow playing. Saying you can't stop slow play until after it happens and then saying you can't stop slow play after the fact is a circular argument to bad games and bad experiences.

Judges need to judge and if they need to stop a crime from being committed in the act they should. Cheaters rely on judges thinking they are the Marvel Universes Watchers - just sit back and observe, but don't act on what you are witnessing. Walk around the hall and make corrections when you see something played wrong. It's better than having to try and pick up the pieces 2 hours later and it will keep unscrupulous players on their toes. They are far to comfortable in the current environment right now.

Pepin wrote:
This was my first ever tournament, and I had a blast. I went 2-1-2, and skipped the last game to hang out with my wife.

I did bring a 120-model Ork army and never had a game go past Round 3, but I assumed that was just my problem.

The ungentleman-like conduct in the final two games was very off-putting. These guys and I don't play the same game/hobby, but I am OK with that.

I think in the future I will stick to the European tournaments, like the Warhammer World GT, where the hobby element is actually embraced. The fact that Tony admitted to (1) copying a list and (2) not even playing with his own models confirms what I said - he is playing a different game/hobby than me. And that's OK.

Did you play Grot Tanks?

 Togusa wrote:

Pepin wrote:
This was my first ever tournament, and I had a blast. I went 2-1-2, and skipped the last game to hang out with my wife.

I did bring a 120-model Ork army and never had a game go past Round 3, but I assumed that was just my problem.

The ungentleman-like conduct in the final two games was very off-putting. These guys and I don't play the same game/hobby, but I am OK with that.

I think in the future I will stick to the European tournaments, like the Warhammer World GT, where the hobby element is actually embraced. The fact that Tony admitted to (1) copying a list and (2) not even playing with his own models confirms what I said - he is playing a different game/hobby than me. And that's OK.

Did you play Grot Tanks?

60 Boyz
5 Meg Gunz + 25 Grot Gunners
10 Kommandos
5 Flash Gitz + 5 Ammo runts
Lots of Characters