Switch Theme:

Tournament List-checking  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight




I want to propose an idea to ease the workload of checking lists for major tournaments (or even minor ones):
2 weeks before a tournament, lists are due. After they have been submitted, the TO will email each player two of the other lists from their faction (or one close to it if there are less than three playing a given faction). Each player then has a week to review the two lists they have been assigned and reply either “no issues” or point out the illegal aspects of the list to the TO. That leaves one week for players to correct their lists prior to the start of the tournament.
Each list would have the player names removed, and probably assigning each player/list a number would be sufficient for organization (Space Marine #14, for example). This means each list will have two sets of eyes checking it, and by keeping it within faction to the max extent possible the reviewers will be familiar with the army. The TO and staff also reserve the right to review any lists and make final judgements, of course.

Thoughts/feedback welcome!

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. 
   
Made in gb
Ork-Hunting Inquisitorial Xenokiller





I admire your idea and the desire to improve things.

The problem I see is that people are so bloody awful at writing their own list that (presumably) they care about. Checking lists they don't care about is going to be outside the abilities of 50% of your field. People just won't do it.

You as TO will spend all this time anonymising and separating out lists for sending out, then loads of time chasing up the people who don't respond by the deadline, then loads of time checking the lists anyway as they say "oh sorry mate I didn't really get time".. or worst of all "Yeah it's fine!" when they didn't even read it.

I think the crowdsourced option is the only realistic one at this stage... because you harness the weirdos like me who will go through loads of lists out of interest and make comments.

TO of Death Before Dishonour - A Warhammer 40k Tournament with a focus on great battles between well painted, thematic armies on tables with full terrain.

Read the blog at:
https://deathbeforedishonour.co.uk/blog 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Especially for major events, the workload and limited # of volunteers for managing this level of distribution of lists / etc., it's just not especially realistic.

It's noble to want to check lists in advance and require presubmission. Speaking from the perspective where we used to require it, it's just not very realistic in practice.
   
Made in us
Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries





Yeah, I require it with points penalties, and I still only get about 60% of lists ahead of time. Much scrambling and hoping I get them read correctly the morning of the event, every time.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

The great thing about crowdsourcing list checking is it lets us collect data on what players are actually bringing. Detachments, units, wargear, psychic powers, CPs, HQ options, etc.

I would happily volunteer to check lists if it gave me access to a detailed list of armies for each event.

   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




How would players be able to check list they don't own the codex for? And what about the strange interactions each codex has they only those with a lot of familiarity with the codex know. I'm reminded of a incident during 7th where a person didn't pay for a bolt pistol on a Sanguinary Priest. Rage ensued and he was condemned online for it. But it was a circumstance that existed because of the strange way GW wrote it, and that only another experienced Blood Angel player would ever notice. Soup players make these kind of mistakes all the time.
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor





St. Louis, Missouri USA

fyrblckdragon wrote:
Yeah, I require it with points penalties, and I still only get about 60% of lists ahead of time. Much scrambling and hoping I get them read correctly the morning of the event, every time.
This is another perfect example of TO apathy. Events like LVO, BAO, and Adepticon usually have waitlists. Most of these tourneys have a hard stop for of no new rules 30 days before the even starts. Make all lists dues 30 days prior to the event. Anyone who doesn't submit the list is DQd and open up the wait list. I guarantee if someone loses their spot in a tourney because of not submitting a list, they'll have them submitted on time next event. This certainly won't work for small tourneys, but it's the big tourneys with the big prizes that are causing all the hubbub. Start at the top until it becomes the norm and watch it filter down.

In regard to manpower to check the lists, turn that over the internet. I know my group of 5 guys went thru most of the lists for the London GT looking for errors and to see what crazy things people came up with. I doubt we're alone.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




It's a nice idea in principle but you'd have a lot of extra work on the part of the TO to anonymise and collect the data and you'd also have the problem that a lot of the players simply won't respond.

The best way to sort out list checking is through the use of an approved app that is actually accurate. It can either be an official app released by GW or something like BattleScribe. You simply require all lists to be submitted digitally and the software makes sure they are legal. Unfortunately, no such software exists at the moment, but if there's sufficient will from TOs it6 shouldn't be too hard to vet and update the data files for BattleScribe.
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





Slipspace wrote:
It's a nice idea in principle but you'd have a lot of extra work on the part of the TO to anonymise and collect the data and you'd also have the problem that a lot of the players simply won't respond.

The best way to sort out list checking is through the use of an approved app that is actually accurate. It can either be an official app released by GW or something like BattleScribe. You simply require all lists to be submitted digitally and the software makes sure they are legal. Unfortunately, no such software exists at the moment, but if there's sufficient will from TOs it6 shouldn't be too hard to vet and update the data files for BattleScribe.
BattleScribe has been wrong on multiple occasions this edition. its only as reliable as the people maintaining it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/19 09:44:51


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Ordana wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
It's a nice idea in principle but you'd have a lot of extra work on the part of the TO to anonymise and collect the data and you'd also have the problem that a lot of the players simply won't respond.

The best way to sort out list checking is through the use of an approved app that is actually accurate. It can either be an official app released by GW or something like BattleScribe. You simply require all lists to be submitted digitally and the software makes sure they are legal. Unfortunately, no such software exists at the moment, but if there's sufficient will from TOs it6 shouldn't be too hard to vet and update the data files for BattleScribe.
BattleScribe has been wrong on multiple occasions this edition. its only as reliable as the people maintaining it.


I agree completely. That's why I think you need an "official" set of data files, already vetted by TOs. If you want reliable list checking that's the only viable way to do it. I don't think it's easy, maybe not even realistic, but I don't think a manual check of every list is possible.
   
Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight




Slipspace wrote:
It's a nice idea in principle but you'd have a lot of extra work on the part of the TO to anonymise and collect the data and you'd also have the problem that a lot of the players simply won't respond.

I don’t think it would be too much work compared to checking each list, you can assign a number/code to each list as it comes in. And I would be personally willing to make the extremely simple excel template you’d need to assign lists to players.
The reason I picked tournament goers is that it is a fixed pool of list checkers who you can hold accountable...whether through pestering, sanctions, or disqualification. Throwing the lists out in the internet works too but it’s not nearly as systematic. Adding “check these lists” to “paint your army, print your lists, bring these X things” seems like a relatively unobtrusive addition. Plus you have an opportunity to get a sneak peak at two other lists from your faction, giving you a tactical read-ahead and some ideas for next time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Crimson Devil wrote:
How would players be able to check list they don't own the codex for? And what about the strange interactions each codex has they only those with a lot of familiarity with the codex know.

To the max extent possible, players would be assigned to check the lists of armies that have the same faction as the one they are bringing, so that in theory at least the familiarity would be there (i.e. a Tyranid player would get two Tyranid lists to check). I recognize this could get complicated with soup, especially the Imperial kind. But if you got a list you really knew nothing about, you could email the TO back and state that. That’s another part of why each list gets sent to 2 people.

I recognize that yes, this is more work on the TO than doing nothing at all (which is unfortunately the status-quo in many cases due to workload), but it is less work than checking all the lists yourself and if going forward “list-checking” is something the community wants then this is my proposal to get it done.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/20 06:21:59


Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Honestly reading over the drama threads, this is a really good reason for GW to stop hiding point values and just release a list builder app. Add in some sharing functionality where you can post them online for yourself, or post them to an organization's tournament list for review. You could automate list validation by applying relatively simple rules to the listings.

As it is, to check points values you'd need all the indexes, codexes and chapter approved, and a load of time on your hands. That's not helping anyone.
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament and Local Gaming Discussion
Go to: