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.

PanzerLeader wrote:
I've played since the start of third and do so competitively but that type of knowledge isn't necessary. Your opponent is expected to bring copies of all relevant rules, including codex with associated costs. Can you flip through a book(s) quickly and match the book entries to the army list presented? If you have questions, can your opponent help you answer them with his references? If your opponent can't show you something or you disagree, can you call a judge? Checking the first round opponents list doesn't require vast knowledge. It requires you to be able to match a list to provided references.

Noticing things like the fact that a sanguinary priest has to buy a 1 point additional weapon before he can buy an additional weapon really just depends on whether or not you happen to notice that one line in his army entry. If they don't play BA priests, I would expect them to miss that 9/10 times.

The growing amount of list errors just reinforces to me that the competitive scene needs to say "sod off" to GW, ban formations, which are a major cause of confusion and rules bloat, and start performing surgery on the codices and core rulebook to save the game from its negligent parent. It's unfortunate that no one with enough pull to make it happen is willing to stand up to the internet nerd rage that would inevitably follow as soon as they fixed a few ridic things that some players were using as a crutch to help them win.

First, for the thread: please lay off the pyramid quoting. It's not necessary to quote 6 or 7 posts if you're only responding to the previous one.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
It's unfortunate that no one with enough pull to make it happen is willing to stand up to the internet nerd rage that would inevitably follow as soon as they fixed a few ridic things that some players were using as a crutch to help them win.

This comes off very passive-aggressive. If your goal is to encourage a large-format tournament to put in significant effort to host a 40k tournament with heavily modified rules...they already are. 40k, as written, isn't a tournament-ready game. And given the flak that used to surround the INAT, and now focuses on the ITC rulings, even though those FAQs are completely optional and offered solely as a resource for tournament organizers to use in any manner they choose, it is rather unrealistic to expect, say, the BAO to rewrite all of 40k in this fashion. It would damage their brand, affect their attendance, and make an already-risky financial proposition that much worse.

Change starts at home. What you're proposing actually works best in the small scale first, with a number of players who are all committed to trying out the variant format, tweaking it, and then expanding adoption. (See, e.g., the "Highlander" format.) A large-format event at an expensive con that launches with a completely different ruleset is unlikely to attract much participation, unless it can point to a number of successful prior events.

Panzer, you honestly think 15 minutes would be enough to flip through 3-6 books for relevant rules and points costs, add it all up, and cross check validity of formations etc?

PanzerLeader wrote:

Or we could just do it the simple way: have each player check their first opponents list to make sure it is legal. Allot 15 extra minutes in the round for this to occur. Have players with concerns over the legality of their opponent's list call a judge over for clarification.

Absolutely horrible idea. Tournies are already long enough and a sizable (albeit not the largest) proportion of poll respondents wanted to roll back ITC to 1500pts even as a stardard game size to allow games to finish without extending the time further. Most folks do not pay to attend a tourney to then be forced to be the bad guy clamping down on their opponent's incorrect list (assuming they even have the knowledge to do so). For events that have a sportsmanship scoring (even if it is only positive and doesn't affect the overall score), do you think that the guy with the illegal list won't smack the subjective scores of his opponent in revenge? And the above doesn't even take into account the previously mentioned library of idiot savant knowledge necessary to fact check every possible variation of every list of every faction with the current Stupidhammer army composition rules on the fly at the tableside. Some folks may on their own quickly double check for errors but they shouldn't be forced to do the only check on the fly with no resources to properly do so at hand. I'm not opposed though to publishing ALL lists ahead of time for crowdsource checking but forcing attendees to the bad guy in person at the table side is NOT the solution.

No, it's the job of the organizer,, not the attendees, to police and enforce their own tourney pre-game ground rules. Absolutely horrible idea.

OverwatchCNC wrote:Panzer, you honestly think 15 minutes would be enough to flip through 3-6 books for relevant rules and points costs, add it all up, and cross check validity of formations etc?

For the average player and assuming the opponent has all his references, I think so. Not many people play unusual armies and there is a baseline familiarity with the bigger factions (marines/Eldar/crons). You also figure in that people recognize patterns and if someone has identical units, you only need to do the math once and then make sure the sum is the same.

warboss wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

Or we could just do it the simple way: have each player check their first opponents list to make sure it is legal. Allot 15 extra minutes in the round for this to occur. Have players with concerns over the legality of their opponent's list call a judge over for clarification.

Absolutely horrible idea. Tournies are already long enough and a sizable (albeit not the largest) proportion of poll respondents wanted to roll back ITC to 1500pts even as a stardard game size to allow games to finish without extending the time further. Most folks do not pay to attend a tourney to then be forced to be the bad guy clamping down on their opponent's incorrect list (assuming they even have the knowledge to do so). For events that have a sportsmanship scoring (even if it is only positive and doesn't affect the overall score), do you think that the guy with the illegal list won't smack the subjective scores of his opponent in revenge? And the above doesn't even take into account the previously mentioned library of idiot savant knowledge necessary to fact check every possible variation of every list of every faction with the current Stupidhammer army composition rules on the fly at the tableside. Some folks may on their own quickly double check for errors but they shouldn't be forced to do the only check on the fly with no resources to properly do so at hand. I'm not opposed though to publishing ALL lists ahead of time for crowdsource checking but forcing attendees to the bad guy in person at the table side is NOT the solution.

No, it's the job of the organizer,, not the attendees, to police and enforce their own tourney pre-game ground rules. Absolutely horrible idea.

Again, that type of omniscience is not needed. Do you sit down with your opponent and run through army lists before a game? Of course you do. It's good etiquette. I'm simply suggesting that the first round review is a little more in depth. If a player thinks there is a problem, they call a judge or TO for a ruling exactly like you would for an in game mistake. I've run medium sized tournaments and I've played in a ton of bigger GTs over the last 17 years of gaming. I'm just suggesting we allot extra time to do in round one something that most of us do to a smaller degree in every round.

PanzerLeader wrote:

Again, that type of omniscience is not needed. Do you sit down with your opponent and run through army lists before a game? Of course you do. It's good etiquette. I'm simply suggesting that the first round review is a little more in depth. If a player thinks there is a problem, they call a judge or TO for a ruling exactly like you would for an in game mistake. I've run medium sized tournaments and I've played in a ton of bigger GTs over the last 17 years of gaming. I'm just suggesting we allot extra time to do in round one something that most of us do to a smaller degree in every round.

Do I sit down ahead of time with mostly acquaintances and friends in a local setting that they wouldn't want their rep trashed generally in a casual setting with no set time limit or money/prizes at stake prior to a friendly game and skim quickly through army lists? Yes.. but that isn't what this thread is about.

This thread isn't even about "running through army lists" but rather detailed fact checking for illegal lists. We're not only talking about folks taking Abaddon for 1pt or people taking obsec Stompas in an Eldar list (i.e. a gross error that is easily evident) but also more subtle yet potentially game changing things like whether the peon who just trashed your 280pt land raider carrying your slow death star with a lucky 5pt melta bomb roll actually had that melta bomb in the first place or even had access to it.

Putting the responsibility and potential blame (what if the opponent gets it wrong because he is NOT an expert and calls out a unit that is perfectly fine?) on the attendee for pregame rules policing and enforcement instead of the organizer is a horrible idea.

DarthDiggler wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Once someone masters the art of herding stray cats, that person should be the one to advise the gaming community on how best to deal with army list submission and review.

Honestly, there are just too many factors and variables in play for this to go off without a hitch.

You need enough competent staff or volunteers from the event, to manage 60-160+ army lists.

You need them to be able to do this in a reasonable window not too soon and not too late before the event starts.

You need players to cooperate with submitting lists on time.

You need the stars to align just right.

You need to hope the Stock Market doesn't crash.

Why do I have the feeling that posts like this are telling players to bring whatever they want and write down whatever they want because no one will check anything so let's all play over points and with made up stuff.

You'd think that a white lie would be more functional.

But I don't see why it has to be about absolute verification of all lists or nothing. It's certainly preferable, but if staffing is an issue, why not at least do spot checks? It'd send the message to players that shenanigans may be caught by organizers. And if the penalty is harsh enough, maybe there's some deterrent there.

From having done list checking, I can say that a *very clear* best practice should be to demand that army lists be submitted in a rigid, given format -- with upgrade costs clearly listed, etc. -- or else real points penalties will be enforced. Or structure it so they can earn "list submission points" if positive reinforcement is your thing. Regardless, it greatly helps organizers with list checking -- either of a proactive nature or if a concern is raised -- and makes things much clearer for opponents.

If players can get themselves to events, make lodging reservations, and play these strange and complicated games we play, they're more than capable of acquiescing to a few demands, doing a little typing and double-checking, and following a few instructions.

Please note that my comments aren't intended to be direct criticisms of Adepticon or any other event. Just chiming in on the conversation...

@Crimthaan -- all 100+ personally? Wow man...that's painful, but good job. I have to make it up to DaBoyz one of these years.

 warboss wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

Again, that type of omniscience is not needed. Do you sit down with your opponent and run through army lists before a game? Of course you do. It's good etiquette. I'm simply suggesting that the first round review is a little more in depth. If a player thinks there is a problem, they call a judge or TO for a ruling exactly like you would for an in game mistake. I've run medium sized tournaments and I've played in a ton of bigger GTs over the last 17 years of gaming. I'm just suggesting we allot extra time to do in round one something that most of us do to a smaller degree in every round.

Do I sit down ahead of time with mostly acquaintances and friends in a local setting that they wouldn't want their rep trashed generally in a casual setting with no set time limit or money/prizes at stake prior to a friendly game and skim quickly through army lists? Yes.. but that isn't what this thread is about.

This thread isn't even about "running through army lists" but rather detailed fact checking for illegal lists. We're not only talking about folks taking Abaddon for 1pt or people taking obsec Stompas in an Eldar list (i.e. a gross error that is easily evident) but also more subtle yet potentially game changing things like whether the peon who just trashed your 280pt land raider carrying your slow death star with a lucky 5pt melta bomb roll actually had that melta bomb in the first place or even had access to it.

Putting the responsibility and potential blame (what if the opponent gets it wrong because he is NOT an expert and calls out a unit that is perfectly fine?) on the attendee for pregame rules policing and enforcement instead of the organizer is a horrible idea.

Im not advocating a shift. You seem to think I'm saying responsibility should be with the players IN LIEU of the organizer. I'm arguing list checking should be done by the players COLLABORATIVELY with their opponent and the organizer. I currently spend 1 to 3 minutes on average reviewing an opponents list before a game to make sure I understand what he/she is fielding and how it's organized. Verifying points/unit construction before round one is not nearly as problematic as you indicate.

You weren't clear in your posts as you only mentioned doing it prior to the game as a solution without iirc mentioning anything else. As for problematic, it isn't to gauge a general idea of your opponent's army and their possible tactics as well as looking for the grossly obvious mistakes... but to fact check the little things I disagree as I think it is problematic.

I'm wondering if it would be possible to employ a carrot rather than a stick? Instead of requiring lists ahead of time and getting the TO to vet all them, I'm wondering if there would be a way to organize a group of accepted referees for the event who agree to review lists submitted electronically. Then you could allow players to submit lists to them for validation, and award some amount of points to players who show up with a validated list.

People who were playing for fun (and who would be more likely to make simple errors inadvertently) wouldn't be as bothered to submit for validation.

People who were playing to place highly (and who might therefore be tempted to make intentional errors) would be motivated to submit lists for validation, in order to obtain the extra points.

It wouldn't be perfect, but for the most competitive players, it would provide an incentive to provide a verifiable list early, without punishing the more casual player who may not submit something but will still show up and pay to play.

Most of the larger tournaments I played in France/Switzerland and Germany you had to have your list sent in at least a month in advance. You received points to your overall score for doing this bit of admin. At first I did not really like this system but came to appreciate it. Stopped me from constantly wanting to "tweak" my list before the event and I could just practice with the list I planned to play.

 gorgon wrote:

You'd think that a white lie would be more functional.

But I don't see why it has to be about absolute verification of all lists or nothing. It's certainly preferable, but if staffing is an issue, why not at least do spot checks? It'd send the message to players that shenanigans may be caught by organizers. And if the penalty is harsh enough, maybe there's some deterrent there.

From having done list checking, I can say that a *very clear* best practice should be to demand that army lists be submitted in a rigid, given format -- with upgrade costs clearly listed, etc. -- or else real points penalties will be enforced. Or structure it so they can earn "list submission points" if positive reinforcement is your thing. Regardless, it greatly helps organizers with list checking -- either of a proactive nature or if a concern is raised -- and makes things much clearer for opponents.

So you want people to submit lists in a format like this?

Daemon Prince (145) Mark of Nurgle (10) Wings (40) Armour (20) Mastery Level 3 (75) == 270pts


This is a for reals example of an army list in a tournament I'm attending this weekend. Everyone had to submit lists 3 weeks in advance of the date, and they were put up for public scrutiny. Its a teams tournament.

But look at the example. There's something wrong with it.
Mark of Nurgle costs 15pts, not 10.

How many people do you think would notice that? I only did because I regularly run Nurgle Daemon princes myself - but if I'd taken Tzeentch princes more often I highly doubt that I would have noticed the discrepancy. I think its pretty likely that someone could get through an entire tournament and not notice.

Another list I noticed was using 2 squads of Cultists as the core choice in a slaughtercult - but it needed to be Bloodletters/Space Marines. Again, would you know the composition of every single formation?
If its just your opponents, I think its pretty likely that across 3-6 games you won't come up against someone who has enough knowledge of your army to point out the flaws, and certainly there's not enough for every opponent to come in and totally recalculate your list.

A few years ago Sparks and Mike M came to visit me in the uk and while at the pub the night before convinced me to change my ukgt heat list. I made a mistake and was 1 point over it was discovered during the second round and my first win was turned to a loss and my opponent was given the win. It hurt enough were I missed the qualification to the finals. An illegal list should make you lose all games played with list up to the point it is discovered. It is harsh but if you are taking lists that are on the edge get it right.

There are suggestions that seem like quick fixes for these issues and some that would require a lot more work, whether those who have suggested them admit it or not.

As a Denver resident who saw what happened at FoB in both cases of a player doing something naughty that last year, I support my judge fully for his decisions, but wish that a protocol was in place for dealing with these situations beforehand so these things don't escalate in the aftermath the way that they do. These players are putting these events at risk through their negligence and it simply can't be tolerated. The amount of work that is put into these events, while we don't play 40k professionally, is significant. Each player should be held to standards that reflect this or else that work may ultimately be in vain if a snafoo like illegal lists, dice, bullying, or rulebreaking happens at the event.

Because we don't have Feast anymore, I can attest to what happens when we try to accommodate everyone. Not only do I believe that we should punish players at events for these actions whether they were intentional or not, I also believe we should keep a track record of these offenders.

To me, it seems simplest to keep track of individuals who break the rules rather than subject the event staff to yet another massive project to accomplish in order to put on their event because for the most part, those who are participating in the events are ADULTS. Sure someone may have accidentally put together an illegal list, but that's on them and no one else. That's what we're supposed to do. If you set up a method of weight different offenses, you can hand out punishment accordingly. Some may just be yellow cards which subject the player to greater scrutiny (think probation) while others straight up ban a player for a period of time from attending events.

Maybe then these players will finally stop being lazy and get their gak together. That being said, each tournament should only have one or two people that can be emailed beforehand in order to make list comp decisions. If it's a borderline interpretation, it should be shared with all attendees. We all just need to stop dropping the ball or else we risk losing all credibility for our hobby.

Trasvi wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

You'd think that a white lie would be more functional.

But I don't see why it has to be about absolute verification of all lists or nothing. It's certainly preferable, but if staffing is an issue, why not at least do spot checks? It'd send the message to players that shenanigans may be caught by organizers. And if the penalty is harsh enough, maybe there's some deterrent there.

From having done list checking, I can say that a *very clear* best practice should be to demand that army lists be submitted in a rigid, given format -- with upgrade costs clearly listed, etc. -- or else real points penalties will be enforced. Or structure it so they can earn "list submission points" if positive reinforcement is your thing. Regardless, it greatly helps organizers with list checking -- either of a proactive nature or if a concern is raised -- and makes things much clearer for opponents.

So you want people to submit lists in a format like this?

Daemon Prince (145) Mark of Nurgle (10) Wings (40) Armour (20) Mastery Level 3 (75) == 270pts


This is a for reals example of an army list in a tournament I'm attending this weekend. Everyone had to submit lists 3 weeks in advance of the date, and they were put up for public scrutiny. Its a teams tournament.

But look at the example. There's something wrong with it.
Mark of Nurgle costs 15pts, not 10.

How many people do you think would notice that? I only did because I regularly run Nurgle Daemon princes myself - but if I'd taken Tzeentch princes more often I highly doubt that I would have noticed the discrepancy. I think its pretty likely that someone could get through an entire tournament and not notice.

Another list I noticed was using 2 squads of Cultists as the core choice in a slaughtercult - but it needed to be Bloodletters/Space Marines. Again, would you know the composition of every single formation?
If its just your opponents, I think its pretty likely that across 3-6 games you won't come up against someone who has enough knowledge of your army to point out the flaws, and certainly there's not enough for every opponent to come in and totally recalculate your list.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

Uniform formats don't somehow stop people from cheating on their own. But they do make lists *easier to review* by both judges and opponents. I can tell you from experience that it's faster and easier for me to cross-check an entry as you have it there against a wargear list than one NOT listing individual costs. And on the player front, many players play more than one army and are capable of catching small errors.

Striving for clarity is a good thing. It's the best thing. Do you feel differently?

gory_v wrote:

Maybe then these players will finally stop being lazy and get their gak together.

It's usually not a matter of laziness.

The army list building between books is simply too esoteric for anyone to know it all, or any player/judge to be expected to know it all.

The people in the thread calling for disqualification for 1 point errors are, IMO, holding players to an unreasonable standard. Virtually no sport/competition I know of is so punitive.

While some people can agree on certain standards/penalties or what-not, there is a wide variance between what one person or group of players thinks is appropriate and what another person or group of players is appropriate.

To make matters worse, some people have a rather militant view and inflexibility regarding their outlook and position.

Some people are of the mentality that being over points, even by 1 point, is cause for disqualification while others say that a TO should just remove models/upgrades to make the list compliant and move on. Neither position or variation of positions along the spectrum of how to handle lists at a GT, is inherently right or wrong or better or worse.

There really isn't any single "right" solution here folks. In a game system where virtually everything is optional, it is pretty daft to think that there is a single, simple, easy to implement, one size fits all solution.

Honestly, I think AdeptiCon's policy is a pretty fantastic middle ground.

Checking the lists of the top competitors once they have separated from the pack (admittedly, it would have ideally been done earlier than with 2 rounds remaining, and I think their policy normally is to check earlier). If they are over on points due to an error on any unit (in this case a Sanguinary Priest) that unit is completely removed from play for the remainder of the tournament.

The fact that the player went on to win the tournament anyway is a testament to his skill. I like this punishment better than disqualification, personally, since it was quite obviously an error (the player had filler points in some useless scout wargear, I believe, and was even a few points under when not accounting for the bolt pistol upgrade required to then trade out for a second close combat weapon). So, it seems to pretty obviously have just been an oversight, and while not acceptable apparently the makers of Army Builder and Battle Scribe made the same mistake, to boot.

It's in some ways a problem of the game as it has evolved - I'd personally love to go to simpler army construction, where it would be much easier to check everything, but I think that's not possible with the current 40K ruleset. Checking the lists of top competitors after a few rounds is the best way to go, imo. The punishment then likely depends on what the problem is, but if it's pretty clearly an oversight I think removing the unit immediately for the remainder of the tournament is a good way to go. Just kind of unbelievable that he then beat two of the best players left at the event, anyway!

 RiTides wrote:
Honestly, I think AdeptiCon's policy is a pretty fantastic middle ground.

Checking the lists of the top competitors once they have separated from the pack (admittedly, it would have ideally been done earlier than with 2 rounds remaining, and I think their policy normally is to check earlier). If they are over on points due to an error on any unit (in this case a Sanguinary Priest) that unit is completely removed from play for the remainder of the tournament.

The fact that the player went on to win the tournament anyway is a testament to his skill. I like this punishment better than disqualification, personally, since it was quite obviously an error (the player had filler points in some useless scout wargear, I believe, and was even a few points under when not accounting for the bolt pistol upgrade required to then trade out for a second close combat weapon). So, it seems to pretty obviously have just been an oversight, and while not acceptable apparently the makers of Army Builder and Battle Scribe made the same mistake, to boot.

It's in some ways a problem of the game as it has evolved - I'd personally love to go to simpler army construction, where it would be much easier to check everything, but I think that's not possible with the current 40K ruleset. Checking the lists of top competitors after a few rounds is the best way to go, imo. The punishment then likely depends on what the problem is, but if it's pretty clearly an oversight I think removing the unit immediately for the remainder of the tournament is a good way to go. Just kind of unbelievable that he then beat two of the best players left at the event, anyway!

Yeah, I think this is a good solution as well. Honestly, if someone is slightly over points and they are at the top tables, they likely did not need those extra points to get there-and if they did, they likely won't succeed in their final games. Simply adjusting the list to be compliant and moving on allows for the issue to be resolved and everyone to move on.

I mean really, what harm has anyone really suffered at that point? If anything, it is more of a metaphysical issue for people rather than a grievance amounting in any actual, quantifiable harm suffered.

Without a doubt, this is an issue of principles. Anyone who thinks the 1 pt is what caused him to win, is out of their mind!

 LValx wrote:
Without a doubt, this is an issue of principles. Anyone who thinks the 1 pt is what caused him to win, is out of their mind!

While I'd generally agree with you, you would be surprised to hear how many people actually would think "if he wasn't over points, I would have won". None the less, the bottom line (to us anyway) is principles and the issue then becomes who's principles are the better suited to resolve these types of issues? In the big picture, I think how Adepticon does it seems sufficient and I am pretty sure the ITC crew would be reasonable in how they handle such issues as well.

 mortetvie wrote:

 LValx wrote:
Without a doubt, this is an issue of principles. Anyone who thinks the 1 pt is what caused him to win, is out of their mind!

While I'd generally agree with you, you would be surprised to hear how many people actually would think "if he wasn't over points, I would have won". None the less, the bottom line (to us anyway) is principles and the issue then becomes who's principles are the better suited to resolve these types of issues? In the big picture, I think how Adepticon does it seems sufficient and I am pretty sure the ITC crew would be reasonable in how they handle such issues as well.

Its not so much that the 1pt extra caused him to win games, its more about the army construction that leads to being 1pt over. Being able to take that 1 extra point might mean you can now afford to take huge upgrades. Min-maxed armies with multiple detachments like Aarons are especially prone to this.

Lets say, for example, that I have a Flesh Tearer's Taxi Service detachment and I accidentally undercost the HQ by 2pts, and that lets me fit the detachment in to the overall army. Someone notices and I have to play without the HQ. Woe is me. Was it 2pts extra that let me win games? No. But that 2pts let me take 6 drop pods that did win the games.

This happened in a tournament I'm attending, where someone had undercosted a HQ choice by 5pts. But because nearly every single other choice in the army was minimum-sized cheapest possible squads with no upgrades, the only place to drop points was a 65pt upgrade on his Lord of War. So that 5pts discrepancy represented 65pts of value he was actually getting.

My point is that the person with list over points should then drop upgrades/units until they are (1) under points and (2) still have a legal list.

So if they are over points and dropping a p-fist would solve the problem, so be it. If they literally cannot drop any upgrades and still be under, that is a more serious problem that may necessitate being severely under points... But that is rare.

In your example, if all that could be dropped is that 65 point upgrade, then that would need to go. However, I doubt that that upgrade was singularly responaible for game wins. If that were the case, well, he'll be severely handicapped in the latter rounds.

For AdeptiCon, they remove the entire unit that was miscosted. I like that better than removing just enough to get under points, as it's a bigger deterrent to being careless with the list, but still gives the player a chance to play out the tournament (with a significant handicap / penalty).

Have the top tournament organizers come together and make an online list maker for tournament play. Triple check it for errors.

Allow players to print lists at home, but scan the lists for "errors". ( for example, you can change the text/points in an Army Builder list after copy/pasting it).

In this day and age it should not be hard to find gamers willing to do the coding, or the tech.

Bam, problem solved. No need to ban formations etc.

( people who still don't have access to the internet/computers can make their lists and print them at the tournament for a fee).

General Hobbs wrote:

Have the top tournament organizers come together and make an online list maker for tournament play. Triple check it for errors.

I ran Star Wars CCG and HackMaster tournaments all of the time, back in the day. I do not have the skills to make an online list maker, nor the money to pay a programmer to make one.

General Hobbs wrote:

In this day and age it should not be hard to find gamers willing to do the coding, or the tech.

Is this a serious sentence? Players can't even to be bothered to print out their lists or paint their minis. The coding can get done; however,

1. As has been pointed out dozens of time in this thread, GW considers point values, formation information, and other copywritten lyrics so they can't be stolen sacred, and their lawyers will attack, and you don't want that.

2. Most/many/nearly all TOs are gamers, but not expert code writers.

3. Even if you find some code writers, people don't do gak for free. I happen to know two that could do this. They work for NASA. I was a groomsman in their wedding. If I asked them to write this for me, they'd laugh at me and tell me to go drink bourbon out of a dead monkey's anus.



General Hobbs. If it really is this easy, then you should have no problem getting Reece, MVBrandt, and all of the other major tournament organizers to sit down and make this happen.

I mean, BAM! It's that easy, right? Go do it then.

Top 16 lists are out:

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2016/04/07/tits-tournaments-adepticon-2016-top-16-lists/

A wee question regarding number 16, Kenneth Johnsons, the Tau player in the top 16. I see he took a Tau Empire CAD & FSE, both of his commanders in each separate CAD have Iridium Armour, which is a signature system. I thought the "one per army" included separate CADS from the same faction? (I could be wrong though, just asking for clarification).

http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Kenneth-Johnson-16th-Overall-Adepticon-2016.pdf

 Bryan01 wrote:
Top 16 lists are out:

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2016/04/07/tits-tournaments-adepticon-2016-top-16-lists/

A wee question regarding number 16, Kenneth Johnsons, the Tau player in the top 16. I see he took a Tau Empire CAD & FSE, both of his commanders in each separate CAD have Iridium Armour, which is a signature system. I thought the "one per army" included separate CADS from the same faction? (I could be wrong though, just asking for clarification).

http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Kenneth-Johnson-16th-Overall-Adepticon-2016.pdf

According to AB it is, but I'm fairly sure that is incorrect, only 1 sig system per army; He's taking 2 identical sig systems from 2 different codex, but its still under 1 army. Tools like AB are good but still have mistakes, and players that uses it exclusively suffer. I'm in support of a more harsh penalty on players that exceed the pt level/errors made, in the end the players themselves should be responsible. Thus making them check their own army list against the codex and other necessary sources for error prior to the tourney.

On how harsh the penalty should be, it needs to be a balance. Stripping the prize and medal may be too harsh, but perhaps split the winnings with the 2nd place? If the player in question made a second error in the following same tourneys, perhaps strip the prize and honors.

Adepticon looks like a joke atm, 2 errors in the top 16, honest mistake or not, that is not acceptable.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

gory_v wrote:

Maybe then these players will finally stop being lazy and get their gak together.

Virtually no sport/competition I know of is so punitive.

You're obviously not a golfer.

Why shouldn't people be responsible for the lists they bring? If you're going to play a list at a GT you should at least have the digital copy of the book that belongs to your army or wherever your formation comes from. It's called being responsible. I know mistakes are made, but these players are putting judges and TOs in tough spots when they put on their sad faces and say they didn't mean to do anything wrong. The blame then gets shifted to people who shouldn't have to babysit us, but feel bad so they compromise. As an athlete growing up in multiple sports, if I were ever found to have cheated via list construction or whatever, I'd step down immediately because I was playing at an advantage. It's the right thing to do. Don't shrug your shoulders and say 'C'est la vie,' step up and own it. This game isn't THAT complicated. Communities are available that you can reach out to in order to check that you're doing things right. The problem people have in list construction is the same they have with the rulebook is that they don't read it closely enough. Don't just look at the units you can take, goto the pages with those units on them and look for any other stipulations that are required to field that unit. It's simple, DON'T BE LAZY.

 Big Mac wrote:

 Bryan01 wrote:
Top 16 lists are out:

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2016/04/07/tits-tournaments-adepticon-2016-top-16-lists/

A wee question regarding number 16, Kenneth Johnsons, the Tau player in the top 16. I see he took a Tau Empire CAD & FSE, both of his commanders in each separate CAD have Iridium Armour, which is a signature system. I thought the "one per army" included separate CADS from the same faction? (I could be wrong though, just asking for clarification).

http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Kenneth-Johnson-16th-Overall-Adepticon-2016.pdf

According to AB it is, but I'm fairly sure that is incorrect, only 1 sig system per army; He's taking 2 identical sig systems from 2 different codex, but its still under 1 army. Tools like AB are good but still have mistakes, and players that uses it exclusively suffer. I'm in support of a more harsh penalty on players that exceed the pt level/errors made, in the end the players themselves should be responsible. Thus making them check their own army list against the codex and other necessary sources for error prior to the tourney.

On how harsh the penalty should be, it needs to be a balance. Stripping the prize and medal may be too harsh, but perhaps split the winnings with the 2nd place? If the player in question made a second error in the following same tourneys, perhaps strip the prize and honors.

Adepticon looks like a joke atm, 2 errors in the top 16, honest mistake or not, that is not acceptable.

I would say it's highly likely there was an error on BoK's writing of the list. They are generally recreating them to the best of their knowledge from what they get from other players. I doubt that Ken sent them a full army list.

I mean, mine is wrong as it has the wrong number of dogs and no magic hat for my RP and that was a cursory glance.

But Kudos to BoK for gathering the armies as much as they can for others to see. Just don't take the write ups as gospel of what was played.