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.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
One thing to point out is we are assuming he used the Blood Angel's "Standard of Sacrifice" with Seth. Gonyo's list names the "Standard of Devastation" which is a Dark Angel Relic. So his list writing was sloppier than we thought.

Yeah I think everyone is giving him the benefit of having selected the 'correct' standard (given that even that was incorrect).

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:


Really? The argument is that it's okay not to ensure that every player is not cheating when they build their lists simply because it will take a long time? I'm sorry, but no. Do major MtG tournaments not check every deck to ensure the players aren't cheating right out of the gate? Would it be so hard to simply have every player show up an hour or two early to the first day of the event, have every player assigned to a TO in groups, and have the TO go over each list in their group prior to the first round of play? Is it really so much to ask that a tournament ensure that each player who shows up at the very least plays with a legal list for the event? Is that really something that needs to be argued against?

Also, thank you, random nobody on the internet, for assuming my history, both professional and personal, at organizing major events of any kind. I really appreciate the unfounded assumptions on your part buddy.

No worries - if you have credentials worth discussing present them, otherwise I'll carry on with my assumption. Generally if you're going to level those kinds of 'if you don't like it then get out' types of criticisms and you've got relevant experience you should go ahead and present them. Now that we've addressed you being offended I can move on to the rest of this.

Do MTG events check decks? Yes - this is a a far simpler task than checking 40k lists because its literally looking at a deck list and making sure there is nothing from the ban list - done. That's nowhere near the complexity of checking a multiple source 40k list or even something like the DQ'd list where if you aren't aware of a specific line in the relic section you may still miss it. And how many TOs do you think a major event has? Do you think they have enough for each TO to only check 8 lists? If so you have no clue how many judges are at a major event (usually 6-8 for 200+ people, so each judge would need to check over 20 lists). And no one is arguing against legal lists - however the onus is on the player to check their opponent's list. It is simply unreasonable to ask 10 people to check 20 lists each in an hour (and that's being generous with the math). The reason I made assumptions about your personal history - to be clear - is you are arguing from a position that indicates you lack any practical experience in this area.

Well define what relevant credentials are then. Do my 8 years in the Marine Corps organizing countless convoys, training operations, ranges, etc. with all the logistics and planning that goes into that count? Or are you only looking for experience in running tournaments and the like? Because if the latter, fair enough I do not have much experience running 40k tournaments. If that nullifies my opinion and thoughts on the subject in your eyes, so be it, ignore everything else I say and move on with your life, as it is likely nothing productive will come from a discussion between us then.

As for the rest of it. If you're going to be a TO at a major event like Adepticon, I would expect you to have a fairly in depth understanding of the rules of 40k, both in play and in listbuilding. It has been a common rule across all SM codices so far that successor chapters do not have access to parent chapter relics, I would expect a TO to know that. For the numbers, it sounds like these events need vastly more TOs than they currently have, but that is obviously a different discussion and debate, I am well aware that it is not that simple to get more TOs to an event. But why is it the job of the other players at the tournament to ensure that their opponents are playing fairly? I cannot think of any other competitive event where that is the case. It is not the job of a baseball team to ensure the other team is not using corked bats. It's not the job of other gamblers at Vegas to ensure someone doesn't have cards up their sleeve. It is not the job of other countries to ensure competitors aren't doping at the Olympics. Its not the job of Magic players to check their opponent's deck to make sure it's on the up and up. (Just as a few examples). Why then do we not hold the judges and organizers of competitive 40k events responsible for enforcing their rules and making sure everyone is playing fairly and legally like we do for everything else? That last question, I think, is kinda the heart of the matter, at least to me.

I think this says more about the stupid BA successor chapter relics limitation than anything. Does literally ANY other codex have a similar limitation? I can see how it was missed, and I think likely not an intentional mistake. What would be the point in turning up with an illegal list to such a big tournament? If you did well it would be guaranteed to be caught due to it being a high profile event with loads of internet scrutiny

Organizing Marines is far easier than Gamers. If you organized a bunch of cats with head injuries and personality disorders into something coherent, than you be closer to the mark.

Your examples all involve lots of money at risk to pull off a good event. 40k tournaments are closer to a school trips with volunteer labor.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
One thing to point out is we are assuming he used the Blood Angel's "Standard of Sacrifice" with Seth. Gonyo's list names the "Standard of Devastation" which is a Dark Angel Relic. So his list writing was sloppier than we thought.

That's really sleazy

Here's hoping that once GW has a list builder for matched play people will be expected to use it for tournament play

 GI_Redshirt wrote:


Well define what relevant credentials are then. Do my 8 years in the Marine Corps organizing countless convoys, training operations, ranges, etc. with all the logistics and planning that goes into that count? Or are you only looking for experience in running tournaments and the like? Because if the latter, fair enough I do not have much experience running 40k tournaments. If that nullifies my opinion and thoughts on the subject in your eyes, so be it, ignore everything else I say and move on with your life, as it is likely nothing productive will come from a discussion between us then.

No not really because your access to resources in that environment are far different from running a volunteer, no pay style event. Ultimately you're talking about two very different kinds of organizational skills and obviously hugely different parameters.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

As for the rest of it. If you're going to be a TO at a major event like Adepticon, I would expect you to have a fairly in depth understanding of the rules of 40k, both in play and in listbuilding. It has been a common rule across all SM codices so far that successor chapters do not have access to parent chapter relics, I would expect a TO to know that. For the numbers, it sounds like these events need vastly more TOs than they currently have, but that is obviously a different discussion and debate, I am well aware that it is not that simple to get more TOs to an event. But why is it the job of the other players at the tournament to ensure that their opponents are playing fairly? I cannot think of any other competitive event where that is the case. It is not the job of a baseball team to ensure the other team is not using corked bats. It's not the job of other gamblers at Vegas to ensure someone doesn't have cards up their sleeve. It is not the job of other countries to ensure competitors aren't doping at the Olympics. Its not the job of Magic players to check their opponent's deck to make sure it's on the up and up. (Just as a few examples). Why then do we not hold the judges and organizers of competitive 40k events responsible for enforcing their rules and making sure everyone is playing fairly and legally like we do for everything else? That last question, I think, is kinda the heart of the matter, at least to me.

Because what you're asking for is not feasible. That's the part you want to keep talking around even after you already addressed that they need more TOs than they have and they're hard to get. Until those events have the amount of judges a MtG event has (to be clear these are compensated judges at those events with mandatory amounts of staffing so still not an apples to apples comparison) it simply is not possible for 40k TOs to go through and check every list. Not unless they place an unreasonable 2+ month cut off time. And just to address the rest of your 'well these things have judges' comparisons:

-Baseball Team - a major league professional sport with a billion dollar infrastructure designed to enforce its rules. Paid officials.
-Vegas - a multi-billion dollar business apparatus that has a finical stake in finding and preventing cheating. Paid officials.
-The Olympics - a multi-billion dollar sports committee with infrastructure to prevent cheating. Paid officials

So I think its fairly clear why we don't hold 40k TOs to the same standard. They aren't even close to the same thing, 40k TOs are volunteers with a small volunteer staff and they have to manage the entirety of the event, not just checking and enforcing lists and rules but scheduling, logistics, pairings, the whole thing. Unless you want to start paying 40k TOs then stop asking them to check 250+ lists before a major event.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
One thing to point out is we are assuming he used the Blood Angel's "Standard of Sacrifice" with Seth. Gonyo's list names the "Standard of Devastation" which is a Dark Angel Relic. So his list writing was sloppier than we thought.

He may have done that to act as a screen.

 DoomMouse wrote:
I think this says more about the stupid BA successor chapter relics limitation than anything. Does literally ANY other codex have a similar limitation? I can see how it was missed, and I think likely not an intentional mistake. What would be the point in turning up with an illegal list to such a big tournament? If you did well it would be guaranteed to be caught due to it being a high profile event with loads of internet scrutiny

Every marine codex?

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
A tournament I'm going to in june simply banned the Supreme Command detachment. Its only used for stupid abuse anyway.

I used to be against this but the further on we've gotten in 8th I tend to agree with it.

Same reaction here.

In a general sense I would like to see the detachments adjusted. A little more restrictions never hurt anything...

 DoomMouse wrote:
I think this says more about the stupid BA successor chapter relics limitation than anything. Does literally ANY other codex have a similar limitation? I can see how it was missed, and I think likely not an intentional mistake. What would be the point in turning up with an illegal list to such a big tournament? If you did well it would be guaranteed to be caught due to it being a high profile event with loads of internet scrutiny

What other successor gets its own special character?

 Ordana wrote:

 DoomMouse wrote:
I think this says more about the stupid BA successor chapter relics limitation than anything. Does literally ANY other codex have a similar limitation? I can see how it was missed, and I think likely not an intentional mistake. What would be the point in turning up with an illegal list to such a big tournament? If you did well it would be guaranteed to be caught due to it being a high profile event with loads of internet scrutiny

What other successor gets its own special character?

Crimson Fists.

Black Templars as well, although that's a separate Chapter Tactic.

 Ordana wrote:

 DoomMouse wrote:
I think this says more about the stupid BA successor chapter relics limitation than anything. Does literally ANY other codex have a similar limitation? I can see how it was missed, and I think likely not an intentional mistake. What would be the point in turning up with an illegal list to such a big tournament? If you did well it would be guaranteed to be caught due to it being a high profile event with loads of internet scrutiny

What other successor gets its own special character?

Raptors

All of the Forge World chapters (Red Scorpions, etc.) have their own special characters too.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Not sure if this is the right place but Andrew Gonyo got DQ'd from the top 16 at Adepticon for taking an illegal relic.

Is this the know-it-all Andrew guy who used to post as "Stelek"?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Not sure if this is the right place but Andrew Gonyo got DQ'd from the top 16 at Adepticon for taking an illegal relic.

Is this the know-it-all Andrew guy who used to post as "Stelek"?

No, he is not Stelek.

Honestly this is inexcusable from.a top ITC player. This isn't an obscure rule, it's right in the codex. Since this is the second time it's happened, a similar thing with the same person, I am beginning to think that it might be intentional. Even a new player could read the book and see that is not allowed.

I don't know the player in question and I am not accusing him, specifically, of bad intent. However, I have played in big events and against top players and I would say that about half of them are bullies. This cuts across games. Back in the day I played DBM against the top Elo-rated players in the world (they happened to be in my local group) and it was the exact same.

They're not awful people or anything, but they subtly bully their way to gain an advantage. They know exactly what they are doing, and they try to cover up their poor sportsmanship with bluster and bravado. Sloppy reading, sloppy writing, and using imprecision as a weapon are all tools of the trade. They act casual until they suddenly spring a trap on you and try to twist the rules to catch you in a no-win situation. It can be be exhausting to deal with.

 Saber wrote:
I don't know the player in question and I am not accusing him, specifically, of bad intent.

Intent is hard to prove, which is why illegal list should be automatic DQ and ejection, regardless of intent.

Audustum wrote:
Easy there, big guy, I was speaking numerically.

My list has eighteen terminators (including three terminator characters) and 20 scouts. Clearly, my list is a scout-focused list, not a terminator-focused list.

I get what you were saying. It's just that what you were saying is an awful argument.

Honestly what if all major tournaments used the same "online" army builder. If it was sponsored and made as good as it can be then every player could use the same army builder and submit their armies. If there is a rules discrepancy from the book to the builder the player can petition for the exception. This would reduce the judges work load for checking lists and put everyone on the same footing.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
A tournament I'm going to in june simply banned the Supreme Command detachment. Its only used for stupid abuse anyway.

I used to be against this but the further on we've gotten in 8th I tend to agree with it.

Same reaction here.

In a general sense I would like to see the detachments adjusted. A little more restrictions never hurt anything...

Supreme command is the only realistic way for guard baneblade variants to benefit from regiments. So you're saying you just want to majorly f*** any guard army with a baneblade. Got it.

As a guard player with multiple baneblades, I could live with that tradeoff very easily.

Go big or go home, bring the whole company

(Only semi serious, but I could for real real live with that).

 Melissia wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Easy there, big guy, I was speaking numerically.

My list has eighteen terminators (including three terminator characters) and 20 scouts. Clearly, my list is a scout-focused list, not a terminator-focused list.

I get what you were saying. It's just that what you were saying is an awful argument.

It's. . it's not an argument. It's just a vanilla description. I feel like you're missing the overall point of the post, which was not what the majority faction is.

Timeshadow wrote:
Honestly what if all major tournaments used the same "online" army builder. If it was sponsored and made as good as it can be then every player could use the same army builder and submit their armies. If there is a rules discrepancy from the book to the builder the player can petition for the exception. This would reduce the judges work load for checking lists and put everyone on the same footing.

This exists, it's called Battlescribe.

As someone who has worked on the data for it, I will out and out say that many, many people do not have an appreciation for just how much work it is maintaining the ruleset, and how many arguments we have among the data authors in the Gitter channel we use for coordination about how to implement some cases of really extraordinarily sloppy rules writing (especially the designer commentary, it exists for a good purpose but holy gak is it poorly written)

The funny thing is that GW's own app for AoS - Azyr - Has a not inconsiderable number of issues that are very similar to those that get BS slammed by a usually fairly entitled-attitude userbase.

Ultimately until GW ruleset writers actually apply harsh logic tests (or at least better directions on precedence) and concise language, any list builder will potentially have flaws based on the differing interpretations that individuals may have.

There are some cases where the BS Data author team has made changes explicitly for the Quality of life for TOs, namely tagging index option implementations so that they stand out in list construction.

Does/can battlescribe set up an event type list service like conflict chamber does for Warmahordes?

 Melissia wrote:

Audustum wrote:
It's. . it's not an argument.

Yes, in fact, it is. The statement is making the argument that the majority of the army is not Flesh Tearers, because cheap, expendable models that aren't Flesh Tearers outnumber them, even though the vast majority of the points are in Flesh Tearers. It's not missing the point, rather, the point is irrelevant to begin with.

So, Audustum, is my army of 18 terminators and 20 scouts a scout based army, or a terminator based army? 280 points of numerically superior scout marines, vs the rest of the 1500 points being terminators. But there's more scouts! Clearly, according to your argument, it's not a terminator list, because there's more scouts than terminators!

Your insistence on saying "but there's numerically more guard!" is just silly.

Hey, a army of three Imperial Knights and a five man squad of Skitarii Rangers is totally a Skitarii based army!

 Melissia wrote:

Audustum wrote:
It's. . it's not an argument.

Yes, in fact, it is. The statement is making the argument that the majority of the army is not Flesh Tearers, because cheap, expendable models that aren't Flesh Tearers outnumber them, even though the vast majority of the points are in Flesh Tearers. It's not missing the point, rather, the point is irrelevant to begin with.

So, Audustum, is my army of 18 terminators and 20 scouts a scout based army, or a terminator based army? 280 points of numerically superior scout marines, vs the rest of the 1500 points being terminators. But there's more scouts! Clearly, according to your argument, it's not a terminator list, because there's more scouts than terminators!

Your insistence on saying "but there's numerically more guard!" is just silly.

No, what's silly is your collective insistence to argue a point that was not the point of the post. The post was meant to provide the units in the Flesh Tearers detachment with an off-hand, rough identification of the rest. If I had 5 1-pound white turkey and one 6-pound black turkey, I'd say I was dealing with mostly white turkeys, despite the fact that, by weight, it's mostly black turkey.

The list is, numerically, Guard. That bothers you? You don't like people using that as a descriptor? Fine, doesn't matter. The point of the post was not to label it a Guard army.. The point was to help people talk about the Flesh Tearers portion.

I get the Guard community has a massive chip on its shoulder. Don't impute it to everyone else. It does you no favors.

 Melissia wrote:

Audustum wrote:
No, what's silly is your collective insistence to argue a point that was not the point of the post.

I know the point you were making, the point was just stupid.

Only one appropriate response here.



Anyway, on point, I wonder how the guy who got DQ'd feels about Nick's situation in the other thread.

Your dismissive response doesn't change the fact that you made a nonsensical argument purely in order to whine about "ermagerd sooooop", and you damned well know it. If you have a 750 point army of four Leman Russ tanks and a single conscript squad, no one who actually knew a damn thing about 40k would argue that it's an infantry list.

Except, apparently, you, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

edit: freaking typos...

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Does/can battlescribe set up an event type list service like conflict chamber does for Warmahordes?

I'm not familiar with the service, but I'm sure if such a web service were to be created and gain enough traction that the creator of the app would be able to do some form of integration