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.

nkelsch wrote:
But the issue is, someone who makes a greater effort and more invested in research and prep will ALWAYS have an advantage.

Let's say you required lists in a week before the event, no changes. So people can't see the terrain in person or see what people are actually bringing by walking around the night before.

*People who attend terrain building will still have an advantage.
*People who follow the NOVA blog or threads online wills till have an advantage.
*People who play in any pre-tourneys will still have an advantage.
*People who are active in the community and actually are friends with many of the top competitors and know what they are taking because they often blog about it months in advanced will have an advantage.
*People who show up in a group of friends have an advantage by knowing what some of the participants are bringing and pooling knowledge. Apparently all participants need to be sequestered for a month pre-tourney for it to be fair to solo people who don't know anyone at the tourney.

It can get absurd.

There will always be people who have the option to be more invested and say 'that's ok, I am cool with where I am.' There are going to be people who never read the missions or didn't bother to playtest them. There will be people who either are not aware of the FAQ rulings or didn't explicitly build an army around them. There will always be people who don't look at pictures of the terrain setup and terrain. There will be people who play what they have and don't have a backlog to even change their army if they wanted to.

If you move the bar arbitrarily, then people who prep up to that bar will still have an advantage over those who don't prep. As long as the same bar is applied to everyone, what makes it unfair? Claiming travel burdens or 'locals can run home and grab one of 30 armies they have' is disingenuous and sounds like sour grapes. If the bar is 'you need your list locked for game 1', then why is someone who swaps half his army due to terrain or hearing rumblings about a high concentration of Eldar different from someone who swaps his list because it is illegal, or didn't do his research and found out a unit he brought has a unfavorable FAQ ruling? I think it is very reasonable for peopel from the UK who play a totally different 'flavour' of 40k and have no idea what to expect to 'adjust' before the tourney, especially when they are legally allowed to. Why should they show up and a foghorn of sadness plays and says "Screw you! this is the USA now brah! You are stuck with your list, take your USA META beating and enjoy it. This is fair!"

I don't see why altering your list during the months leading up to a particular GT is ok but the days before is 'bad'. If everyone has the same freedom and some people choose to not take advantage, it isn't unfair. I don't see what locking lists in farther in advance accomplishes other than appealing to a small number of vocal 'casuals' who don't want to make the effort to be conscious of the meta and don't want others who are conscious of it to gain an advantage. Moving the 'lock-in' time for lists will simply change how those who 'research and prepare' function and those who don't research and prepare will still get caught with their pants down and cry foul.

And it is usually funny, no one who attends these events seems to have these concerns. Usually people who don't actually attend tourneys seem to be the first to scrutinize cheating or point out inequities. I suspect if they asked participants 'how far in advance should lists be 'locked in', most NOVA participants won't care/know there was even an issue or say 'it is fine how it is now.' You please your participants not the naysayer anonymous internet.

Honestly, I didn't feel disadvantaged being a first timer, going alone, with the rules allowances that were made. I thought they did a pretty good job.
Mission packets were clear enough on what to expect.
As long as you did not check in your "Open" list, you are still allowed to make changes. Yeah, its a bit cheddar, but them's the rules. As long as they are evenly enforced, I'd call it fair play.

Ideally, I'd prefer if you had to check in all your lists for the event at the same time, when you first sign into the tournament. I think that'd fix a few concerns.

 Red Corsair wrote:

pizzaguardian wrote:It is also 2 different tournaments. One affecting the other is expected and i can not consider it list tailoring.

Sorry but I don't think you know what tailoring means.

If you dont see the open gt lists how can you tailor against them?

Open lists are not the same as invtitational ones as they should not be, they are different tournaments. You try to put list tailoring to a place it is not and try to accuse people of it.

As i said before they are different tournaments and unless you force people to attend with same list to two different tournaments, you can expect everybody to attend with same list to a 32 people tournament and to a 200 people one.

My critique was more about catching stuff like a guy being ten points over on his list is a lot more likely to happen if lists are submitted before hand. This is also a lot less embarrassing than if someone catches it a week later after said person wins an award at the event, which has happened before.

The current edition list structuring (if you can call it that) is the most complex it has ever been and varies from event to event. It should be plainly obvious why double checking armies for legality ahead of time would be a good idea.

 Phazael wrote:
My critique was more about catching stuff like a guy being ten points over on his list is a lot more likely to happen if lists are submitted before hand. This is also a lot less embarrassing than if someone catches it a week later after said person wins an award at the event, which has happened before.

The current edition list structuring (if you can call it that) is the most complex it has ever been and varies from event to event. It should be plainly obvious why double checking armies for legality ahead of time would be a good idea.

List pre-submission in a very large tournament is a bit of a joke. People change their lists and bring different ones with the weight of thousands of dollars behind them in permitting the change; volunteer staffs of 100+ are stretched to almost impossible levels of exhaustion that allows no room for the task; it's not realistic. It works perfectly well for a smaller tournament, or for a big one that has no convention wrapped around it of far greater magnitude.

yeah with 200 players I cannot imagine trying to check all the lists (no real fast way to do it as army builder programs have been known to be wrong.) The only thing I could see doing is checking the lists for the top bracket players but with the re-bracket happening mid-day even that would prove difficult as it is more important to provide good customer service than to check lists.

 Phazael wrote:
My critique was more about catching stuff like a guy being ten points over on his list is a lot more likely to happen if lists are submitted before hand. This is also a lot less embarrassing than if someone catches it a week later after said person wins an award at the event, which has happened before.

The current edition list structuring (if you can call it that) is the most complex it has ever been and varies from event to event. It should be plainly obvious why double checking armies for legality ahead of time would be a good idea.

List checking in 6th edition was painful. I'm really not looking forward to doing it in 7th. Gotta do it...but MAN.

You're correct that Army Builder makes errors...and it also makes checking harder than it'd be with a simple document with itemized points values.

It also doesn't speed things up when you come across a list scrawled in lipstick or crayon on a cocktail napkin.

And honestly, List validation self-polices and is hardly ever intentional. If someone has an invalid list, it usually gets corrected almost immediately and is usually never at the top tables. People are not malicious and if someone is going to 'game the chaos' by making an illegal list intentionally, so be it. They usually get found out and 'corrected'.

It is trying to solve a problem which doesn't really exist outside the imaginations of the internet.

MVBrandt wrote:

 Phazael wrote:
My critique was more about catching stuff like a guy being ten points over on his list is a lot more likely to happen if lists are submitted before hand. This is also a lot less embarrassing than if someone catches it a week later after said person wins an award at the event, which has happened before.

The current edition list structuring (if you can call it that) is the most complex it has ever been and varies from event to event. It should be plainly obvious why double checking armies for legality ahead of time would be a good idea.

List pre-submission in a very large tournament is a bit of a joke. People change their lists and bring different ones with the weight of thousands of dollars behind them in permitting the change; volunteer staffs of 100+ are stretched to almost impossible levels of exhaustion that allows no room for the task; it's not realistic. It works perfectly well for a smaller tournament, or for a big one that has no convention wrapped around it of far greater magnitude.

Then maybe require all list submissions by a certain date and just make them all public? Trust me, the internet will quadruple check all of them in no time.

I agree though, it shouldn't be added stress to you fellas. I just don't understand how people can sit their and argue that tailoring for the meta isn't an advantage. It clearly is, it's also an easy fix. Should we aim for less advantage garnered from gaming the format? If a solution for playing the clock were
available would these same people be arguing against that too? I am just asking questions.

Again, great job to the TO's, it's staggering what they accomplish.

If you require list submissions early all you will get is a lot of people not signing up till the last minute and just makes it a mess.

Not checking list encourages you know what ... It is sad but true . TOs have to do it.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Not checking list encourages you know what ... It is sad but true . TOs have to do it.

List checking was never spoken about in this thread.

Early list submission was put forth. The rest of this thread isn't aimed at Steve (Dozer Blades / Black Blow Fly), but just the small handful of folks who desperately try to find some flaws in NOVA every year after it happens.

This is not a complex issue, it is not a major issue (I find it a little silly that people think there's proactive tailoring of lists to those that are at the tournament ... people tweaking their lists after practicing missions before starting the GT happens regardless). Let's not make mountains out of molehills, especially by those who haven't or plan not to attend.

This is also easily remedied by requiring submission of lists for both events at checkin, which we typically do, but absolved folks of early this year due to wanting to make sure they got started on time instead of having to go back through a line to submit GT lists once torrent had the others all good to go.

I understand the concern being brought up, it is a theoretical "issue," but is not really one at all in practicality. Additionally, as is so often the case, those who meaningfully altered their lists the night before the GT won nothing or close to it, beyond what they would already have done at their caliber (i.e., won more than they lost, but didn't take any major awards home).

This is the kind of false specter obsessing that causes people who've never been to tournaments to question the entire activity, thinking all that happens is a bunch of WAAC douches tailoring lists and trying to gain every cheeseball advantage. It also presumes people would only change their lists after some kind of obsessed analysis of the field, as opposed to - perhaps - just wanting to play something they feel comfier with in the format to ensure they HAVE FUN PLAYING AT A TOURNAMENT.

WAAC douchiness and only playing to win regardless of fun isn't the reality of the world we live in, nor the reality of our hobby, and those who are thus erroneously led down the mistaken path of thinking these things about tournament are unfairly denied the right to an extremely enjoyable, hobby-enriching time. I wish folks would realize that as they obsess over the tiniest of details. Trust me, as con organizers, we already exhaust ourselves harping over the details we can and can't perfectly address with our once-a-year chance to practice and refine what we're putting on. We really don't need ya'll to exhaust yourselves over the same.

I don't mean to rant a little, I just ... I get frustrated sometimes. Those who think there are any meaningful % of people attending tournaments who only care about winning, are douchey WAAC types, etc., are either nuts ... or just far too inexperienced at what actually goes on at these events. Stop purveying the sauce of negativity. Some people tweaked their list after playing some NOVA missions to something they felt they'd have more fun with. The result was they had more fun, along with nearly everyone else. Big deal. Additionally, nearly a thousand hobbyists had an awesome time, and we raised $20k for charity. We literally had a fella dealing with some tough medical stuff come to NOVA *just* to strike it off his bucket list. These kinds of things are important, meaningful items ... and while every year we get better at running an event, I dare anyone who did not attend to present a balance of positive to match their negative when they select to aggressively pursue an agenda over some petty component of an event that represented less than 20% of the folks at the con.

PS/Edit - There are a lot of forums and locations to practice the time-honored internet right to hone your skills at interruption-free articulation of a point. I'd appreciate it not being done to piss in the cheerios of an event that spends the majority of its energy enriching the lives of hobbyists and raising money for worldwide causes. Go do some of that, practice your desire to make a point on the internet in support of THAT kinda good cause. I'm proud of the dozens of volunteers who give their time and energy every year making THAT happen, and it's for them - and the fact they read these threads, and things like the Kopach-bashing BOLS/BOK stuff of a few days ago, and more - that I go through the PITA of occasionally being a mama bear about the con we put on.

I am not berating you - I do feel that army lists should be checked in advance for several good reasons. The main point being there are no surprises come the tournament and then you've got to figure out what to do. I am sure most of the time it is not an issue but it can and does happen from time to time. I know it is a lot of work and involves a lot of communication back and forth with everyone. I know that at one time TexasGamesCon did it so it is possible for larger venues.

Like I said I am not berating you and think NOVA was a big success again this year. : )

Dooshbags are gonna be dooshbags, they will always find a way around whatever you do.

I think list checking is punishing the good people because of the few bad people. In addition it puts additional pressure on the TO's to enforce it as well as check it constantly to make sure they have the same list.

Not worth the hassle and effort IMO

I respectfully disagree with list presubmission being a necessary requirement. First of all, MVBrandt has now organized, count em, FIVE giant conventions which include one of the largest annual GTs on the planet. So, right off the bat, I'm taking his word for it. Secondly, having attended NOVA the last two years, I understand this isn't a problem.

Illegality isn't a problem because any tournament player worth his salt has at least enough cursory knowledge of every codex to smell fish when he or she looks at a list before a game.

As for tailoring, the meta is SO disparate at this point, so layered and complex that tailoring for a meta is almost silly. Secondly, people who play the invitational come with varying motivations. Sure, most of them play to try and win it, but there's a substantial minority who bring something "funny" because they and their top-table mates get a kick out of it. Not only that, they often change their list last minute not because they think it would perform poorly in the GT, but because they're already tired of playing X and would prefer to play Y for the 8 GT games.

In sum, this is silly.

MVBrandt wrote:
Steve (Dozer Blades / Black Blow Fly),

Wait, DB is BBF? Man, I'm behind the times.

ATC checks lists every year.

ATC checks lists every year.

ATC is a very different animal from NOVA. ATC takes a team of five, so there is no, "I decided to show up last minute." Furthermore, ATC did have issues with not checking some of the lists this year (not to re-hash this, as ATC is a fun event that does a good job).

From what I understand, NOVA has plenty of people who show up and buy tickets the day of. Sometimes, it can be easy to know you are able to attend an event in advance, but things happen. I wanted to go to NOVA this year, but couldn't cancel the class I'm teaching. However, I wasn't sure of this fact until late in the summer. If I had to definitely commit to NOVA and submit my list a month in advance, I'd have had no chance of attending.

By instituting a month before list submissions/registration cutoff, NOVA (and other events) would hurt the total number of people attending. It is unrealistic at best, and also unnecessary.

Again...people are making an issue out of nothing.

Didn't mean to come across as slamming such an awesome event but looking back at my posts I can definitely see people taking it that way. I know it would be a lot of work and head ache. I don't think Reecius checks lists either. I prefer to though but fully understand why a TO does not want to do it.

I wouldn't have played in the open this year if I had to submit my list a month ahead of time. I literally signed up the day of the tournament with a list I wanted to play because it sounded awesome and hilarious to play...and it was! Some people thought it was a bit on the d-bag powergamey side (3 riptides and 3 knights in the lance formation), but every person I played found out sooner or later in the game that they could make a legit game of it, it wasn't a 1 way roflstomping where my opponents had zero chance. Also, and its important to note, the terrain density at NOVA actually hurts the list I took, before SOME people accuse me of tailoring for the event .

Every list you make and every army you make is a tailored list.

WTF.

That's what the game is you build a army to do something, Win. That's the whole damn point.

Also the invitational meta is going to be very different from the main tournament meta. Tailoring towards that kind of list might make another hard counter(but not a net list) knock you out.

I think play whatever you are gonna play, no need to check. People dont have time to tailor a list against a specific opponent and it is very easy to get caught if you do.

Just curious as to why the invitational meta is different from the open meta ?

You're more likely to face a random hard counter in the open. For instance I don't remember seeing any marine biker armies in the invitational, yet I know there were several in the open, same can be said for blob heavy guard being more prevalent etc.

EDIT that's a lie I played a marine biker army round 2 in the invitational...man I AM getting old. But I think that is the only one and there were like I said several of those in the open, along with blob guard, green tide orks, and I don't think there were any adamantine lances in the invitational either.

What was the most prevalent army in the invitational ?

I want to say eldar and/or deamons, could be wrong though.

I only asked a question here, and I think it was a legitimate one.
Should players be allowed to alter lists once the convention starts? My follow up was toward the animosity that simple question provoked, if it isn't garnering an advantage then why are players doing it/advocating for it? Honest questions, not trolling. Promise.

@ Thread-No need for mud flinging. Nobody accused anyone of WAAC behavior or debased tournaments/'conventions trying to condemn them. We all know NOVA staff worked hard and are applauded! Again great work! I especially like the charity. I understand BOLS/BOK may have hit a nerve with you fellas, this is neither place however and I see no reason not to ask some honest questions.

On a total side note, has anyone ever considered actively allowing tailoring at the tournament with sideboards?
example:
1850 point tourney
1500 locked
x number of 350 point side boards pick one once your opponent is determined.

x= set by the TO, say 3 standard.

It would add a great dynamic to a tournament and would mitigate poor match up occurrences.

I am not even against tailoring whole stop, I just think it should be more level. To me the more level everyone is in format, the better. I Know 40k has built in inequities, c'est la vis. But we can make to format much more balanced piece by piece.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I only asked a question here, and I think it was a legitimate one.
Should players be allowed to alter lists once the convention starts? My follow up was toward the animosity that simple question provoked, if it isn't garnering an advantage then why are players doing it/advocating for it? Honest questions, not trolling. Promise.

@ Thread-No need for mud flinging. Nobody accused anyone of WAAC behavior or debased tournaments/'conventions trying to condemn them. We all know NOVA staff worked hard and are applauded! Again great work! I especially like the charity. I understand BOLS/BOK may have hit a nerve with you fellas, this is neither place however and I see no reason not to ask some honest questions.

i don't believe it is an honest question as it is continuously based on a false premise. The convention has dozens of events. Events start when events start. What people do with their time before or after an event has nothing to do with the convention. Why should someone who arrives Thursday, who plays in two other events, and takes a class have his list "set in stone" when the convention starts, and person who shows up Friday, has his list set in stone when he checks in on Friday when he could have sat at home watching the live stream taking notes? Know what is equal, fair, low maintenance and doesn't cause problems? When the event the list is used in starts, then it is done. People can choose to shoot the gak, discuss with people tactics, play test their army, watch other events, participate in other events or go to sightsee DC or show up seconds before the event... And they have all been treated equally. And nothing is unfair. To try to make things fair for someone promoting a false premise, you have to treat people differently and unfairly.

On a total side note, has anyone ever considered actively allowing tailoring at the tournament with sideboards?
example:
1850 point tourney
1500 locked
x number of 350 point side boards pick one once your opponent is determined.

x= set by the TO, say 3 standard.

It would add a great dynamic to a tournament and would mitigate poor match up occurrences.

I am not even against tailoring whole stop, I just think it should be more level. To me the more level everyone is in format, the better. I Know 40k has built in inequities, c'est la vis. But we can make to format much more balanced piece by piece.

continuing to call it "tailoring" is part of your problem because it isn't, or at least isn't as traditionally used in this community which usually requires explicit knowledge of the opposing list of the game being played at that moment. Changing a list because of demographics of the entire pool of players is not tailoring as most people understand it and is knowledge available to everyone... And since there are plenty of legitimate reasons to have the freedom to change your list on a whim up until the start of the event, and no valid reason to stop people with modeling issues, or new to an edition, or new to the country from making reasonable changes... There is no reason to even try to discern motive or censor changes based upon perceived motive. Treating everyone equally and holding everyone to the same timeline is fair even if some people choose not to take advantage of the freedom.

And sideboards are a thing... I don't see why they should be added because they are basically a non-rulebook change to the game which serves no purpose unless you are trying to hunt mythical inequities, it will be seen as a form of army comp. if someone wants to run that type of comp, they can do it and see how their player base responds.

So bottom line, I don't believe you are asking honest questions because you are basing your position on false premises, misusing of charged words and determining specifics about an event and process you know close to nothing about. You are basically opening google maps, selecting a random intersection in America and writing that towns local mayor and demanding a traffic light and speed umps be installed for 'safety reasons' because you imagine someone might possibly be run over from a car going to fast when you know nothing about that local communities traffic pattern, or what that community wants or needs. All because you have determined a scenario where something might go wrong and something must be done when it is pretty clear it is not an actual problem needing to be solved.

RC, no worries, no one is taking this stuff personally, we're just passionately advocating our position.

I haven't seen exactly what you're positing but I have seen something similar. I went to an RTT, 3 rounds, where you had three 500 point supplements to a 1000 point army. The caveat was, you could use each only once. So it wasn't necessarily a "I've got X for Y opponent and Y for Z opponent" without fail. If you ran into 2 X's in a row and you already used Y, you were boned.

Bottom line, it was wonky and not without merit but I don't think it would be workable in a GT. The less layers of complexity in a large event, the better. The NOVA packet is complicated enough as it is.

So basically you are accusing me of being dishonest somehow? Then you claim I am not using terminology correctly when I urge you to pick up a dictionary before you make such posts. Scratch that, because it's silly to argue semantics on the net. Try being more civil and less hostile. Deep breaths, I am not accusing anyone of poor conduct.

In regard to comp, now whos using "charged" words? Newsflash the NOVA and almost every other Large tournament I can think of HEAVILY comps the core rules. Why is this a bad thing? Is my question next for you. Are you saying it's OK to take comp from A-B but somehow crossing it to line C is suddenly wrong?

Your comments make no sense and are the kind of mud flinging I have been actively trying to avoid.

Have a stance? Make it, I will respect your opinion. Do not make it personal and call me dishonest for asking questions. If the answers hurt, your taking it WAY too personally. I am not judging anyone for their ideas here. Chill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Shrike wrote:
RC, no worries, no one is taking this stuff personally, we're just passionately advocating our position.

I haven't seen exactly what you're positing but I have seen something similar. I went to an RTT, 3 rounds, where you had three 500 point supplements to a 1000 point army. The caveat was, you could use each only once. So it wasn't necessarily a "I've got X for Y opponent and Y for Z opponent" without fail. If you ran into 2 X's in a row and you already used Y, you were boned.

Bottom line, it was wonky and not without merit but I don't think it would be workable in a GT. The less layers of complexity in a large event, the better. The NOVA packet is complicated enough as it is.

Hmm, I can see that as being a tad over complicated, heck I just think it makes sense for detachments to have some idea what they need to take to any given battle. The levels of play would be elevated as well. Not sure I would like the one use only trick. I do think if done properly it wouldn't be to complicated. I mean it's essentially the same core with a few swinging small detachments. They would obviously be optional as well. I know when I am lazy in MtG I rarely side things in

Thanks for the feedback though. Where did you play that format if I may ask? Was the turnout super small?

I love it, all of these big fishes in small ponds swim to the ocean and run into sharks and start complaining about salt water!