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.

Of course, you all could just play in a game where the lists can change from round to round anyway, and "list tailoring" is a full function of the game, and is considered normal and okay, and indeed is a skill to be praised...

Heh. Heh.

If anything NOVA should let you submit two army lists and you get to decide on which army list you play before the game. That way you can change your army if it's just not working and or have an opponent that the army list will not work against.

That'd be awesome.

Hollismason wrote:
If anything NOVA should let you submit two army lists and you get to decide on which army list you play before the game. That way you can change your army if it's just not working and or have an opponent that the army list will not work against.

That'd be awesome.

Yes, it's too much work for the staff to conduct pre-submission with one list, so we should double the volume and see how that works.....

 Dozer Blades wrote:
ATC checks lists every year.

and of course there werent any problems with lists during the games right ?....lol

This thread has really gotten petty

 CKO wrote:
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!

The truth is, the complaining fish don't even swim to the ocean to experience the saltwater, they sit at home and complain about the saltwater and mythical boogeyman fish and discuss ways to 'fix' problems which are either natural and don't need fixing because they are not actual problems or are mythical and don't exist.

thanatos67 wrote:
I want to say eldar and/or deamons, could be wrong though.

Eldar, Necrons, then Daemons as far as Games Played.

When broken out with Allied combinations, Eldar with no Ally finished top, going 12-2. Eldar w/ Dark Eldar were next, at 7-3. 3rd is Necrons, 4th is Grey Knights, as Jack Harpster went 5-0.

nkelsch wrote:

 CKO wrote:
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!

The truth is, the complaining fish don't even swim to the ocean to experience the saltwater, they sit at home and complain about the saltwater and mythical boogeyman fish and discuss ways to 'fix' problems which are either natural and don't need fixing because they are not actual problems or are mythical and don't exist.

I say we nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 The Shrike wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
If anything NOVA should let you submit two army lists and you get to decide on which army list you play before the game. That way you can change your army if it's just not working and or have an opponent that the army list will not work against.

That'd be awesome.

Yes, it's too much work for the staff to conduct pre-submission with one list, so we should double the volume and see how that works.....

Well, it'd certainly be even easier to slip in an extra 10 or 20 pts that way. *shrug*

@MVB

I know its early but is there any plans to do a non-40k event scheduled after the GT next year? I'd love to play in the GT again but would love to get a crack at a Malifaux or Blood Bowl tournament.

There were Malifaux events and Blood Bowl events scheduled outside the times of the GT this year, dude! Also I think you left your Gators hat. Or somebody did.

Gah! Yeah if its a wrinkled fishing hat with a autograph by Guy Harvey yeah then its mine. That hat is special to me, watched 4 Gator Championships in that hat

Well serves me right for not reading much of anything this year. I'll definitely sign up for those events next year however.

Thanks to you and all your staff once again. Fantastic Event.

Anyone have pics of the early swag bags or the vip bags?

What about pics of the winning armies?


Concerning army lists - In this area (Philly) and even in other events I attended from New York down to DC, there have been numerous problems over the past 5+ years at events with army lists. Many were innocent and caused by errors with army construction software or a simple addition mistake but I have also seen players hack Army Builder to get more points than legal or other methods to cheat their opponents. Putting all the responsibility for checking lists on the players is a tough one, especially with the sheer volume of rule sources.

Last year at MechaniCon for example, every player with a Chaos Space Marine army that brought terminators and used Army Builder were actually cheated out of points due to the errors.

nkelsch wrote:

 CKO wrote:
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!

The truth is, the complaining fish don't even swim to the ocean to experience the saltwater, they sit at home and complain about the saltwater and mythical boogeyman fish and discuss ways to 'fix' problems which are either natural and don't need fixing because they are not actual problems or are mythical and don't exist.

The truth is, its actually posts like these that ruin adult conversations and start segregating people. There is no great divide in 40k, or at least there wouldn't be if people didn't thumb their noses at anyone who asks a fair question. Grow up.

Glocknall wrote:
@MVB

I know its early but is there any plans to do a non-40k event scheduled after the GT next year? I'd love to play in the GT again but would love to get a crack at a Malifaux or Blood Bowl tournament.

Dang! For Malifaux, I think you could have done the Story Encounter, the Hardcore, and/or the Enforcer Brawl. They were all great casual events and would have fit well in most 40k player's schedule. We'll try and keep that going for next year as well. And we welcome open gaming as well. But there's always Battle for Salvation (featuring Nova Open terrain!), and next year!

It would be nice if we could discuss checking army lists in an adult manner to take a closer look at the pros and cons.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It would be nice if we could discuss checking army lists in an adult manner to take a closer look at the pros and cons.

sure...how bout starting a new thread about it instead of discussing it here. Since it has no bearing on the discussion about NOVA and implies there was a problem with lists, which there wasnt.

zedsdead wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It would be nice if we could discuss checking army lists in an adult manner to take a closer look at the pros and cons.

sure...how bout starting a new thread about it instead of discussing it here. Since it has no bearing on the discussion about NOVA and implies there was a problem with lists, which there wasnt.

It is somewhat of dead horse, isn't it?

On a different note zed your army looked awesome! Love the Dreamforce knights.

So discussing army list checking...on average it takes me at least 5 min to check a list (using a codex to check points, and make sure all choices made are legal), more if I am less familiar with the faction in question.

So at a GT with 32 players that takes 2 hours and 40 min at a minimum.

With 256 players you are looking at closer to 22 hours. You should probably have multiple people check the lists. Oh and there are multiple events so we would need to check those events as well....

With volunteers....honestly this seems like such a minor part of what would be important for enjoyment from an attendee. As a TO it is also a pain to track people down for lists even with 20-30 people, and if they forget to turn it in but have paid am I really going to say "Sorry your out all your money for traveling here because you did not turn in yout list."

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It would be nice if we could discuss checking army lists in an adult manner to take a closer look at the pros and cons.

'Checking lists' and 'what is unfair window to allow people to change their list' are two different discussions.

Regardless of the 'List Checking' process, or the deadline for submission, there is always going to be people who will do the prep for the event via research, social networking, asking questions, playtesting up to the submission deadline. There will always be people who are unwilling to do the same level of effort and will feel that others should be ham-stringed and the bar lowered to their level because FAIR.

 Valhallan42nd wrote:

Glocknall wrote:
@MVB

I know its early but is there any plans to do a non-40k event scheduled after the GT next year? I'd love to play in the GT again but would love to get a crack at a Malifaux or Blood Bowl tournament.

Dang! For Malifaux, I think you could have done the Story Encounter, the Hardcore, and/or the Enforcer Brawl. They were all great casual events and would have fit well in most 40k player's schedule. We'll try and keep that going for next year as well. And we welcome open gaming as well. But there's always Battle for Salvation (featuring Nova Open terrain!), and next year!

agreed..however its not my place to say we should not discuss it somewhere else..





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chancetragedy wrote:
On a different note zed your army looked awesome! Love the Dreamforce knights.

Thanks a bunch Chance !...they were fun to paint

zedsdead wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It would be nice if we could discuss checking army lists in an adult manner to take a closer look at the pros and cons.

sure...how bout starting a new thread about it instead of discussing it here. Since it has no bearing on the discussion about NOVA and implies there was a problem with lists, which there wasnt.

You are right ! Great idea .

Breng77 wrote:
So discussing army list checking...on average it takes me at least 5 min to check a list (using a codex to check points, and make sure all choices made are legal), more if I am less familiar with the faction in question.

So at a GT with 32 players that takes 2 hours and 40 min at a minimum.

With 256 players you are looking at closer to 22 hours. You should probably have multiple people check the lists. Oh and there are multiple events so we would need to check those events as well....

With volunteers....honestly this seems like such a minor part of what would be important for enjoyment from an attendee. As a TO it is also a pain to track people down for lists even with 20-30 people, and if they forget to turn it in but have paid am I really going to say "Sorry your out all your money for traveling here because you did not turn in yout list."

Spot checking is also an option for larger events to provide at least a little disincentive for any intentional list problems. Illegal lists DO get handed in at events. Most times they're minor, unintentional and easily corrected.

I think it's disingenuous to claim that attendees don't give a gak. I think most players at a competitive event would care quite a bit if they discovered that they suffered a loss against someone who was 20 pts over the limit -- whether the extra points were impactful in the game or not, and whether they were intentional or not. Using a corked bat is illegal no matter how well you hit with one. I think they'd care even more if they found out the guy used different lists against different opponents.

But I recognize that different events take different approaches and put emphases on different things.

 Leth wrote:
Also the invitational meta is going to be very different from the main tournament meta.

This x1000. Especially this year with it only being a couple months into 7th edition, it being the first major singles GT of 7th, and the plethora of sources that have been added into the game in the last few months. It is far easier to predict the meta one will run into in the invitational. Ahead of time you know exactly what army certain folks play, and for folks you're not familiar with you can reasonably guess they'll play one of a short list of things.

This whole notion that players in the invitational had an unfair advantage is completely silly. By virtue of the fact they're playing in the invitational is anyone shocked that they would be inclined to make minor list tweaks after playing 4 games with a certain list? As has been beaten to death in this thread, everyone had equal access to the missions and terrain layout. In addition, any non invitational players could have played pick up games on the boards all Thursday if they were so inclined and make list tweaks themselves.

I myself considered making list tweaks between the two events particularly because I expected to run into a wider variety of armies in the open. I ended up deciding against it, but there was never a moment when I considered that it would "unfair" of me to make any changes. If I had gone 0-4 in the invitational because I took an army concept that simply didn't work as I'd hoped am I supposed to just put myself through playing a fundamentally unsound army the rest of the GT for the benefit of all the non-invitational players?

I don't see anything wrong with people modifying lists between events, it's simply part of being a competitive player. There's nothing unsportsmanlike in it, it's just simply a matter of going to an event with the intention to win.

Beyond that, why should invitational players be penalized into having to play the same army for potentially 13 games? I know there were a few folks who took completely different armies in the two events (ie played Daemons in one event and played Space Marines in the other), simply because they want to have some variety over the course of a 4 day Con. Is that list tailoring too? At Adepticon should everyone be forced to run a team army that is based on what they played in the singles GT? No, of course not. This entire issue has been blown out of proportion.

Also the idea that Tony benefited from play testing missions in some super secret manner is ridiculous. If he had, then he wouldn't have made the list tweaks between events that have people upset in the first place!

Bottom line is this was the best NOVA I've been to yet. The new schedule was amazing, and I loved the new terrain layout as it made playing an assault army more than viable despite getting lots of matchups against tough shooting gallery armies. People are always going to find something to complain about for every event, which is unfortunate as at this point it's making a mountain out of a mole hill. This honestly was the best GT experience I've had in quite a while.

 gorgon wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So discussing army list checking...on average it takes me at least 5 min to check a list (using a codex to check points, and make sure all choices made are legal), more if I am less familiar with the faction in question.

So at a GT with 32 players that takes 2 hours and 40 min at a minimum.

With 256 players you are looking at closer to 22 hours. You should probably have multiple people check the lists. Oh and there are multiple events so we would need to check those events as well....

With volunteers....honestly this seems like such a minor part of what would be important for enjoyment from an attendee. As a TO it is also a pain to track people down for lists even with 20-30 people, and if they forget to turn it in but have paid am I really going to say "Sorry your out all your money for traveling here because you did not turn in yout list."

Spot checking is also an option for larger events to provide at least a little disincentive for any intentional list problems. Illegal lists DO get handed in at events. Most times they're minor, unintentional and easily corrected.

I think it's disingenuous to claim that attendees don't give a gak. I think most players at a competitive event would care quite a bit if they discovered that they suffered a loss against someone who was 20 pts over the limit -- whether the extra points were impactful in the game or not, and whether they were intentional or not. Using a corked bat is illegal no matter how well you hit with one. I think they'd care even more if they found out the guy used different lists against different opponents.

But I recognize that different events take different approaches and put emphases on different things.

For me any reasoning someone provides for making a decision is acceptable if its their event. Whats unacceptable is the vitriol that gets thrown toward anyone who asks what that reasoning is.

It is staggering that some people immediately enter a conversation with spear points aimed. Just because someone questions something about an event doesn't mean they are attacking the event.

I also find it disturbing that people use the argument from authority "If you don't play in an event you have no right to ask questions." It's like saying people who didn't play in the NBA playoffs have no right discussing the tournament. Incredibly stupid stance. If it's a publicly lauded event then expect the public to be involved. So you can livestream an event globally but the viewers aren't allowed involvement at any level? It's more complicated as well since so many tournaments borrow large tournaments packets and decisions. Heck the NOVA is leaning on the ETC's ruling on serpent shields! (Not questioning that decision, it just happens to be a great example).

Doesn't hurt to ask questions, and in fact it's healthy for the community.

Having heard many responses to my questions on list submission (the polite, adult responses) I can say I understand why it wasn't done. Mainly logistics and timing seems to be the issue. Is their room for an advantage? I still think its there, but its so minor that it isn't worth the hassle, which was all I was curious about. If it was an easy fix why not. Just like if chess clocks were an easy/cheap solution to timing in event why wouldn't it be used?

In regard to list approval, I think lists should be checked if its possible. Again it's the TO's call. I understand fully why they wouldn't want to. It's way better to trust players then to not. Having said that, I think the biggest concern for me are the innocent mistakes that 7th might elevate with multiple detachments and sources. I think this is why it might be best to keep it simple and just use a set number of sources.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 morgendonner wrote:


Beyond that, why should invitational players be penalized into having to play the same army for potentially 13 games?

This was never suggested. What was suggested was that all lists be submitted at the same time. So once you start at the convention you submit all your lists. So you could still play one list in the invitational, one at the Open and another for say trios etc etc.

People raised a good point though, that if a player only plays in the Open, they could still submit an army a day later then other. Makes sense not to worry about it then. I was just curious why they were not.

 gorgon wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So discussing army list checking...on average it takes me at least 5 min to check a list (using a codex to check points, and make sure all choices made are legal), more if I am less familiar with the faction in question.

So at a GT with 32 players that takes 2 hours and 40 min at a minimum.

With 256 players you are looking at closer to 22 hours. You should probably have multiple people check the lists. Oh and there are multiple events so we would need to check those events as well....

With volunteers....honestly this seems like such a minor part of what would be important for enjoyment from an attendee. As a TO it is also a pain to track people down for lists even with 20-30 people, and if they forget to turn it in but have paid am I really going to say "Sorry your out all your money for traveling here because you did not turn in yout list."

Spot checking is also an option for larger events to provide at least a little disincentive for any intentional list problems. Illegal lists DO get handed in at events. Most times they're minor, unintentional and easily corrected.

I think it's disingenuous to claim that attendees don't give a gak. I think most players at a competitive event would care quite a bit if they discovered that they suffered a loss against someone who was 20 pts over the limit -- whether the extra points were impactful in the game or not, and whether they were intentional or not. Using a corked bat is illegal no matter how well you hit with one. I think they'd care even more if they found out the guy used different lists against different opponents.

But I recognize that different events take different approaches and put emphases on different things.

We just happen to disagree, sure if a player felt cheated they would be upset. However, I have never seen players add up points on an opponents list to check to ensure that the points are correct, heck most players hardly look at the opponents list at all if they are familiar with what things are. Furthermore I would assert that players would care very much about the impact of the extra points. If I play someone and get tabled without damaging a model and they are 5 points over....I really don't think I care that they were 5 points over. If I lose because they have one model left on an objective and that was the difference between legal and illegal I might care. All that said most people attending these events (IMO) are doing so looking for fun games, and good times with like minded people. Most people don't enter GTs (or really any tournament) with the expectation that they are going to win. (some people do). Like I said before you could collect lists from everyone and then check the TOp x players (all undefeated or top 10 or whatever) prior to the final day of the event if you wanted to. I just don't think that time spent on these checks is as important to player enjoyment as say: Mission Design, availability of staff for answering questions, good terrain, a comforatable environement...etc.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Having heard many responses to my questions on list submission (the polite, adult responses) I can say I understand why it wasn't done. Mainly logistics and timing seems to be the issue. Is their room for an advantage? I still think its there, but its so minor that it isn't worth the hassle, which was all I was curious about. If it was an easy fix why not. Just like if chess clocks were an easy/cheap solution to timing in event why wouldn't it be used?

And 'it isn't broken' so it doesn't need to be fixed. There are dozens of valid reasons people might need to change a list close to the event. Every barrier you put up keeps people out. Requiring lists 2 weeks ahead of time denies participating to a lot of people who sign up last minute. Also, what do you do if someone loses an army, fails to finish building an army or has a disaster like their display table is flipped over and all their models broken? Disqualify them and say they can't participate with a new list or army? Give them an exception and make others unahppy? Then can someone intentionally break their army if they want to use a different list in order to 'game' the meta? People can always come up with exaggerated false narratives to say why something needs to be addressed, but it becomes an unreasonable burden and punishment to the vast majority of people who just want to enjoy the event. Saying there are 'things needing to be fixed' when there is no actual problem is the problem.

It simply isn't a 'problem' which needs to be 'fixed' regardless of 'simple' your solution is. That is your false premise, you are fixing something that isn't a problem because there is no single correct way to handle the timeperiod of 'when it is fair to pre-submit'. As long as everyone is required to submit at the same time, be it 5 minutes before the event or 3 months before, it is fair as long as everyone is held to the same standard and different events have different standards for different reasons and people attend different tourneys who run in different ways. Your argument is it is 'unfair' to have people working on lists once they arrive at the convention but before the event which is absurd and false. Calling it 'tailoring' is also false.

And Time clocks... 40k is not balanced around or expected in the rules to have equal play due to the nature of interactive turns. So chess timers could cost a penny and be available at the grocery store and it wouldn't be a 'simple fix' because the 'fix' is fixing something which isn't necessarily broken. Slow play, game time, length of game per points are all complex issues which do not involve the concept of 'equal time' which is not supported by the mechanics and rules of the game. If an event chose to implement it, that would be fine, but many players would choose not to participate in such an event because it is a form of army comp people don't agree with (I don't agree with it, I prefer due process, reasonable game times and judges proctoring slow play over chess clocks which unfairly impact specific armies/builds). Doesn't mean it can't be done, but remember, when you run your event, at some point too pointless rules and 'fixes' to theoretical problems excludes people and one of the strengths of NOVA is it is a very inclusive event. It is not trying to throw up barriers to find reasons to exclude participants.

You are trying to install crosswalks on roads with no pedestrians and fix things which are not broken. By even continuing to call these 'fixes' shows how you simply don't understand what is going on.

 Tironum wrote:
Anyone have pics of the early swag bags or the vip bags?

What about pics of the winning armies?


Concerning army lists - In this area (Philly) and even in other events I attended from New York down to DC, there have been numerous problems over the past 5+ years at events with army lists. Many were innocent and caused by errors with army construction software or a simple addition mistake but I have also seen players hack Army Builder to get more points than legal or other methods to cheat their opponents. Putting all the responsibility for checking lists on the players is a tough one, especially with the sheer volume of rule sources.

Last year at MechaniCon for example, every player with a Chaos Space Marine army that brought terminators and used Army Builder were actually cheated out of points due to the errors.

We have a pic of the Swag Bag contents here: http://www.torrentoffire.com/5667/following-the-nova-open

What no apples? or granola?.....I am outrage....nah just kidding they knew their audience.

The VIP Bags ... I should try to find a pic. The bags themselves are KR Multicases (Backpack2 in your first year as a VIP, then BackPack2 or Kaiser2 in your 2nd year, then BackPack2, Kaiser2, or Kaiser3 in your third year, etc.), and include lifetime Buy-One-Get-One KR Multicases for each future NOVA you attend. There's a beer mug, a bunch of custom swag, Greenman measuring tools with their names and army/codex/faction/game-system-logo of choice on them, custom dice, hand made big suede nova-logo'ed/embroidered dice bags, and a ton of other stuff.

They are the baddest ass VIP Bags anywhere, by hardcore commitment (and a willingness to put every penny of their $80 cost right back into the contents) (also, this is totally subjective and totally biased opinion lol). They're also a sweet deal, since the KR bags themselves cost more than the VIP itself costs, though we changed to calling it a SuperNOVA ... as it doesn't seem right or appropriate to call someone very important just b/c they paid more and registered super fast.