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.

This thread is not about what should be done to make 40k tournaments balance but its purpose is to discuss how you as a player feel about tournaments. I once loved tournaments I would go to one every weekend if I could but now tournaments feel tainted by politics. Wins don't feel the same and loses no longer hurt as much because I know certain players didn't play because of the difficult decision that the tournament organizer had to make.

As the thread is about how you feel about tournaments I will get the ball rolling. In all my years of playing games this is the first time for me to see tournament organizers controlling so much. Now in 40k the decision that the tournament organizer make is just as or in some cases more important than that of the player, tournament organizer have more power now than ever. Tournament organizers in 7th edition will make more changes to the game than GW did when they switch from 6th to 7th ed. I am not complaining as these changes are probably for the best but my desire to attend tournament dies down because I feel its a political mess. This region says it can fix it this way, another says allow this its like politicians telling you how they can solve your problems.

Has your feeling towards tournaments changed?

It is a necessity. The rules as is will kill the tournament scene unless some changes are made.

 jy2 wrote:
It is a necessity. The rules as is will kill the tournament scene unless some changes are made.

So do you feel any differently about tournaments because of the necessity to adjust rules?

there has ALWAYS been broken things that kill the tournament scene. some things rise to the top, some things rise really quickly. its the nature of the game we play. i didn't buy my models books and cards, just to have someone else tell me I'm playing their version of 40k. i didn't buy adepticon 40k, BAO40k,
or nova open 40k. no i bought warhammer 40k, to be played as it is. if you feel you want to play a game that has bans and restrictions, then go play MTG, that company who designed their cards decides what's broken and what's not.

i understand that gw may not have that degree of involvement in their "balancing for competitive play" department, but this is the game we play, as given to us by gw. its not a 3rd parties responsibility or right to change it for a better game in their opinion, or balance in their opinion.

if you don't like how 7th edition plays, or fear what the tourney scene will be without slamming the brakes on it, then don't play it!


this is entirely my opinion, and in no way meant to be offensive to anyone, or change their minds.

history lesson: back in 2nd ed 3rd ed. There are no such thing as book mission. Every TO had to make up his own missions for tournament or have 5 games of stupid VP. Even GT hosted by GW had their own missions package that different from Seattle, Vegas, Chicago, to LA. What TO doing nowadays is minor in comparison to 20 years ago.

Honestly, I have said this before and I have said it again, there should be a uniform "tournament" rule set for the GTs. Same ban list and the same FAQ. The tournament scene should also have a ban list. GW has shown they have no interest in having a competitive rule set, so TOs will need to eliminate/ restrict things that severally break the game and diminish the enjoyment of other players (Daemon Factory, I am looking at you).

 Happygrunt wrote:
Honestly, I have said this before and I have said it again, there should be a uniform "tournament" rule set for the GTs. Same ban list and the same FAQ. The tournament scene should also have a ban list. GW has shown they have no interest in having a competitive rule set, so TOs will need to eliminate/ restrict things that severally break the game and diminish the enjoyment of other players (Daemon Factory, I am looking at you).

for me personally i wouldn't mind a tournament package, with bans, restrictions, and an attempt at balance, if gw made it.

but even in that scenario, something will be more powerful than other things, and make the game unenjoyable for someone else. if i play a foot sloggin ork nobz list with flash gitz, and you
play a tau gun line, you're going to table me quickly, and i won't enjoy that. we should nerf tau gun lines then. and while we're at it lets nerf AM, eldar, d.eldar, SM, and necrons, all of those armies havoe too much shooting.

I am for playing by the rules. I am not for banning anything. TO's that have ban lists and make changes to core rules like saves and phases of the game, turn me off from attending their tournament.

The current 7th edition backlash has me thinking twice about attending tournaments let alone my dream of attending NOVA or adepticon next year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll add my deciding to not attend turnaments is not 7th edition but because of TO's banhammers.

With me I understand what the TOs are trying to do but if the company is going in a different direction TOs are fighting a losing battle right?

For my personal experience, it is a double edged sword.

There are people who will stop attending tournaments because they have no chance against the top build at that time, i am not talking about having bad odds, i am talking about having to fight stuff that like armies that you dont take a model unless you do 2 turns woth of full fire on a deathstar

There are also people who want the game to be not touched, almost fanatically in some cases, thinking the game is fine as is. And they won't attend to the tournament because they think that changes are biased, or that they are simply different.

As far as i can see in the first groups number is much higher and eventually it might threaten a tournaments future if said group stops coming. Yet the second group's points are vaild and if possible not be ignored.

My personal opinion that it is not possible to let a "pure" 40k and i like seeing and if succesfull, copying what bigger TO's decide for their events.

tyllon wrote:
there has ALWAYS been broken things that kill the tournament scene. some things rise to the top, some things rise really quickly. its the nature of the game we play. i didn't buy my models books and cards, just to have someone else tell me I'm playing their version of 40k. i didn't buy adepticon 40k, BAO40k,
or nova open 40k. no i bought warhammer 40k, to be played as it is. if you feel you want to play a game that has bans and restrictions, then go play MTG, that company who designed their cards decides what's broken and what's not.

i understand that gw may not have that degree of involvement in their "balancing for competitive play" department, but this is the game we play, as given to us by gw. its not a 3rd parties responsibility or right to change it for a better game in their opinion, or balance in their opinion.

if you don't like how 7th edition plays, or fear what the tourney scene will be without slamming the brakes on it, then don't play it!


this is entirely my opinion, and in no way meant to be offensive to anyone, or change their minds.

My thoughts exactly.

My local scene is working it's way through a ban all the things phase. It's calmed down since escalation and stronghold came out. I'm disappointed with the TOs who are banning things but my vote is meaningless as I don't travel for 40k. I mean isn't it a bit soon to discuss what sucks about this edition since it's a week old?

Sarge wrote:
I mean isn't it a bit soon to discuss what sucks about this edition since it's a week old?

This thread isn't necessarily about what sucks but more about what how do you feel about tournaments now that TOs have so much power.

I feel fine about it since TOs put a lot of time and money into the events. It would only make sense that they would try to address whatever "issues" (real or supposed) that appear, simply for the fact that they want enough attendees to make the event a success and popular in future iterations.

If I recall correctly, the "no-holds-barred" event at Adepticon 2014 with no restrictions on any 40k rules drew the smallest crowd over any of the 40k-related events.

I've been to a ton of tournaments, including Adepticon, and I've played through four editions of the game now. It all boils down to what you want out of the game. There have always been jack-hole TOs who want to make massive changes to the rules or scoring in order to make he game better fit some sort of platonic ideal they dreamed up in a haze of pot smoke and empty Ritalin baggies. Tournies are fun, so go play if the restrictions look palatable, and don't play if they look like crap. Tournaments are an absolute blast for the most parts, and I'd recommend them (in general) to anyone, just make sure you read the fine print before you go and keep in mind that you are going to see optimized lists.

I'm all for it. Tournaments should be fun, and with some of the crap thats out there, they'll only be fun for a certain group of players if nothing is done to fix the rules.

but this is the game we play, as given to us by gw. its not a 3rd parties responsibility or right to change it for a better game in their opinion, or balance in their opinion.

No. There is absolutely no reason we must accept the game as-is. There is also absolutely no reason why a TO cannot modify the rules at their own tournament.

Any notion of absence of or requirement of a "right" to alter the game is total bs.

that's your opinion, and its completely bs too.

like i said, that's how i felt about the ops question, i wasn't trying to force it on anyone or degrade anyone with my opinion either.

i don't feel its ok to change the rules of this game to "balance" it.
if its not 100% welcomed by the community and players, then its not ok, in my bs opinion. that or have gw put out tournament packets.

Sorry but the only way to balance 40k is with house ruling. We are never going to see balance coming from GW. I wonder if the TOs could make an online community completely dedicated at fixing GW's rules so we could have a more standardized house ruling.

TO's having power? I find that a weird thing to say.

I'm sure Mike Brandt can stop by and say his piece on the matter, but for an event such as NOVA, we're talking huge outlays on venue, tournament packs, website costs, tables, and terrain. The 40k Championships alone has what? 256 players? That's 128 tables with terrain that need to be prepared.

When you, as a TO, try to get an event like this up and running, you're putting a lot of money on the line, so you had better make damn sure people will actually want to attend. So, what do you do? You make a tournament rules pack and FAQ that (hopefully) gets enough people to attend your event.

As for those of you who don't want to go to events because they restrict the rules GW put out: tough luck. You're in the minority. Adepticon had a 200+ player 40k event that did not allow Escalation. They also had another 40k tournament that did allow it. How many showed for that one? 13. Hell, I could run an event next week in my local club and beat that number.

I don't think TOs have much power at all. I think they are tied to creating events that are palatable for enough people to make them viable in the first place. And for everyone who refuses to go to an event that doesn't allow Escalation (or whatever the current pet hate is), there are at least 10 who will refuse to attend tournaments that do allow those things.

Do you think I'm wrong? I might very well be. Do you have the guts to put your money on the line to prove it?


As it stands, TOs have a host of challenges when organizing a 40k event. Balance, or at least sufficient balance to entice players who aren't playing top tier armies to attend anyway, is just one of them. Time concerns has already been a concern for two years of 6th. If you want to have six rounds over two days (or whatever) you have a limited time slot for each game. Regardless of how perfect a tournament pack might be, I'm not going to an event where I have to play 40k from 8am to 2am two days running. And I am arrogantly assuming most people feel the same.

Another issue particularly facing competitive events is rules management. If I pay good money to travel to an event that bills itself as competitive, I'd very much like to know how things will be ruled and that refs know what they're doing. With dozens of codexes, supplements, FW publications, exansions, dataslates, e-codexes, formations and god-knows-what, this becomes increasingly difficult, as there's a limit to how much you can demand from your volunteers until they just tell you to stick it.

Once invoked, I suppose. TOs do what they do for a number of reasons, chief of which is that we are insane.

If 40K were to tank due to the new edition, or if we were to put out a half-assed set of kneejerk rulings, it could cost me as rough as a default on my contract hypothetically, which would be on the order of $60,000 this year. Fortunately, we're already near or over 400 attendees registered for NON-40K stuff alone, so we're somewhat more insulated, but it's still the source of most of our attendees.

On the flipside, the potential profit form the event doing perfectly might be - and I mean, this is just an outside maybe that's never happened yet and we're going into year 5 - enough to pay for storage for the year without immediately spending the next year's registration funds on it.

From the professionalism of what we put into every tiny bit of the event (guidebooks, flights to bring over people like the owner of Infinity or the two lead designers of Malifaux, thousands upon thousands of pieces of top tier terrain, etc.) to the amount of time and energy we put into listening to feedback, it's a pretty exhausting effort.

The one thing we don't do is kneejerk react to new rules or let politics sway us away from putting on an event that will appeal to and be fun for the broadest cross section of potential attendees possible.

We DO try to make the game fair ... and balance plays a part in that for all TO decision making, but dramatic changes for the sake of a forlorn hope of balance isn't a top priority or a reasonable approach. Most of our decisions, however, are simply oriented around things being super enjoyable for attendees ... and that doesn't always require fundamental changes to the game. A lot of the inherent balance issues in 40k have been resolved at least by the NOVA approach by using our unique bracketing and win-path approach, so players are (as quickly as possible) slotted naturally with their peers. We also take a note from AdeptiCon and others, hosting multiple large-scale well-run high-polish events with different styles and themes to suit different player desires.

As an aside, there IS a responsibility on the large events to understand the impact their decisions have on the game. We were the first truly massive singles GT to happen after 6th edition dropped, and it looks like we will be again for 7th (though at least there's ATC / ETC / WGC / etc. beforehand this year). It'll be a great place to go to try out the new wild west, etc. But last time, we didn't want to ruin peoples' investments by enabling double FOC right away ... so we went with 1999+1 as a stopgap, due to the fact we had less than 2 months between release and event.

The result? 1999+1 became a "thing" for the entire edition. I'm not sure that was necessarily a good thing to this day, and our impact on it was fairly clear. There are lessons learned from that for the present, and we're taking that inherent (if not desired) responsibility pretty seriously, as are others like Reece, Chandler, etc.

Most of the above is just rambling thought in response to Thud's invocation of my $.02 ...

In regard to the OP, tournament organizers will only ever have but so much power, and I do acknowledge we're fairly influential even when we don't want to be (i.e., there are close to a dozen "NOVA styled" GTs in the US alone, and we've never once purveyed our packet as copycattable or asked other events to follow suit ... sometimes people just do things). You can see similar impacts from Feast qualifiers, BAO-"style" RTTs and GTs, AdeptiCon prep RTTs, etc. Many of these - unlike the big traveling GTs themselves - do get down to the very grassroots level of play, invading the common FLGS with missions and rulings from whatever GT is coming next or happens to be most local or most well-loved.

For that reason, it's important for all TOs to be very careful and reasoned in what they choose to do, what they choose to rule, etc. That said, I'd like to think almost all of us really are ... and very few of us - based on personal affirmation of my own motives and opinion on the motives of others from close interaction and conversation - make our rulings to influence the world, try to be king of nerd mountain, make bunches of cashy money off your massive registration fees, or enforce "our-way-hammer" on your mandolls. We mostly are just trying to put on a big awesome party for everyone, without having too many negative consequences for anybody.

For those who haven't been, btw ... the big cons and tournaments more than ANYTHING ELSE are exactly that - great big parties. The rumors of WAAC players and "that guy" experiences are literally just that ... rumors ... usually (and unfortunately) based off the spoiled milk experiences of the few that unavoidably do happen over the great mass of events. Most people don't go onto the internet and start big posts about that ONE AWESOME GAME THEY HAD AT A GT. They will, however, do so about that ONE BAD GAME THEY HAD AT A GT WITH THAT GUY. Consider that an event like NOVA's main GT alone with 8 rounds and upwards of 200+ players has close to 1000 games played over the weekend (128x8 at max). Things are running pretty well if thousands of games at all the events nationwide are yielding constantly growing events year after year ... and only a tiny, tiny handful of negative feedback and blogpostery.

Ramble complete on the subject.

I think the most difficult aspect of all of this is a TO really can't "let it ride" for a year. Tweaking of the game has to be proactive rather than reactive because if a tourney allows a bunch of broken stuff to rule the day, how will that affect the lifespan of said tourney?

The issue with let it ride for big events is that they happen so slowly and local metas vary quite a bit, and there is very little info kept on what is or is not performing well. So unlike a game like magic where the company controls tournaments, and can make decisions as things go, and has a much smaller problem when things get banned, in 40k things need to be set up in advance.

The problem with setting things up in advance is that it negates portions of the game out the gate. Especially when events ilke Frontline, Nova, or Adepticon do it. And these events have the largest "cushion" of the major events. Not saying it's not a razor thin line but they have the clout that most people will come back again even if they didn't ilke the rules one year if they just adjust them the next year. This gives them the ability to "let it ride" to a certain extent that I feel should be allowed.

My personal view if you are going to put restrictions in (format wise):

-Battle Forge only - 3 Detachments in any combination (Allied, Combined Arms, Formations)
-No Lords of War
-Limited Stronghold Assault

That's it. The first allows the game to be played closer to the way 7th edition seems to be conceived.

Lords of War is a nod to those who don't like it and there since a specific ban list might need to be put into effect for it but right now it'd be a bit crazy to try till the edition shakes out.

Limited Stronghold assault for things like Prometheum Pipe Lines and Void Shield Generators. Not to mention space and deployment issues.

Leave the rest of the game alone until after it's been played. It's just one dudes opinion.

Oh, I'm certainly not for large changes to anything. I'm currently thinking for my event:
Battle forged only 2 detachments (but can be any allied, combined, or formations), I was at 2 before the new edition, not sure it has given me reason to change that really.

I'm 50-50 on lords of war, with Knights, in the game, and the nerf to D weapons, I'm not sure they need to be thrown out any more, but I'll likely poll attendees to see what they want.

Strong hold assault I am much the same as Lords of War, my issue here is that most don't have specific terrain kits, and as such there is no way to know how big or small they are supposed to be. So I might limit it to anything with an official kit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said, I'm of half a mind to just allow everything, given the ammount of prep time, I'm not sure people will really be able to abuse the system for most things in the next month and a half.

This thread is not about what should be done to make 40k tournaments balance but its purpose is to discuss how you as a player feel about tournaments. I once loved tournaments I would go to one every weekend if I could but now tournaments feel tainted by politics. Wins don't feel the same and loses no longer hurt as much because I know certain players didn't play because of the difficult decision that the tournament organizer had to make.

As the thread is about how you feel about tournaments I will get the ball rolling. In all my years of playing games this is the first time for me to see tournament organizers controlling so much. Now in 40k the decision that the tournament organizer make is just as or in some cases more important than that of the player, tournament organizer have more power now than ever. Tournament organizers in 7th edition will make more changes to the game than GW did when they switch from 6th to 7th ed. I am not complaining as these changes are probably for the best but my desire to attend tournament dies down because I feel its a political mess. This region says it can fix it this way, another says allow this its like politicians telling you how they can solve your problems.

Has your feeling towards tournaments changed?

I'll never understand why people feel the need to be so dogmatic about the rules. TOs have ALWAYS needed to intervene. Does GW give us balanced missions? Or the ability to run events? Or how to set up terrain in detailed fashion? The answer is no.

In recent editions, there have been more decisions to make, as GW wants an open game. A loose and open ruleset may not appeal to me, but I do appreciate that there are people out there that want to run fluffy armies using unbound, or who play very differently than myself and other tournament goers. However, when we talk about organized play, there need to be agreed upon restrictions.

Furthermore, these restrictions are not "wild and crazy" or "politically driven." I don't see a major divide in the types of changes that tourney-going players want. The only reason it seems like there is a large amount of dissent is that there is a loud vocal minority that likes to yap about the reasons that the competitive scene is wrong, unbalanced, and stupid. News flash: these people are trolls and are not attending events anyway--even if you allowed everything, ran strict book missions, and made everyone wear jorts and have a neckbeard.

There is no point in being dogmatic--40k is not made for out of box play. However, most games are not. Almost all competitive play requires a community consensus of changes.

tyllon wrote:
history lesson: back in 2nd ed 3rd ed. There are no such thing as book mission. Every TO had to make up his own missions for tournament or have 5 games of stupid VP. Even GT hosted by GW had their own missions package that different from Seattle, Vegas, Chicago, to LA. What TO doing nowadays is minor in comparison to 20 years ago.

 JGrand wrote:
I'll never understand why people feel the need to be so dogmatic about the rules. TOs have ALWAYS needed to intervene. Does GW give us balanced missions? Or the ability to run events? Or how to set up terrain in detailed fashion? The answer is no.

In recent editions, there have been more decisions to make, as GW wants an open game. A loose and open ruleset may not appeal to me, but I do appreciate that there are people out there that want to run fluffy armies using unbound, or who play very differently than myself and other tournament goers. However, when we talk about organized play, there need to be agreed upon restrictions.

Agreed with both of the above. I actually like attending events for just this reason- they're going to lay out some clear guidlines for their event, and I can prepare accordingly.

And while I love Nova and I think it's amazing, MVBrandt I'd disagree with you that if you hadn't tried 1999+1, that it wouldn't have become a standard for most events in the edition to play with one FOC. Other events allowed multiple FOC and that did not become standard. If Nova makes zero changes to their format and allows literally anything and everything with no FAQs or guidelines provided, other events will still do those things and they will catch on.

It is great that you take the role of the event seriously, but players and events are going to come to consensus on some things regardless. Personally, I can't imagine wanting to play in events allowing multiple FOC right now... allies and dataslates already give tons of options. I'm going to remain as open minded as possible, but it just seems a bit much for me to be able to field 12 dreadnoughts.

That said, I'll consider it if an event allows it . But seriously... there is a reason there was always some sort of slot limit or percentage system. If GW wants to leave things wide open for people to decide how they want to play, that's fine... but for events, TOs will have to make that call, even if in friendly games it's up to each individual pair of players.

@RiTides

Would you allow armies to ally with themselves? I ask because that's currently no longer legal outside of Space Marines. due to the FAQ.

When all is said and done under the current system we've pretty much been playing 2 FOC's already (slightly limited but not really). At least for Tau, Eldar, SM, IG and CSM.

 Accolade wrote:
I feel fine about it since TOs put a lot of time and money into the events. It would only make sense that they would try to address whatever "issues" (real or supposed) that appear, simply for the fact that they want enough attendees to make the event a success and popular in future iterations.

If I recall correctly, the "no-holds-barred" event at Adepticon 2014 with no restrictions on any 40k rules drew the smallest crowd over any of the 40k-related events.

the open event at adepticon was added late, and held on thursday the same day as the championship. It was a fun event. It was over early and had plenty of time to get the drinking on.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@RiTides

Would you allow armies to ally with themselves? I ask because that's currently no longer legal outside of Space Marines. due to the FAQ.

When all is said and done under the current system we've pretty much been playing 2 FOC's already (slightly limited but not really). At least for Tau, Eldar, SM, IG and CSM.

Could tau still do it via FE?

MVBrandt wrote:
Once invoked, I suppose. TOs do what they do for a number of reasons, chief of which is that we are insane.

If 40K were to tank due to the new edition, or if we were to put out a half-assed set of kneejerk rulings, it could cost me as rough as a default on my contract hypothetically, which would be on the order of $60,000 this year. Fortunately, we're already near or over 400 attendees registered for NON-40K stuff alone, so we're somewhat more insulated, but it's still the source of most of our attendees.

That is something I have considered but I guess I never put a lot of thought into it. At the end of the day money is very important and TOs want to at least break even which forces them to do what is best for the majority and their pocket books. That is game changing as far as my opinion goes because its more about making money instead of what I as a TO think is right or wrong with the game.

MVBrandt wrote:
On the flipside, the potential profit form the event doing perfectly might be - and I mean, this is just an outside maybe that's never happened yet and we're going into year 5 - enough to pay for storage for the year without immediately spending the next year's registration funds on it.

From the professionalism of what we put into every tiny bit of the event (guidebooks, flights to bring over people like the owner of Infinity or the two lead designers of Malifaux, thousands upon thousands of pieces of top tier terrain, etc.) to the amount of time and energy we put into listening to feedback, it's a pretty exhausting effort.

The one thing we don't do is kneejerk react to new rules or let politics sway us away from putting on an event that will appeal to and be fun for the broadest cross section of potential attendees possible.

I guess I need to think more like a TO than a player, I seem to let the hysteria from the internet bother my psyche and automatically assume that TOs are going to make kneejerk decisions.

MVBrandt wrote:
We DO try to make the game fair ... and balance plays a part in that for all TO decision making, but dramatic changes for the sake of a forlorn hope of balance isn't a top priority or a reasonable approach. Most of our decisions, however, are simply oriented around things being super enjoyable for attendees ... and that doesn't always require fundamental changes to the game. A lot of the inherent balance issues in 40k have been resolved at least by the NOVA approach by using our unique bracketing and win-path approach, so players are (as quickly as possible) slotted naturally with their peers. We also take a note from AdeptiCon and others, hosting multiple large-scale well-run high-polish events with different styles and themes to suit different player desires.

It sounds good to hear a TO admit that perfect balance is the goal but its not necessarily achievable, however to compensate for that you have created a bracketing system. It just goes to show that there are other ways to make a tournament enjoyable besides changing the rules.

MVBrandt wrote:
As an aside, there IS a responsibility on the large events to understand the impact their decisions have on the game. We were the first truly massive singles GT to happen after 6th edition dropped, and it looks like we will be again for 7th (though at least there's ATC / ETC / WGC / etc. beforehand this year). It'll be a great place to go to try out the new wild west, etc. But last time, we didn't want to ruin peoples' investments by enabling double FOC right away ... so we went with 1999+1 as a stopgap, due to the fact we had less than 2 months between release and event.

The result? 1999+1 became a "thing" for the entire edition. I'm not sure that was necessarily a good thing to this day, and our impact on it was fairly clear. There are lessons learned from that for the present, and we're taking that inherent (if not desired) responsibility pretty seriously, as are others like Reece, Chandler, etc.

Most of the above is just rambling thought in response to Thud's invocation of my $.02 ...

You are starting to sound like a Saint you recognize that the decisions GT TOs make affects more than just their tournaments and you even question some of the decisions you made in the past, you got my vote!

MVBrandt wrote:
In regard to the OP, tournament organizers will only ever have but so much power, and I do acknowledge we're fairly influential even when we don't want to be (i.e., there are close to a dozen "NOVA styled" GTs in the US alone, and we've never once purveyed our packet as copycattable or asked other events to follow suit ... sometimes people just do things). You can see similar impacts from Feast qualifiers, BAO-"style" RTTs and GTs, AdeptiCon prep RTTs, etc. Many of these - unlike the big traveling GTs themselves - do get down to the very grassroots level of play, invading the common FLGS with missions and rulings from whatever GT is coming next or happens to be most local or most well-loved.

For that reason, it's important for all TOs to be very careful and reasoned in what they choose to do, what they choose to rule, etc. That said, I'd like to think almost all of us really are ... and very few of us - based on personal affirmation of my own motives and opinion on the motives of others from close interaction and conversation - make our rulings to influence the world, try to be king of nerd mountain, make bunches of cashy money off your massive registration fees, or enforce "our-way-hammer" on your mandolls. We mostly are just trying to put on a big awesome party for everyone, without having too many negative consequences for anybody.

For those who haven't been, btw ... the big cons and tournaments more than ANYTHING ELSE are exactly that - great big parties. The rumors of WAAC players and "that guy" experiences are literally just that ... rumors ... usually (and unfortunately) based off the spoiled milk experiences of the few that unavoidably do happen over the great mass of events. Most people don't go onto the internet and start big posts about that ONE AWESOME GAME THEY HAD AT A GT. They will, however, do so about that ONE BAD GAME THEY HAD AT A GT WITH THAT GUY. Consider that an event like NOVA's main GT alone with 8 rounds and upwards of 200+ players has close to 1000 games played over the weekend (128x8 at max). Things are running pretty well if thousands of games at all the events nationwide are yielding constantly growing events year after year ... and only a tiny, tiny handful of negative feedback and blogpostery.

Ramble complete on the subject.

Every GT I have gone to has been a great big party tons of fun. I think I know what my problem is I will not voice it but MVBrandt thanks a lot my view has changed!