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.
RiTides wrote: You know he had to play his last two games (so against the very top of the competition) without the unit right - so down 120 points or similar? That's not no consequences - it's pretty crazy that he could pull out the win despite that.
But how does that show good faith to all the people he cheated? Further yet your looking at it though the bias of him winning. Notice I never said he wasn't a good enough player to win it all, but that he didn't deserve the prize because he didn't follow the rules. He beat some of his opponents with a legal list, but he didn't beat all his opponents with a legal list. I understand he beat tougher opponents down points but shouldn't there be more to a champion then a winning streak? All this feels sort of Trump like, he won, so lets forgive his previous illegal games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidstyler wrote: He also gave up the prize and didn't receive points for the win, if I'm not mistaken.
Then good on him, however it would have turned out better and resulted with a legitimate champion had this happened at the event when it was discovered. I just feel like it would protect the event, and the parties involved much better if this sort of consequence was delivered ASAP. But again, it's good of him to step down.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/11 01:52:02
Again guys, and it's not like I thought thjs was the "right" decision, but he was already list verified going into this tournament on the lone wolves. that is, by far, the imortant part of the list. Once you accept that as legal, the 1 pt issue is to me academic and if he goes without then so be it. That was fairly inconsequential.
At the end, Aaron did win this, and he won it with something he got pre approved. I'm one hundred precent ok with a 1 pt issue, we've all been guilty of that before. I don't agree with the answers but theh were metted out without problems. And havkng been a person that asked, I can say that it wasn't the problem at the time some of you think it was. Everyone there suspected if the rule went for him we could still knock him off depending.
I will freely admit we need better "list legality" solutions for ahead of game checking. Until that time, it rests on players, for better or worse. Please get over it, and suggest cogent solutions instead of pummeling people who gave it their all in a fun competition last week.
Anyway, on to more touneys in May. Can we move on/suggest a list of basic solutions?
NYC Warmongers
2016 ATC Team Tournament Third Place Team: Tank You Very Much
2016 Golden Sprue Best Overall 2015 Templecon Best General 2014 Mechanicon Best General/Iron Man 2013 Mechanicon Best General
The interview glossed over the Lone Wolf issue. Aaron said he feels the pain and this win will always have an asterisk. Ultimately the TOs are responsible or things like this will just keep happening.
I don't know if it's been "verified" but that's what I've been hearing. BoK also said as much, too, but then again I don't know if I'd take his word for it, either.
But yeah, it still sucks either way and still isn't really fair to the people he beat with an illegal list.
Desubot wrote: Why isnt Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse a real game dammit.
"It's easier to change the rules than to get good at the game."
From what I noticed and heard (not 100% positive) he provided one of his two Imperial Knights he won to the the winner of the young bloods tournament. To my knowledge no other prize support was given back to the event to redistribute but I could be wrong.
I know for a fact he gave one Imperial Knight to the youngblood champ because they announced it at the even.
The Lone Wolves thing was pre-approved so as much as I disagree with the ruling it's Adepticon's ruling. The one point thing by itself wouldn't have been an issue for me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/11 03:50:37
Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)
They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016)
Given that he got it approved, the idea that he should give back the prize support I find kind of crazy... but kudos to him for giving that to the Young Bloods, classy move
RiTides wrote: Given that he got it approved, the idea that he should give back the prize support I find kind of crazy... but kudos to him for giving that to the Young Bloods, classy move
The approval for the Lone Wolves was given. Not for being 1pt over
I just know to many people that when that might have come up would have just shook hands and dropped out of the running. They never would have won the prize in the first place.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/11 12:52:24
Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)
They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016)
RiTides wrote: Given that he got it approved, the idea that he should give back the prize support I find kind of crazy... but kudos to him for giving that to the Young Bloods, classy move
Hulksmash is correct. Only one of the items was returned to which we allocated it to the young winner bloods (a new in box knight). To my knowledge, all other winnings were kept.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote: I just know too many people that when that might have come up would have just shook hands and dropped out of the running. They never would have won the prize in the first place.
And that is exactly what should have happened.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/11 13:50:44
Hulk - I feel like it's more a problem of the game as GW has evolved it. He was 2 points under with something that from my understanding wasn't flagged by Army Builder or BattleScribe, which resulted in him being 1 point over (having to first buy the bolt pistol to upgrade it on the Sanguinary Priest). There were plenty of places for him to get that point with all the small upgrades he had, and as it was listed he was 2 points under, so it was obviously an oversight.
The fact that this happened to Tony Kopach as well just says to me that this era of 40K is crazy enough with enough dichotomy between codexes / detachments / formations / decurions / etc of different armies, that these things are going to happen.
I don't think it should be excused by any stretch - but I think making the player play without the unit is penalty enough. Things like this happen all the time in competitions of various types. Some things results in automatic DQs, but others simply result in a fine or penalty. Nascar would be a great example, where certain offenses will make you move back in starting position, others are fines, and the worst are DQs.
I don't think being 1 point over on an obvious oversight is of the DQ type, but rather of the penalized type of offense. No one, I don't think, is saying there shouldn't be a consequence - but making him remove a 120 point model upon discovery of the 1 point error is penalty enough, imo.
Just my take, of course!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/11 14:00:26
RiTides wrote: Hulk - I feel like it's more a problem of the game as GW has evolved it. He was 2 points under with something that from my understanding wasn't flagged by Army Builder or BattleScribe, which resulted in him being 1 point over (having to first buy the bolt pistol to upgrade it on the Sanguinary Priest). There were plenty of places for him to get that point with all the small upgrades he had, and as it was listed he was 2 points under, so it was obviously an oversight.
The fact that this happened to Tony Kopach as well just says to me that this era of 40K is crazy enough with enough dichotomy between codexes / detachments / formations / decurions / etc of different armies, that these things are going to happen.
I don't think it should be excused by any stretch - but I think making the player play without the unit is penalty enough. Things like this happen all the time in competitions of various types. Some things results in automatic DQs, but others simply result in a fine or penalty. Nascar would be a great example, where certain offenses will make you move back in starting position, others are fines, and the worst are DQs.
I don't think being 1 point over on an obvious oversight is of the DQ type, but rather of the penalized type of offense. No one, I don't think, is saying there shouldn't be a consequence - but making him remove a 120 point model upon discovery of the 1 point error is penalty enough, imo.
Just my take, of course!
Again I guess I just don't understand your reasoning. Part of being a champion at this game is building a legal army. It is a skill just as if not more crucial then playing and out playing your opponents. If you can't build a legal list, whatever the reason, your not qualified in that tournament to be crowned the champion. Your argument about how confusing 40k currently is makes no sense, plenty of other players were able to compete with legal armies, just because you think it was inconsequential makes no difference.
As far as Kopach (3PO) is concerned, many players felt the same back then. Notice how setting a precedent like this is important? Now you let another champion slide? Back then Kopach was given the benefit of the doubt because of his young age I remember, agree with it or not it added a whole other layer to a similar mess so it's not really a valid point to make.
Look, thousands of man hours, love and sweat was put into running this event. many people also made travel arrangements and took time off and spent money to compete. At the end of the day, his list wasn't legal, period. It simply isn't fair to all the other human beings involved to let it slide, even if only one person isn't OK with it it's simply unacceptable. I honestly am surprised he didn't step down immediately when he was found in violation.
If your list is illegal, all wins with that list are a loss, that has been the rule in every country I have played 40k in for over 14 years. You are not a devil for doing it, but you apologize, step down, and move on. If the extra points mattered or not is completely irrelevant.
Now we have tournaments like this one and BAO last year giving out prize support to people with illegal lists.
Red corsair, that is simply only your opinion as far as what the consequences should be for being over points... And what is your basis for it being the correct consequence?
Ritides, and others, have pointed out that there could-and probably should-be a varying degree of consequences ranging in severity and supported that position with examples in other sports... Yet you want to yell "off with his unworthy to win head" because...?
The bottom line is, certain players do not feel being unintentionally slightly over points warrants an automatic DQ and forfeiture of prizes. How this matter is handled is up to each TO and no one way is "correct" so people should stop acting like there IS a single correct way...
You think being over warrants dropping out and no prizes? Cool, that is your opinion and right... But when you start making judgments about people who play and win and keep prize support for violating your notions of right and wrong and not handling things according to how you think they should, well then you've crossed a line where you are imposing how you think things should be upon others. I then have to ask, who died and made you TO?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/11 18:28:00
Jesus Christ changed my life, He can do the same for you!
I guess a lot of it is perspective. Say I turn my list in to a big GT, NOVA for example. And its clearly labeled as 1851 pts and adds up to 1851 pts. I'll get an email saying I cant use that list, not for one game, not two, but for any of my games, because its illegal.
Maybe its my military background that makes me take a harsh stance on this kind of oversight, but the phrase "Trust but verify" really does apply here. I get that Battlescribe or any of the programs out there are not bulletproof, and if I as a lowly middle of the pack tournament goer understands that fact then I'm sure someone who invests so much time and money like Aaron would get that too, so manually check your list. Then recheck, and when you feel nervous about it check again.
mortetvie wrote: Red corsair, that is simply only your opinion as far as what the consequences should be for being over points... And what is your basis for it being the correct consequence?
Ritides, and others, have pointed out that there could-and probably should-be a varying degree of consequences ranging in severity and supported that position with examples in other sports... Yet you want to yell "off with his unworthy to win head" because...?
The bottom line is, certain players do not feel being unintentionally slightly over points warrants an automatic DQ and forfeiture of prizes. How this matter is handled is up to each TO and no one way is "correct" so people should stop acting like there IS a single correct way...
You think being over warrants dropping out and no prizes? Cool, that is your opinion and right... But when you start making judgments about people who play and win and keep prize support for violating your notions of right and wrong and not handling things according to how you think they should, well then you've crossed a line where you are imposing how you think things should be upon others. I then have to ask, who died and made you TO?
So now the result will be based on event organizer bias and not a rigid structure. Consistency be damned. Where are your dividing lines? What's one, two, three, four or more points over? What defines the structure? How do you pick the offending model or unit if the points violation is not clear? How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Without a rigid structure/cut-off in place, all this does is invite even more problems.
There is a rigid structure, but this varies by event (like all things on the tourney circuit!).
AdeptiCon adhered to their policy exactly (which to my understanding has been unchanged for 10 years). Upon discovery, the entire unit that was miscosted was removed from play (in this case a 123 point HQ) for the remainder of the event, and the player won his last two games without it.
Doesn't excuse the error, but obviously disincentivizes playing over on points because if you do well you'll be discovered and be playing at a large handicap for the final rounds.
mortetvie wrote: Red corsair, that is simply only your opinion as far as what the consequences should be for being over points... And what is your basis for it being the correct consequence?
Ritides, and others, have pointed out that there could-and probably should-be a varying degree of consequences ranging in severity and supported that position with examples in other sports... Yet you want to yell "off with his unworthy to win head" because...?
The bottom line is, certain players do not feel being unintentionally slightly over points warrants an automatic DQ and forfeiture of prizes. How this matter is handled is up to each TO and no one way is "correct" so people should stop acting like there IS a single correct way...
You think being over warrants dropping out and no prizes? Cool, that is your opinion and right... But when you start making judgments about people who play and win and keep prize support for violating your notions of right and wrong and not handling things according to how you think they should, well then you've crossed a line where you are imposing how you think things should be upon others. I then have to ask, who died and made you TO?
So now the result will be based on event organizer bias and not a rigid structure. Consistency be damned. Where are your dividing lines? What's one, two, three, four or more points over? What defines the structure? How do you pick the offending model or unit if the points violation is not clear? How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Without a rigid structure/cut-off in place, all this does is invite even more problems.
The bottom line is that it is a fact that (1) every player is at the mercy of the TOs with how any and every infraction (perceived or real) is handled; and, (2) there is absolutely NO authoritative basis or standard that one can apply to any one TO in how they handle any infraction.
Therefore, results are ALWAYS based on event organizers and their bias towards how to handle situations. Whether they should or not is another matter altogether and one that is more metaphysical than practical at this point in time. For there to be a rigid structure, there must be an authoritative source for that structure... And 40k lacks that since GW stepped out of the Tournament business. Even with any authoritative source, it is still up to any TO to handle things as they see fit.
Saying we are just going down a rabbit hole with no end in sight and that without a rigid format more problems would be invited is unfounded and I challenge you to support those claims with something more than "well this could happen if that happens" type of slippery slope reasoning.
Of course, is it ideal that people follow the rules? Absolutely and I wholeheartedly advocate having a checks and balances system in place. What I do not advocate is that there is a single one size fits all solution or consequence for everything across the board.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/11 20:09:05
Jesus Christ changed my life, He can do the same for you!
RiTides wrote: I don't think it should be excused by any stretch - but I think making the player play without the unit is penalty enough. Things like this happen all the time in competitions of various types. Some things results in automatic DQs, but others simply result in a fine or penalty. Nascar would be a great example, where certain offenses will make you move back in starting position, others are fines, and the worst are DQs.
Your mention of NASCAR got me thinking.
NASCAR is a more rigidly officiated sport that nevertheless has a "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'" attitude. They try to catch you, and you try to get away with whatever you can. Golf, on the other hand, is a self-policed game in which sportsmanship and honesty are paramount. They aren't trying to catch you, but you don't try to get away with anything.
So what does 'competitive 40K' aspire to be?
There's no reason that things can't be different from tourney to tourney. However, it seems to me that if TOs aren't trying and players are...that's potentially a worst of both worlds, anti-competitive scenario.
Edit: Note that in the case being mentioned, I agree that the player in question made an oversight and wasn't intentionally cheating. I'm talking bigger picture.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/11 20:19:24
mortetvie wrote: Red corsair, that is simply only your opinion as far as what the consequences should be for being over points... And what is your basis for it being the correct consequence?
Opinions are kind of how everything works on a forum. Kind of a weak way to start your post if we're being honest. My basis is pretty obvious BTW, if you went over points your broke the social contract you agreed to abide by when you signed up. Changing his list moving forward does nothing to rectify the impact his illegal list had on the 6 previous players.
Ritides, and others, have pointed out that there could-and probably should-be a varying degree of consequences ranging in severity and supported that position with examples in other sports... Yet you want to yell "off with his unworthy to win head" because...?
Don't put words in my mouth please. I never said any such inflammatory thing and this is a veiled jab at my motives. I want their to be ONE standard action for such an offense, the problem with varied consequences is the fact that it isn't fair, your being incredibly partial as soon as you add more or less weight to by what degree something is in violation. As for other sports, I could care less because 40k isn't A. a sport and B. as other pointed out as well each sport does it wildly differently based on the culture. Some sports act as if cheating is fine if you can get away with it. What a lovely way to approach a social event!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: There is a rigid structure, but this varies by event (like all things on the tourney circuit!).
AdeptiCon adhered to their policy exactly (which to my understanding has been unchanged for 10 years). Upon discovery, the entire unit that was miscosted was removed from play (in this case a 123 point HQ) for the remainder of the event, and the player won his last two games without it.
Doesn't excuse the error, but obviously disincentivizes playing over on points because if you do well you'll be discovered and be playing at a large handicap for the final rounds.
No actually it doesn't. All it incentivizes is not getting caught sooner. He didn't suffer any consequence for the prior games which is BS. You keep looking at this one example without considering other consequences. What if his last games opponent was over 1 pt? Remove any one unit entirely until he's in line right, except he had war convocation so now he is only playing the equivalenty of 2300pts rather then 2400pts. See how your soft line in the sand approach doesn't work across the board without being incredibly partial to each players offense?
mortetvie wrote: Red corsair, that is simply only your opinion as far as what the consequences should be for being over points... And what is your basis for it being the correct consequence?
Ritides, and others, have pointed out that there could-and probably should-be a varying degree of consequences ranging in severity and supported that position with examples in other sports... Yet you want to yell "off with his unworthy to win head" because...?
The bottom line is, certain players do not feel being unintentionally slightly over points warrants an automatic DQ and forfeiture of prizes. How this matter is handled is up to each TO and no one way is "correct" so people should stop acting like there IS a single correct way...
You think being over warrants dropping out and no prizes? Cool, that is your opinion and right... But when you start making judgments about people who play and win and keep prize support for violating your notions of right and wrong and not handling things according to how you think they should, well then you've crossed a line where you are imposing how you think things should be upon others. I then have to ask, who died and made you TO?
So now the result will be based on event organizer bias and not a rigid structure. Consistency be damned. Where are your dividing lines? What's one, two, three, four or more points over? What defines the structure? How do you pick the offending model or unit if the points violation is not clear? How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Without a rigid structure/cut-off in place, all this does is invite even more problems.
The bottom line is that it is a fact that (1) every player is at the mercy of the TOs with how any and every infraction (perceived or real) is handled; and, (2) there is absolutely NO authoritative basis or standard that one can apply to any one TO in how they handle any infraction.
Therefore, results are ALWAYS based on event organizers and their bias towards how to handle situations. Whether they should or not is another matter altogether and one that is more metaphysical than practical at this point in time. For there to be a rigid structure, there must be an authoritative source for that structure... And 40k lacks that since GW stepped out of the Tournament business. Even with any authoritative source, it is still up to any TO to handle things as they see fit.
Saying we are just going down a rabbit hole with no end in sight and that without a rigid format more problems would be invited is unfounded and I challenge you to support those claims with something more than "well this could happen if that happens" type of slippery slope reasoning.
Of course, is it ideal that people follow the rules? Absolutely and I wholeheartedly advocate having a checks and balances system in place. What I do not advocate is that there is a single one size fits all solution or consequence for everything across the board.
Metaphysics? Really? This is not life or death and nobody here is saying you can't have verying penalties for different infactions. We are saying that having an illegal list should disqualify you. Showing up late, slow playing, illegal models/basing or rules errors can all be handled differently.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/11 20:56:19
mortetvie wrote: Red corsair, that is simply only your opinion as far as what the consequences should be for being over points... And what is your basis for it being the correct consequence?
Opinions are kind of how everything works on a forum. Kind of a weak way to start your post if we're being honest. My basis is pretty obvious BTW, if you went over points your broke the social contract you agreed to abide by when you signed up. Changing his list moving forward does nothing to rectify the impact his illegal list had on the 6 previous players.
Ritides, and others, have pointed out that there could-and probably should-be a varying degree of consequences ranging in severity and supported that position with examples in other sports... Yet you want to yell "off with his unworthy to win head" because...?
Don't put words in my mouth please. I never said any such inflammatory thing and this is a veiled jab at my motives. I want their to be ONE standard action for such an offense, the problem with varied consequences is the fact that it isn't fair, your being incredibly partial as soon as you add more or less weight to by what degree something is in violation. As for other sports, I could care less because 40k isn't A. a sport and B. as other pointed out as well each sport does it wildly differently based on the culture. Some sports act as if cheating is fine if you can get away with it. What a lovely way to approach a social event!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: There is a rigid structure, but this varies by event (like all things on the tourney circuit!).
AdeptiCon adhered to their policy exactly (which to my understanding has been unchanged for 10 years). Upon discovery, the entire unit that was miscosted was removed from play (in this case a 123 point HQ) for the remainder of the event, and the player won his last two games without it.
Doesn't excuse the error, but obviously disincentivizes playing over on points because if you do well you'll be discovered and be playing at a large handicap for the final rounds.
No actually it doesn't. All it incentivizes is not getting caught sooner. He didn't suffer any consequence for the prior games which is BS. You keep looking at this one example without considering other consequences. What if his last games opponent was over 1 pt? Remove any one unit entirely until he's in line right, except he had war convocation so now he is only playing the equivalenty of 2300pts rather then 2400pts. See how your soft line in the sand approach doesn't work across the board without being incredibly partial to each players offense?
Red,
So everything on a forum, and this forum in particular, is just opinion? There are opinions and then there are arguments supported by logic, the two are not the same so please don't confuse the two.
Also, good job quoting me without providing the context of what I was responding to (which amounts to taking my words out of context). I used a bit of hyperbole but the underlying concept of what you were saying is still the same: you (admittedly) feel that being 1 point over warrants a forfeiture of prize support and no chance at winning the event. To some, that is an overly harsh stance. Sorry if you were offended.
And when you say "We are saying that having an illegal list should disqualify you" we already understand that that is what YOU and certain others are saying. That does nothing to answer or address whether that is (1) the correct penalty for such an infraction; or, (2) what the basis for that penalty is.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/04/11 21:04:15
Jesus Christ changed my life, He can do the same for you!
Mortetvie, intentionally misquoting another post through hyperbole is trolling. I didn't quote you out of context, you attacked my motive by fabricating something I might say in your opinion which I don't appreciate.
Semantics of opinion vs argument aside, you can keep your nonpology and simply make your own argument without playing mind reader.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/11 21:43:04
GreyDragoon wrote: Again guys, and it's not like I thought thjs was the "right" decision, but he was already list verified going into this tournament on the lone wolves. that is, by far, the imortant part of the list. Once you accept that as legal, the 1 pt issue is to me academic and if he goes without then so be it. That was fairly inconsequential.
At the end, Aaron did win this, and he won it with something he got pre approved. I'm one hundred precent ok with a 1 pt issue, we've all been guilty of that before. I don't agree with the answers but theh were metted out without problems. And havkng been a person that asked, I can say that it wasn't the problem at the time some of you think it was. Everyone there suspected if the rule went for him we could still knock him off depending.
I will freely admit we need better "list legality" solutions for ahead of game checking. Until that time, it rests on players, for better or worse. Please get over it, and suggest cogent solutions instead of pummeling people who gave it their all in a fun competition last week.
Anyway, on to more touneys in May. Can we move on/suggest a list of basic solutions?
Just wanted to quote the part where you said you dont care about one point over because "weve all been guilty of that before".
Thats flat out BS. I have never played any tourney much less a GT with an overpointed list. Speak for yourself nwxtime imo.
GreyDragoon wrote: Again guys, and it's not like I thought thjs was the "right" decision, but he was already list verified going into this tournament on the lone wolves. that is, by far, the imortant part of the list. Once you accept that as legal, the 1 pt issue is to me academic and if he goes without then so be it. That was fairly inconsequential.
At the end, Aaron did win this, and he won it with something he got pre approved. I'm one hundred precent ok with a 1 pt issue, we've all been guilty of that before. I don't agree with the answers but theh were metted out without problems. And havkng been a person that asked, I can say that it wasn't the problem at the time some of you think it was. Everyone there suspected if the rule went for him we could still knock him off depending.
I will freely admit we need better "list legality" solutions for ahead of game checking. Until that time, it rests on players, for better or worse. Please get over it, and suggest cogent solutions instead of pummeling people who gave it their all in a fun competition last week.
Anyway, on to more touneys in May. Can we move on/suggest a list of basic solutions?
Just wanted to quote the part where you said you dont care about one point over because "weve all been guilty of that before".
Thats flat out BS. I have never played any tourney much less a GT with an overpointed list. Speak for yourself nwxtime imo.
Lol OK, clearly it's only me who has accidentally screwed up my army on a spreadsheet, used an old number for a per model cost, or trusted army builder/battlescribe and realized after/during that I was off. I would say it happens more often then you'd think - but hey apparently it's just me.
NYC Warmongers
2016 ATC Team Tournament Third Place Team: Tank You Very Much
2016 Golden Sprue Best Overall 2015 Templecon Best General 2014 Mechanicon Best General/Iron Man 2013 Mechanicon Best General
GreyDragoon wrote: Again guys, and it's not like I thought thjs was the "right" decision, but he was already list verified going into this tournament on the lone wolves. that is, by far, the imortant part of the list. Once you accept that as legal, the 1 pt issue is to me academic and if he goes without then so be it. That was fairly inconsequential.
At the end, Aaron did win this, and he won it with something he got pre approved. I'm one hundred precent ok with a 1 pt issue, we've all been guilty of that before. I don't agree with the answers but theh were metted out without problems. And havkng been a person that asked, I can say that it wasn't the problem at the time some of you think it was. Everyone there suspected if the rule went for him we could still knock him off depending.
I will freely admit we need better "list legality" solutions for ahead of game checking. Until that time, it rests on players, for better or worse. Please get over it, and suggest cogent solutions instead of pummeling people who gave it their all in a fun competition last week.
Anyway, on to more touneys in May. Can we move on/suggest a list of basic solutions?
Just wanted to quote the part where you said you dont care about one point over because "weve all been guilty of that before".
Thats flat out BS. I have never played any tourney much less a GT with an overpointed list. Speak for yourself nwxtime imo.
Lol OK, clearly it's only me who has accidentally screwed up my army on a spreadsheet, used an old number for a per model cost, or trusted army builder/battlescribe and realized after/during that I was off. I would say it happens more often then you'd think - but hey apparently it's just me.
I think he was referring in a tournament setting but I'll let him answer that to be sure. I have played in countless RTT's and several GT's and I have never had an illegal list in those events because I take the time and care to double, triple and quadruple check my lists as well as having my peers check when I can. Anecdotal I admit, but he isn't wrong when he is saying you shouldn't make broad assumption.
Team: Tank You Very Much
