Las Vegas Open 2018

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.

**ChainswordHeretic**

Just curious, you say a possible 10 people were affected by Tony's behavior. How many need to be affected in this way before it matters to you? I don't know what business your in but part of my job is customer service and one customer having a bad experience is one too many. Will people that currently go stop going, probably not. Will people that were thinking about going not go, you can guarantee it. This attitude of we would have to put some effort in to stop it, and just not enough people are effected for us to care, is bull and guaranties I will never go to one of their events. Wait for DJ3 to say good we don't want you there.

**Breng77**

I said at most (we have no idea how many were actually effected.). That said you need to measure your response and how it will impact the majority of your customers. 1 bad experience might be too much but if solving that experience risked making the experience worse for the majority, it not a good solution. I've already said I am fine with chess clocks being used if a player complains about slow play occurring, I am not for it on all tables as I feel it will detract from the game for people that don't need it. I think thumbs up thumbs down sports is fine as long as the thumbs down are followed up on and repeat problems are addressed. My issue is people saying we need sweeping changes for something that impacts very few people, and those changes making the experience less enjoyable for those players.

**ruminator**

Breng77 wrote:
I said at most (we have no idea how many were actually effected.). That said you need to measure your response and how it will impact the majority of your customers. 1 bad experience might be too much but if solving that experience risked making the experience worse for the majority, it not a good solution. I've already said I am fine with chess clocks being used if a player complains about slow play occurring, I am not for it on all tables as I feel it will detract from the game for people that don't need it. I think thumbs up thumbs down sports is fine as long as the thumbs down are followed up on and repeat problems are addressed. My issue is people saying we need sweeping changes for something that impacts very few people, and those changes making the experience less enjoyable for those players.

I'd argue games not going beyond turn 3 affects more than a minority and does have a significant impact on the majority of attendees; deliberate slow play I accept is minor, but the fact that you don't have a solution does not mean we should just let it continue as is.

**Unit1126PLL**

DJ3 wrote:

Firstly: With the exception of ETC (where it's taken very seriously and primarily enforced by your own team/captain), I'm not aware of anyone ever being penalized for slow play at any of the major tournaments.

The biggest issue is that judges are incapable of responding to a slow play allegation after the fact. You can't come up and say "his turn took an hour, so I win" or we'd end up with chaos. It's impossible to verify--and even if it wasn't--setting up any kind of hard, written rules regarding penalties/disqualifications is far more likely to be gamed against in a detrimental fashion, rather than protection from anything.

What judges should do when a slow play allegation is brought to their attention, is ensure the rest of the game is played smoothly and fair time allocated to both players from that point on. You can't redo the earlier turns, or give Player A more time based on his word that Player B took longer, only observe the remaining turns and intervene as necessary.

At NOVA, questionable games (or important top table games) are put on a split clock as soon as it becomes noticeable that the game might not each Turn 5. Top table games from the round of 16 on are also usually clocked in secret by judges for verification of any retroactive slow play arguments. From this, I can tell you with 100% certainty that false slow play accusations drastically outweigh the legitimate ones.

I was playing at the time and only hearing of Alex/Tony's game second hand, but from what I've heard it was a single-turn issue. If one turn takes far too long and isn't brought to the judges until after it has completed, there's unfortunately no reasonable recourse available to them to correct that--only to ensure the remaining turns go smoothly.

The primary argument against this issue is that, in such a high stakes game, a judge should have been there enforcing strict time limits from the beginning, which as a judge I'd absolutely agree with (and is what occurred in following games), but it's worth noting that the judging staff was relatively short handed at LVO and they may have determined this wasn't feasible due to multiple other ongoing events that required support--that's up to them to respond to, not me, but all interactions I personally had with their judging staff were great.

I'll go point by point based on your paragraphs:
1) Yes, the fact that no one is punished for slow play (except at ETC) is a problem.
2) You seem to be making two claims here. Claim 1) is that you can't retroactively affect a game - well sure you can! Isn't that exactly what happened between Joshua and Brad? And Claim 2) is that any attempt at enforcing slow play will be gamed. If this is the case, then you've essentially torpedoed any arguments for time limits at tournaments, because time limits will be gamed. If you're worried about a system being gamed, then time limits don't make sense. Therefore, the only thing to do to keep the tournament on schedule is decrease points. Is that what you were looking for?
3) You can absolutely retroactively affect game results even after the game is finished. That's exactly what happened between Brad and Chester.
4) Yay secret clocking for the judges! So they can in fact enforce slow play allegations, and just choose not to? Maybe this is why this didn't show up as a problem at NOVA.
5) "No reasonable recourse" is bs. I can think of like five different things that could be done in that situation. Most judges are just uncomfortable making that call, and I'd argue they're unfit to be judges, then, if they're uncomfortable with disciplining problem players.
6) If judges are short-handed, then swift and merciless adjudication of problems is more important, if you want to enforce the rules at all, and if they're even too short-handed for that, then perhaps more judges or fewer attendees are required. These are numbers the TOs can control.

**Breng77**

ruminator wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
I said at most (we have no idea how many were actually effected.). That said you need to measure your response and how it will impact the majority of your customers. 1 bad experience might be too much but if solving that experience risked making the experience worse for the majority, it not a good solution. I've already said I am fine with chess clocks being used if a player complains about slow play occurring, I am not for it on all tables as I feel it will detract from the game for people that don't need it. I think thumbs up thumbs down sports is fine as long as the thumbs down are followed up on and repeat problems are addressed. My issue is people saying we need sweeping changes for something that impacts very few people, and those changes making the experience less enjoyable for those players.

I'd argue games not going beyond turn 3 affects more than a minority and does have a significant impact on the majority of attendees; deliberate slow play I accept is minor, but the fact that you don't have a solution does not mean we should just let it continue as is.

If games are routinely not finishing then clocks are not the answer. There are 2 possibilities: make rounds longer, reduce points.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
That assumes those endings are on time and not concession/tabling.

**Byte**

Guys, nothing going to change. You can't care more than the actual stakeholders.

Do yourselves a favor and let it go.

**ChainswordHeretic**

@Breng77 We do not always agree but I appreciate your professional responses! On this we are pretty much on the same page and you have very reasonable suggestions on things that could be done to mitigate issues like this. The problem is the organizers don't want to do anything. They want to use the excuse that it already happened and we can't do anything about it but they are not even willing to try. They would rather insult people and say we are not part of their target audience which is untrue I know I am. I am sorry but if there is a chance that I could run into something like this at an event after spending thousands of dollars I'm not going. Especially when one of these organizers says he would rather "hand wave things like this away" as irrelevant. Yes there is a boom right now in attendance with 8th but eventually that bubble is going to burst as people weigh what they want to spend their disposable income on. If things like this continue it will drop even more as people weigh spending that money and potentially having a negative experience.

**DCannon4Life**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'll go point by point based on your paragraphs:
1) Yes, the fact that no one is punished for slow play (except at ETC) is a problem.
2) You seem to be making two claims here. Claim 1) is that you can't retroactively affect a game - well sure you can! Isn't that exactly what happened between Joshua and Brad? And Claim 2) is that any attempt at enforcing slow play will be gamed. If this is the case, then you've essentially torpedoed any arguments for time limits at tournaments, because time limits will be gamed. If you're worried about a system being gamed, then time limits don't make sense. Therefore, the only thing to do to keep the tournament on schedule is decrease points. Is that what you were looking for?
3) You can absolutely retroactively affect game results even after the game is finished. That's exactly what happened between Brad and Chester.
4) Yay secret clocking for the judges! So they can in fact enforce slow play allegations, and just choose not to? Maybe this is why this didn't show up as a problem at NOVA.
5) "No reasonable recourse" is bs. I can think of like five different things that could be done in that situation. Most judges are just uncomfortable making that call, and I'd argue they're unfit to be judges, then, if they're uncomfortable with disciplining problem players.
6) If judges are short-handed, then swift and merciless adjudication of problems is more important, if you want to enforce the rules at all, and if they're even too short-handed for that, then perhaps more judges or fewer attendees are required. These are numbers the TOs can control.

2.1) No, that isn't what happened between Josh and Brad. They had mis-scored their own game. They were not forced to correct this error by a TO or a judge, they decided to. Good on Josh for that.
3) Going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one: Brad and Chester are the same person; Brad Chester. See my 2.1.
5) What tournament(s) do you judge?
6) What tournament(s) do you TO?

**Unit1126PLL**

2,1,3) You're right, sorry. Even if the players decided to correct this error and not the judges, it's still evidence that games can be corrected after the fact. So the claim that "judges can't correct games after the fact" is wrong; a better claim is "judges won't correct games after the fact."

5) Why is this relevant? If you must know I adjudicate USMC wargames for the U.S. DoD, and while it's not a tournament, I would hope you'd understand my argument, instead of saying "you just don't know how it is, man."

6) I organize the iterative wargames performed by the USMC OAD after the major Title X games. I also participate in organizing and adjudicating the Ellis Group weekly research games. EDIT: I know they're not tournaments. But I still don't understand why me being or not being a TO has anything to do with me determining whether or not TOs can control attendance numbers and judge numbers.

**gorgon**

Breng77 wrote:
If games are routinely not finishing then clocks are not the answer. There are 2 possibilities: make rounds longer, reduce points.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
That assumes those endings are on time and not concession/tabling.

Those approaches also distort the game less than clocks would. 40K is designed to be a leisurely game with an indeterminate time frame, and any basement gamer with time constraints would simply reduce the points level.

However, it's pretty clear that players -- or at least the ones that the TOs of the biggest events cater to -- like bringing more toys and are fine with the status quo. The more competitive players simply plan for only getting a limited number of turns in. Sucks for the more casual attendees with armies built to win on later turns, but they're just there to roll some dice, so it doesn't really matter if they have a chance to win or not. Or something like that.

**Togusa**

ruminator wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
I said at most (we have no idea how many were actually effected.). That said you need to measure your response and how it will impact the majority of your customers. 1 bad experience might be too much but if solving that experience risked making the experience worse for the majority, it not a good solution. I've already said I am fine with chess clocks being used if a player complains about slow play occurring, I am not for it on all tables as I feel it will detract from the game for people that don't need it. I think thumbs up thumbs down sports is fine as long as the thumbs down are followed up on and repeat problems are addressed. My issue is people saying we need sweeping changes for something that impacts very few people, and those changes making the experience less enjoyable for those players.

I'd argue games not going beyond turn 3 affects more than a minority and does have a significant impact on the majority of attendees; deliberate slow play I accept is minor, but the fact that you don't have a solution does not mean we should just let it continue as is.

Only two of my six games went beyond turn two. In most cases the large wait time for parings was the case. I averaged a seventeen minute wait for my pairings to load. My opponents mostly played at a regular pace, with a couple of very long drawn out shooting phases spread among the group.

I don't understand why these events aren't run at 1500 points. Seeing all of the spammed leviathan dreadnoughts (I fought one list with five of them) made me realize just how broken a BS2+ re-rolling 1's is.

Also, my original question still stands. Why unlike most other gaming "championships" isn't this event invite only?

The Champs should have at max 100 players. 40K friendly, could field the rest of us that just want to hang out in Vegas and play games for four days. Every other game, most notably MTG does this.

**Nurglitch**

I played at a tournament (Geekfest!) this past weekend that was 1500pts, and 2/3 games finished on turn 4 because someone got tabled (once me, once my opponent) and then another against Dark Eldar went to turn 6. I was playing Tyranids. I believe the games were 2.5hr each.

**ChainswordHeretic**

Only two of my six games went beyond turn two.

I would consider that a pretty serious issue.

**perrin23860**

Wow. Just wow. Can't even put into words how disappointing that would be for me, if I spent the money, took the time off work, and eagerly anticipated this event for months, only to have that happen. Unreal...

**njtrader**

ChainswordHeretic wrote:
Only two of my six games went beyond turn two.

I would consider that a pretty serious issue.

Listening to TLW's interview with Nick and I didn't catch this; but when Nick caught Tony G with the strat and didn't let him assault, Tony basically admits "Yeah, I would have not let you assault either."

Is this an open admission that he had intended to cheat?

**Red Corsair**

Togusa wrote:
ruminator wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
I said at most (we have no idea how many were actually effected.). That said you need to measure your response and how it will impact the majority of your customers. 1 bad experience might be too much but if solving that experience risked making the experience worse for the majority, it not a good solution. I've already said I am fine with chess clocks being used if a player complains about slow play occurring, I am not for it on all tables as I feel it will detract from the game for people that don't need it. I think thumbs up thumbs down sports is fine as long as the thumbs down are followed up on and repeat problems are addressed. My issue is people saying we need sweeping changes for something that impacts very few people, and those changes making the experience less enjoyable for those players.

I'd argue games not going beyond turn 3 affects more than a minority and does have a significant impact on the majority of attendees; deliberate slow play I accept is minor, but the fact that you don't have a solution does not mean we should just let it continue as is.

Only two of my six games went beyond turn two. In most cases the large wait time for parings was the case. I averaged a seventeen minute wait for my pairings to load. My opponents mostly played at a regular pace, with a couple of very long drawn out shooting phases spread among the group.

I don't understand why these events aren't run at 1500 points. Seeing all of the spammed leviathan dreadnoughts (I fought one list with five of them) made me realize just how broken a BS2+ re-rolling 1's is.

Also, my original question still stands. Why unlike most other gaming "championships" isn't this event invite only?

The Champs should have at max 100 players. 40K friendly, could field the rest of us that just want to hang out in Vegas and play games for four days. Every other game, most notably MTG does this.

I think the idea of having everyone there is very Vegas actually, "anyone can win it" type deal. Just guessing, that and it makes the title seem more prestigious. Top player of 500 sounds better despite probably most of those players not having any real aspiration to win it. What would make jusging easier is your idea, I'd even go as far as top 50 but I'd run a couple open RTT's on friday (wouldn't need nearly the time with top 50) and take to top X seats and give them wild card slots in the invitational. This would be even more exciting and ultimately would reduce size for some of the events. You could run a couple RTT's with limited seats simultaneously for example and take to top 10 from each.

I also agree points need to be 1500. 2k is just too much, it also breaks the game a bit, you can't fit CP's and toys from multiple factions st that level without making a gamble. The reason players like higher points is because they hit the bell curve with rerolls and suddenly a lot of chance is removed. Which is too bad because a good player trait is also risk management, not much risk when I get reroll's in every phase.

**StraightSilver**

I hope the TO organisers realise just how potentially damaging this whole affair could be in terms of their reputation and future attendance.

It may have no impact but certainly from the point of view of an outsider and somebody that had hoped one day to attend it's certainly put me off going.

I have a friend from the UK that has attended the last 2-3 years and takes a lot of photos and has always had a great time.

It seems like an "aspirational" event - biggest 40K singles in the world in Las Vegas - who wouldn't want to go to that.

But speaking to my friend who went this year he said that he rarely went into the 40K room as it put him off straight away - the types of lists/behaviours he witnessed were not conducive to a fun experience.

Even in the Heresy narrative campaign looking at the photos of the armies people bought would put me off. They were beautifully painted and a lot of work had obviously gone into them but certainly wouldn't have been called "narrative" in my opinion.

Obviously this is my own view and it's subjective, but then again if I am put off attending an event and I am a keen 40K enthusiast maybe the TO's should look at policing the event a bit more.

Then again they can't help what the players want to do but they should ensure that anybody who has paid to attend has a fun and enjoyable experience.

I definitely wouldn't sit on a plane for 8 hours, pay out for hotels etc and then play a game where I didn't get past Turn 3.

**Primark G**

To me 1500 points is more of a skirmish level. I would much rather play at 2000 points for 8th edition. I think you would find at 1500 points due to the massive logistics there will still be some problems. It is a massive undertaking.

**ChainswordHeretic**

Listening to TLW's interview with Nick and I didn't catch this; but when Nick caught Tony G with the strat and didn't let him assault, Tony basically admits "Yeah, I would have not let you assault either."

Is this an open admission that he had intended to cheat?

Not really, but trying to catch people making a mistake, in an inherently complicated game, so you can stop them from being able to complete something in their turn, kind of a douche move. Like Breng77 and others have said it is impossible to play a game of 40k without mistakes. Using that as a bludgeon to try and gain an advantage, while not against the rules, it is pretty uncool sportsmen wise to a lot of people.

**Nurglitch**

It's possible. I usually point out to an opponent when they've forgotten to move, shoot, or charge a unit, or when they appear to have passed up an opportunity. Not to say that always works out; this weekend an opponent forgot his Striking Scorpions in the shadows, and I forgot because they were buried under a pile of dead Aeldari.

**Red Corsair**

ChainswordHeretic wrote:
Listening to TLW's interview with Nick and I didn't catch this; but when Nick caught Tony G with the strat and didn't let him assault, Tony basically admits "Yeah, I would have not let you assault either."

Is this an open admission that he had intended to cheat?

Not really, but trying to catch people making a mistake, in an inherently complicated game, so you can stop them from being able to complete something in their turn, kind of a douche move. Like Breng77 and others have said it is impossible to play a game of 40k without mistakes. Using that as a bludgeon to try and gain an advantage, while not against the rules, it is pretty uncool sportsmen wise to a lot of people.

40k is a terrible game for competition. Period. It's clunky, imbalanced and has too many subjective measures. Imagine a basketball tournament where teams picked from 100 different ball sizes and weights and each teams hoop varied in size depending on when they purchased it. Then imagine a game revolved around free throws and had a timer but no one managed how much time either team took to shoot their shots. Oh and there are only 6 refs for 50 games. ITC champ is a measure of whos better at gaming the ITC format, I mean Christ they don't even use 40k missions, have you read the rules? The missions are more of the book then the core mechanics, they even patched game length!!! They are basically using chess pieces on a monopoly board to find best chess player.

Thats why it's really bad when you drop painting and sportsmanship standards.

**Ordana**

njtrader wrote:
ChainswordHeretic wrote:
Only two of my six games went beyond turn two.

I would consider that a pretty serious issue.

Listening to TLW's interview with Nick and I didn't catch this; but when Nick caught Tony G with the strat and didn't let him assault, Tony basically admits "Yeah, I would have not let you assault either."

Is this an open admission that he had intended to cheat?

No, it was a case of 'Whine Whine Whine Cry Whine", "Yeah I would have done the same in your position". (and we knew that anyway since he just did it to Alex).
Basically an donkey-cave whining that he was treated like an donkey-cave while admitting he is one.

**Red Corsair**

BTW my point wasn't intended to trash competition, just illustrate that its silly to focus solely on battle points because you feed into this gotcha crap.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ordana wrote:
njtrader wrote:
ChainswordHeretic wrote:
Only two of my six games went beyond turn two.

I would consider that a pretty serious issue.

Listening to TLW's interview with Nick and I didn't catch this; but when Nick caught Tony G with the strat and didn't let him assault, Tony basically admits "Yeah, I would have not let you assault either."

Is this an open admission that he had intended to cheat?

No, it was a case of 'Whine Whine Whine Cry Whine", "Yeah I would have done the same in your position". (and we knew that anyway since he just did it to Alex).
Basically an donkey-cave whining that he was treated like an donkey-cave while admitting he is one.

If they want to act like this they are just tarnishing the prize they seek. I know top player reputations are not what they once were and it's a result of expectations and trying to win at all costs. The sizable prize support just makes it worse.

**ruminator**

Togusa wrote:
ruminator wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
I said at most (we have no idea how many were actually effected.). That said you need to measure your response and how it will impact the majority of your customers. 1 bad experience might be too much but if solving that experience risked making the experience worse for the majority, it not a good solution. I've already said I am fine with chess clocks being used if a player complains about slow play occurring, I am not for it on all tables as I feel it will detract from the game for people that don't need it. I think thumbs up thumbs down sports is fine as long as the thumbs down are followed up on and repeat problems are addressed. My issue is people saying we need sweeping changes for something that impacts very few people, and those changes making the experience less enjoyable for those players.

I'd argue games not going beyond turn 3 affects more than a minority and does have a significant impact on the majority of attendees; deliberate slow play I accept is minor, but the fact that you don't have a solution does not mean we should just let it continue as is.

Only two of my six games went beyond turn two. In most cases the large wait time for parings was the case. I averaged a seventeen minute wait for my pairings to load. My opponents mostly played at a regular pace, with a couple of very long drawn out shooting phases spread among the group.

I don't understand why these events aren't run at 1500 points. Seeing all of the spammed leviathan dreadnoughts (I fought one list with five of them) made me realize just how broken a BS2+ re-rolling 1's is.

Also, my original question still stands. Why unlike most other gaming "championships" isn't this event invite only?

The Champs should have at max 100 players. 40K friendly, could field the rest of us that just want to hang out in Vegas and play games for four days. Every other game, most notably MTG does this.

Ouch, looks like I played more 40K that you did that weekend and I wasn't at a tournament. Determining win/loss after 2 turns is a sad joke - I'd say not reaching turn 4 should be a no result to be honest. I certainly wouldn't feel that was money well spent that's for sure!

**Breng77**

Primark G wrote:
To me 1500 points is more of a skirmish level. I would much rather play at 2000 points for 8th edition. I think you would find at 1500 points due to the massive logistics there will still be some problems. It is a massive undertaking.

There are always problems but I don't see any logistical issues at 1500 that don't happen at 2k. My local area has been doing 1500 and list building is much more difficult, but that makes it fun. At 2k I'm never left wishing I had more points. At 1500 something is always left out that I want to have.

**Crastok**

Thank you Front Line Gaming for putting on this tournament. This was my first major I have ever attended and played. I managed to go 3-3 with my death guard and I had great opponents. I finished in the 200 range and was proud of that achievement. Looking forward to more ITC events!

**tneva82**

perrin23860 wrote:
Wow. Just wow. Can't even put into words how disappointing that would be for me, if I spent the money, took the time off work, and eagerly anticipated this event for months, only to have that happen. Unreal...

Yeah. I will not bother going to tournaments where this is serious threat. Luckily Finnish tournaments aren't quite as hardcore as these so no slowplaying to this extent in my experience. Albeit I'm generally not on top tables

Or maybe something to do with serious money not involved. I have heard LVO had significant prize money. Finnish ones aren't generally that huge so guess that helps out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red Corsair wrote:
40k is a terrible game for competition. Period. It's clunky, imbalanced and has too many subjective measures. Imagine a basketball tournament where teams picked from 100 different ball sizes and weights and each teams hoop varied in size depending on when they purchased it. Then imagine a game revolved around free throws and had a timer but no one managed how much time either team took to shoot their shots. Oh and there are only 6 refs for 50 games. ITC champ is a measure of whos better at gaming the ITC format, I mean Christ they don't even use 40k missions, have you read the rules? The missions are more of the book then the core mechanics, they even patched game length!!! They are basically using chess pieces on a monopoly board to find best chess player.

Thats why it's really bad when you drop painting and sportsmanship standards.

OTOH 40k scenarios generally SUCKS so any self-respecting tournament should come up with better ones least games just devolve into gunline turn 1 alpha strike wins

**Red Corsair**

But the ITC scenarios are no better. They are just over complicated. Number one solution to gunlines is terrain not missions.

**Primark G**

I love the new ITC missions - you probably need to play them more. ~60% of the time the player going second wins and can choose your objectives to suit your army.

**Eihnlazer**

ITC and other big setups do attempt to stop alpha lists. They only let you score so many points per turn, meaning if you table your opponent by turn 2 you don't get max points. You have to actually play through 4-5 turns to max out.

Yes winning is more important in the overall scheme, but if your only getting wins and min points you will not hit top table. This means alpha lists cannot win the overall.