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.

How many of you guys could have your games streamed online and survive the scrutiny?

The answer is none of you.


How many of you are willing to volunteer your time to check army lists? Or Judge?

None of you. It might negatively effect your post count.


How many of you have spread bad information around?

Quite a few, so far Andrew Gonyo is still being accused in other threads for the crimes of all other Andrews. So good job guys! Criticize him for what he did, not every phantom that pops out of your bad memories and imaginations.

So yes I call it a lynching. He was punished and DQ from the event. I'm sorry your appetite for blood wasn't satisfied.

Wayniac wrote:
Hopefully, the GW list building app will fix it. Any serious tournament game needs to have an official app for validating lists.

Yup, if GW says that the app makes lists legal, whether or not it agrees with the codex it would work. Then just have all players build their lists in the app and they are auto verified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
How many of you guys could have your games streamed online and survive the scrutiny?

The answer is none of you.


How many of you are willing to volunteer your time to check army lists? Or Judge?

None of you. It might negatively effect your post count.


How many of you have spread bad information around?

Quite a few, so far Andrew Gonyo is still being accused in other threads for the crimes of all other Andrews. So good job guys! Criticize him for what he did, not every phantom that pops out of your bad memories and imaginations.

So yes I call it a lynching. He was punished and DQ from the event. I'm sorry your appetite for blood wasn't satisfied.

Largely this, a big problem in all these discussions is the number of players who believe they are flawless in their play, or expect something different from people on the top tables. But that is the disconnect again with the reality of competitive 40k and what a vocal minority of online players say is needed.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
How many of you guys could have your games streamed online and survive the scrutiny?

The answer is none of you.


How many of you are willing to volunteer your time to check army lists? Or Judge?

None of you. It might negatively effect your post count.


How many of you have spread bad information around?

Quite a few, so far Andrew Gonyo is still being accused in other threads for the crimes of all other Andrews. So good job guys! Criticize him for what he did, not every phantom that pops out of your bad memories and imaginations.

So yes I call it a lynching. He was punished and DQ from the event. I'm sorry your appetite for blood wasn't satisfied.

"We are not perfect, therefor we should stop trying to be better"
horsegak.

I worst part of this is that he is still being crucified after he voluntarily LEFT the competition. The disqualification was, by his admission, self-imposed.

Yeah, tell-tale sign of a cheater.

Judge questions list, player says oops... what do we do about it? Judge says fix it. Player says I think I don't deserve to be here anymore.

Yeah, roast this poor sod.

Couldn't have been a mistake that he is/has paid for. Let's make sure we rub it home.

He even tried to come here and confess the issue to you all, yet it was not enough to sate the bloodlust.

Pretty shameful display.

 Crimson Devil wrote:


Quite a few, so far Andrew Gonyo is still being accused in other threads for the crimes of all other Andrews.

#NotAllAndrews

 Crimson Devil wrote:
How many of you guys could have your games streamed online and survive the scrutiny?

The answer is none of you.


How many of you are willing to volunteer your time to check army lists? Or Judge?

None of you. It might negatively effect your post count.


How many of you have spread bad information around?

Quite a few, so far Andrew Gonyo is still being accused in other threads for the crimes of all other Andrews. So good job guys! Criticize him for what he did, not every phantom that pops out of your bad memories and imaginations.

So yes I call it a lynching. He was punished and DQ from the event. I'm sorry your appetite for blood wasn't satisfied.

I used to run a battlereport youtube for our campaign games and yeah you get hammered pretty hard in those, that was one reason I stopped. No one wanted to be in them anymore because every little mistake was blown up and people accused of cheating etc when they were just honest mistakes.

I will say that when I run events I do check every list, though I deal with 20-30 lists usually not 120 or whatever Adepticon and LVO are. I still think that they need to put time in policing the lists if they want to run the world series of gaming tournaments though.

 auticus wrote:

I used to run a battlereport youtube for our campaign games and yeah you get hammered pretty hard in those, that was one reason I stopped. No one wanted to be in them anymore because every little mistake was blown up and people accused of cheating etc when they were just honest mistakes.

I will say that when I run events I do check every list, though I deal with 20-30 lists usually not 120 or whatever Adepticon and LVO are. I still think that they need to put time in policing the lists if they want to run the world series of gaming tournaments though.

The hard part is is we're not talking 120, we're talking three to five hundred.

I recall the first time my group went to the Adepticon TT during the golden age of 5th, we marveled at how every team we played wanted to play cover rules substantially different from the others.

I think we were playing it right, because we have that one anal retentive guy everyone knows that reads the rules waaay more carefully than everyone else. But I always wondered if anyone really plays the same game as anyone else..

Think about it. That suggests that there were 12-20 people I alone witnessed that day "cheating", possibly including myself. It the huge event, but that's still what, 2.5% of the total and 60-100% of the people I personally observed?

Yes, yes, list mistakes are list mistakes, and people really need to know better about that kind of stuff, but let's not pretend that rules getting fethed up in a game are new or specific to any one particular person. They're really not.

Also checking a list is a human action. People checking lists make mistakes, too. It's entirely possible someone saw this, and figured it was OK.

GW needs a formal army builder. In order to participate you must submit a legal GW app list.

Then, based on the list you made, you can see everything you have access to, and so can your opponent.

Boom, done. Until then, mistakes will continue to be made.

 Ordana wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
How many of you guys could have your games streamed online and survive the scrutiny?

The answer is none of you.


How many of you are willing to volunteer your time to check army lists? Or Judge?

None of you. It might negatively effect your post count.


How many of you have spread bad information around?

Quite a few, so far Andrew Gonyo is still being accused in other threads for the crimes of all other Andrews. So good job guys! Criticize him for what he did, not every phantom that pops out of your bad memories and imaginations.

So yes I call it a lynching. He was punished and DQ from the event. I'm sorry your appetite for blood wasn't satisfied.

"We are not perfect, therefor we should stop trying to be better"
horsegak.

There's a big gap between a lynching and retrospection.

 Primark G wrote:
It will be possible when GW releases Battle Roster.

Apart from mistakes it has.

tneva82 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
It will be possible when GW releases Battle Roster.

Apart from mistakes it has.

Depends on GW, if they come out and state (or a specific tournament does I guess) that any list made using their app is legal. Then they are legal regardless of any disagreement they might have with the actual rules.

In fact there is nothing currently stopping a TO from saying all players must make their lists in battlescribe and all of those lists are legal. They just don't because they are aware mistakes exist.

Battle roster will be the standard. GW can link it directly to codices. The potential is amazing.

Breng77 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
It will be possible when GW releases Battle Roster.

Apart from mistakes it has.

Depends on GW, if they come out and state (or a specific tournament does I guess) that any list made using their app is legal. Then they are legal regardless of any disagreement they might have with the actual rules.

In fact there is nothing currently stopping a TO from saying all players must make their lists in battlescribe and all of those lists are legal. They just don't because they are aware mistakes exist.

So great. Paid codex invalidated. Nope. I bet codex will trump app

Then there will always be mistakes unless the app is mistake free. From a competitive standpoint having a list building app be the final say is far superior to having codex trump app.

The way they sell codices is by not having rules (just points, which with all the changes is a good thing). The big hit would be chapter approved since points changes are a big part of that book.

Breng77 wrote:

Largely this, a big problem in all these discussions is the number of players who believe they are flawless in their play, or expect something different from people on the top tables. But that is the disconnect again with the reality of competitive 40k and what a vocal minority of online players say is needed.

Speaking strictly for myself:
I'm not flawless in my play. I'm quite aware of this. I have to consult my rules, I have to check things, I secondguess myself quite often. My rulebook and codices have stickynotes poking out with crudely written "Regimental Doctrines Here" or "Markerlights 'n' PewPews". It makes for a bit more ease of play and allows for me to be able to flip to the page quick and consult for either myself or my opponent.

What I expect from competitive players is that the people who purportedly have been the driving focus for this new edition and its "Matched Play" component and who are playing "competitively" to be able to do something as simple as build a freaking army list without there being such glaring issues that people can reasonably make an argument that either they were cheating or they have no business playing competitively.

Maybe I do expect too much from the people "on the top tables", but given that things they're doing are affecting every facet of the game? I expect them to be able to do something as simple as write a damned army list without screwing up.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Largely this, a big problem in all these discussions is the number of players who believe they are flawless in their play, or expect something different from people on the top tables. But that is the disconnect again with the reality of competitive 40k and what a vocal minority of online players say is needed.

Speaking strictly for myself:
I'm not flawless in my play. I'm quite aware of this. What I expect is that the people who purportedly have been the driving focus for this new edition and its "Matched Play" component and who are playing "competitively" to be able to do something as simple as build a freaking army list without there being such glaring issues that people can reasonably make an argument that either they were cheating or they have no business playing competitively.

Maybe I do expect too much from the people "on the top tables", but given that things they're doing are affecting every facet of the game? I expect them to be able to do something as simple as write a damned army list without screwing up.

The only changes they're driving are the changes to matched play. Ultimately yes I'd prefer it if they were mistake free, the counter point I'd offer is Andrew's mistakes doesn't discount other data garnered in the same space.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:


The only changes they're driving are the changes to matched play. Ultimately yes I'd prefer it if they were mistake free, the counter point I'd offer is Andrew's mistakes doesn't discount other data garnered in the same space.

The nerf to Commissars affects all facets of play. It was an Errata that replaced the Commissar's rules.
Now, you could say that outside of Matched Play you can discount it...but really, who's going to let you get away with that?

I will say that my point is not that Andrew's mistakes "discount other data garnered in the same space" but it raises a huge concern that players either:
a) Don't actually know what they're doing and are getting to where they are simply based on metagaming.
b) Are actively bending/flaunting rules in order to win.
c) Showcase that competitive play is inherently ridiculous.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Largely this, a big problem in all these discussions is the number of players who believe they are flawless in their play, or expect something different from people on the top tables. But that is the disconnect again with the reality of competitive 40k and what a vocal minority of online players say is needed.

Speaking strictly for myself:
I'm not flawless in my play. I'm quite aware of this. I have to consult my rules, I have to check things, I secondguess myself quite often. My rulebook and codices have stickynotes poking out with crudely written "Regimental Doctrines Here" or "Markerlights 'n' PewPews". It makes for a bit more ease of play and allows for me to be able to flip to the page quick and consult for either myself or my opponent.

What I expect from competitive players is that the people who purportedly have been the driving focus for this new edition and its "Matched Play" component and who are playing "competitively" to be able to do something as simple as build a freaking army list without there being such glaring issues that people can reasonably make an argument that either they were cheating or they have no business playing competitively.

Maybe I do expect too much from the people "on the top tables", but given that things they're doing are affecting every facet of the game? I expect them to be able to do something as simple as write a damned army list without screwing up.

And as a former TO I would tell you that list mistakes happen all the time. Top players are actually more likely to make them because they chase the meta and change armies more frequently. In this case most codices don't have language preventing you from taking "generic" relics on any non-named characters. I believe only Dark Angels and Blood Angels work this way. So for someone jumping books it is not beyond reason that this mistake could happen, and the player would not even know to look for it.

He was disqualified. That is punishment enough.

Again, you can try to attack the playerbase, but this is a symptom of two things:

1. A living ruleset that is regularly changing, and also totally inconsistent from book to book in how it plays

2. Total lack of a tool to enable players to build their lists

The amount of changes to keep up with- this last year - were insane.

 Marmatag wrote:
He was disqualified. That is punishment enough.

Again, you can try to attack the playerbase, but this is a symptom of two things:

1. A living ruleset that is regularly changing, and also totally inconsistent from book to book in how it plays

2. Total lack of a tool to enable players to build their lists

The amount of changes to keep up with- this last year - were insane.

And we're still in for the same ride this year with Tau, DE, Necrons, IK, DW, and Harlies hitting the scene PLUS whatever other codexes hit PLUS the "Spring" FAQ, Fall FAQ, and CA.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:


The only changes they're driving are the changes to matched play. Ultimately yes I'd prefer it if they were mistake free, the counter point I'd offer is Andrew's mistakes doesn't discount other data garnered in the same space.

The nerf to Commissars affects all facets of play. It was an Errata that replaced the Commissar's rules.
Now, you could say that outside of Matched Play you can discount it...but really, who's going to let you get away with that?

I will say that my point is not that Andrew's mistakes "discount other data garnered in the same space" but it raises a huge concern that players either:
a) Don't actually know what they're doing and are getting to where they are simply based on metagaming.
b) Are actively bending/flaunting rules in order to win.
c) Showcase that competitive play is inherently ridiculous.

I'm actually quite worried about A.

It saddens me we might be in a state in the hobby where everyone just netlists, without really understanding the list themselves. They take lists to events they havn't thought of, with an understanding of the rules for that list they picked up watching youtube or the forums, and might misplay things or take wrong units or illegal lists because they assumed whoever they copied it off was doing it right.

It really wouldn't feel right to me to "win" an event with a list you made zero effort to write yourself. How much of that win is really yours, given how important we all agree list writing is to 40k?

 Marmatag wrote:
He was disqualified. That is punishment enough.

Again, you can try to attack the playerbase, but this is a symptom of two things:

1. A living ruleset that is regularly changing, and also totally inconsistent from book to book in how it plays

Again, I don't have Blood Angels to check but does Gabriel Seth even have the Blood Angels keyword?

2. Total lack of a tool to enable players to build their lists

It's called the army book, paper, and a pencil. It might be a low tech approach but pretending that people can't handwrite lists in advance to check them over is a joke.

The amount of changes to keep up with- this last year - were insane.

Yes, because it was a brand new edition. I'm frankly surprised that anybody bothered with tournaments until all the codices are out.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

I'm actually quite worried about A.

It saddens me we might be in a state in the hobby where everyone just netlists, without really understanding the list themselves. They take lists to events they havn't thought of, with an understanding of the rules for that list they picked up watching youtube or the forums, and might misplay things or take wrong units or illegal lists because they assumed whoever they copied it off was doing it right.

It really wouldn't feel right to me to "win" an event with a list you made zero effort to write yourself. How much of that win is really yours, given how important we all agree list writing is to 40k?

I can mostly guarantee you that people don't win with a list they don't understand and just picked from the internet. They will have played their list locally against the toughest crap they can find several times before heading to a tournament.

One possible exception - the Stormraven bonanza before the nerf.

Kanluwen wrote:
Again, I don't have Blood Angels to check but does Gabriel Seth even have the Blood Angels keyword?

He does not, but the relevant rules aren't found anywhere near his entry.

Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because it was a brand new edition. I'm frankly surprised that anybody bothered with tournaments until all the codices are out.

You can't do this, events lose momentum if you stop running them for a year.

Breng77 wrote:

And as a former TO I would tell you that list mistakes happen all the time. Top players are actually more likely to make them because they chase the meta and change armies more frequently. In this case most codices don't have language preventing you from taking "generic" relics on any non-named characters. I believe only Dark Angels and Blood Angels work this way. So for someone jumping books it is not beyond reason that this mistake could happen, and the player would not even know to look for it.

Again, without having read Blood Angels I can't directly respond to this. It concerns me however that if it were worded something like this:

The following Relics are available to models with the Blood Angels keyword...

and if Gabriel Seth had something like:

Replace the Blood Angels keyword with the Flesh Tearers keyword

If any wording like that is present, it concerns me that people missed that in their rush to metachase.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

I'm actually quite worried about A.

It saddens me we might be in a state in the hobby where everyone just netlists, without really understanding the list themselves. They take lists to events they havn't thought of, with an understanding of the rules for that list they picked up watching youtube or the forums, and might misplay things or take wrong units or illegal lists because they assumed whoever they copied it off was doing it right.

It really wouldn't feel right to me to "win" an event with a list you made zero effort to write yourself. How much of that win is really yours, given how important we all agree list writing is to 40k?

I can mostly guarantee you that people don't win with a list they don't understand and just picked from the internet. They will have played their list locally against the toughest crap they can find several times before heading to a tournament.

And every single one of those toughest crap games with serious comparative players failed to spot the list was illegal not once, but twice? And that this person isn't the first time this has happened at a major event?

Because, like, if these lists have totally been playtested this much against such serious people, how do list errors like this keep popping up? Because it's hardly like this one guy is the glaring exception to 40k's spotless record of lists at major events, is it?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

And as a former TO I would tell you that list mistakes happen all the time. Top players are actually more likely to make them because they chase the meta and change armies more frequently. In this case most codices don't have language preventing you from taking "generic" relics on any non-named characters. I believe only Dark Angels and Blood Angels work this way. So for someone jumping books it is not beyond reason that this mistake could happen, and the player would not even know to look for it.

Again, without having read Blood Angels I can't directly respond to this. It concerns me however that if it were worded something like this:

The following Relics are available to models with the Blood Angels keyword...

and if Gabriel Seth had something like:

Replace the Blood Angels keyword with the Flesh Tearers keyword

If any wording like that is present, it concerns me that people missed that in their rush to metachase.

The good news is none of that language is present. The language regarding successor chapters and their relics is the third sentence down in the relic section.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:


And every single one of those toughest crap games with serious comparative players failed to spot the list was illegal not once, but twice? And that this person isn't the first time this has happened at a major event?

Because, like, if these lists have totally been playtested this much against such serious people, how do list errors like this keep popping up? Because it's hardly like this one guy is the glaring exception to 40k's spotless record of lists at major events, is it?

People tweak their list all the time. What he started testing may not be what ended up being in the final list.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

I'm actually quite worried about A.

It saddens me we might be in a state in the hobby where everyone just netlists, without really understanding the list themselves. They take lists to events they havn't thought of, with an understanding of the rules for that list they picked up watching youtube or the forums, and might misplay things or take wrong units or illegal lists because they assumed whoever they copied it off was doing it right.

It really wouldn't feel right to me to "win" an event with a list you made zero effort to write yourself. How much of that win is really yours, given how important we all agree list writing is to 40k?

I can mostly guarantee you that people don't win with a list they don't understand and just picked from the internet. They will have played their list locally against the toughest crap they can find several times before heading to a tournament.

And every single one of those toughest crap games with serious comparative players failed to spot the list was illegal not once, but twice? And that this person isn't the first time this has happened at a major event?

Because, like, if these lists have totally been playtested this much against such serious people, how do list errors like this keep popping up? Because it's hardly like this one guy is the glaring exception to 40k's spotless record of lists at major events, is it?

Real question? What's your aim? What's the goal here? To prove that tournaments are bad? That top level players are bad? I see this kind of stuff posted and I'm curious as to what you hope accomplish by making this statement?