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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Can we stop pretending for just one damned second that anyone is claiming there are people playing to "make a living" or doing it as a career or anything like that?

I can damned well expect someone to understand their codex and its rules. You can argue I can't, but guess what? I can absolutely expect someone who is playing competitively in an event where other people have paid money to be part of that event and expect an event that isn't going to have nonsense like this present.

Saying damned a bunch doesn't make you that much more emphatic (since you like to criticize grammar I figure I can criticize structure). And that's fine that you can expect that - it doesn't mean its going to happen. Again this is amateur hour, mistakes happen. Just because its a tournament that people paid to play at doesn't change that it is still 40k. Guys make the same mistakes at events as they do at the FLGS table. You can stand on your soap box and demand that for one damned second players do their damned jobs and know their damned rules all day long. It just makes you look extreme and like you probably don't get it. A 40k tournament is a chance to play 3-5 games of 40k over a weekend. At the end of the day that's all it is - the structure around it, the rules, the competition, all of its just window dressing. Some people want to win more than others so they bring harder lists and try harder. But they're still just a 40k player like anyone else. Mistakes will happen, its human nature.

As for people being held accountable? He was DQ'd, at the end of the day that's accountability.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

There's a difference between "kicking players out for tiny mistakes" and "holding players accountable". You can also pretend that people are "doing this for fun" but I would point out that the level of seriousness some people take competitive play sucks the fun out of everything...but you'll just argue that it's me "denigrating an entire base of players" again or some such nonsense.

So how else would they be held accountable? The player in question was DQ'd. That is being held accountable.

The issue is that these disqualifications and the like keep happening after the damage is already done. Purportedly this is the second event where Target has benefited from rules mistakes.

You want real accountability? Throw out some bans, whether it be from playing in Matched Play tournaments or some other such nonsense, and throw some humiliation out there. They don't have to be permanent bans unless it's particularly egregious offenses but that kind of stuff makes it seem like it's not just "Well he got disqualified, sorry to everyone else who got screwed over!"

 Kanluwen wrote:

Can we stop pretending for just one damned second that anyone is claiming there are people playing to "make a living" or doing it as a career or anything like that?

I can damned well expect someone to understand their codex and its rules. You can argue I can't, but guess what? I can absolutely expect someone who is playing competitively in an event where other people have paid money to be part of that event and expect an event that isn't going to have nonsense like this present.

Saying damned a bunch does make you that much more emphatic (since you like to criticize grammar I figure I can criticize structure).

That's fine. I don't like to do it but given that bold/italics/underlining can start to be annoying after awhile I figured I'd change it up and given that particular poster was, again, trying to poke fun at me for "not being perfect" I felt it was perfectly appropriate to grammar nitpick a little bit.

And that's fine that you can expect that - it doesn't mean its going to happen. Again this is amateur hour, mistakes happen. Just because its a tournament that people paid to play at doesn't change that it is still 40k. Guys make the same mistakes at events as they do at the FLGS table. You can stand on your soap box and demand that for one damned second players do their damned jobs and know their damned rules all day long. It just makes you look extreme and like you probably don't get it. A 40k tournament is a chance to play 3-5 games of 40k over a weekend. At the end of the day that's all it is - the structure around it, the rules, the competition, all of its just window dressing. Some people want to win more than others so they bring harder lists and try harder. But they're still just a 40k player like anyone else. Mistakes will happen, its human nature.

The difference seeming to be that at the FLGS table, I don't get looked down upon for asking someone to show me their book or "slowing down play" by consulting the rules...well, I take that back as I have had that happen(the individual in question playing the Relic of Lost Cadia and Primaris Psyker started trying to claim that I was trying to "drag out the game" by forcing him to show me in his book where that particular combination was allowed) in a "friendly" game as well.

I don't demand that people have a photographic insight as to their army as that is unreasonable but I do at least demand that someone be able to put together an army list without it being invalid.

He may have been forced to DQ himself. The main TO for the other event he cheated is extremely forgiving or has been. A lot of major events have been marred by cheating since the advent of eighth edition. Getting your list wrong once well okay it happens but twice?

When GW releases Battle Roster for matched play there will be one standard by which everyone uses. Except for ATC the TOs for major events will not accept responsibility for checking army lists and I’m in no way knocking any of them for that policy. The main advantage of GW publically releasing an army list builder is one standard everyone can adhere to and it will be totally official. It may not be perfect but it can be very close to perfect and if they do it right it can be a tool that ties players, TOs and the developers all together. If it turns out to be really good I think there’s no reason not for everyone to be behind it.

Many manufacturers provide a set of minimum standards to which their products must meet which in turn are industry standards. Of course there will always be those that have nothing good to say and will always knock GW but like I said this could be a great thing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Guard changes & the Tau Commander 'nerf' beg to differ.

Opinion.

FAQs don't do diddly when they're trying to patch up holes in a sunken ship.

Hyperbole.

"MATCHED PLAY IS THE MOST BALANCED WAY TO PLAY! OPTIMIZE ALL THE THINGS! NETLISTS!"

*play lists that are illegal because you netlisted and didn't read the rules*

It absolutely, 100% does equate to matched play being a damned joke. It's the meta now and with how GW keeps plugging the tournaments on the Community page, these kinds of trash lists where they're not legal keep getting exposure.

I can't wait to scrutinize your games. I bet you're spot on perfect. Record them and let us judge you.

And note the meta is changing faster than most people can keep up with just because of the pace of releases. So, yea, a list here and there gets to live on a bubble before it's popped.

Which was actually the point that Halsey seemed to have been making--that competitive players are, based upon the idea of "they're the metachasers!" going to be the ones asking "show me how that works".

Except in your quest to prove a point you just put your foot in your mouth, because these people weren't net listing meta-chasers. They were basic humans making basic human mistakes.

hasnt the point of this thread been made ?

Not really it’s still open to discussion.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Guard changes & the Tau Commander 'nerf' beg to differ.

Opinion.

I mean, you can say that it's opinion--but how many people do you see running Commissars again?

FAQs don't do diddly when they're trying to patch up holes in a sunken ship.

Hyperbole.

The "sunken ship" in this case being the competitive events that you're trying to FAQ. Metachasing means that it's over and done effectively.

"MATCHED PLAY IS THE MOST BALANCED WAY TO PLAY! OPTIMIZE ALL THE THINGS! NETLISTS!"

*play lists that are illegal because you netlisted and didn't read the rules*

It absolutely, 100% does equate to matched play being a damned joke. It's the meta now and with how GW keeps plugging the tournaments on the Community page, these kinds of trash lists where they're not legal keep getting exposure.

I can't wait to scrutinize your games. I bet you're spot on perfect. Record them and let us judge you.

Oh I know I'm not perfect. I do take steps to try and mitigate it--but once again, I'm not playing competitively in tournaments. The highest stakes I've played for amounted to "who pays for lunch?".

Which was actually the point that Halsey seemed to have been making--that competitive players are, based upon the idea of "they're the metachasers!" going to be the ones asking "show me how that works".

Except in your quest to prove a point you just put your foot in your mouth, because these people weren't net listing meta-chasers. They were basic humans making basic human mistakes.

You've now taken two separate arguments and tried to conflate them into one. The tournament players are, by comments made from others within this thread, the ones who are metachasing and thus "can be forgiven these kinds of mistakes".

The netlisters that follow their lead are a separate issue entirely.

You've lost me.

People cheat - at all levels of play.
People make mistakes - at all levels of play. Which includes telephoning incorrect information by accident.

Tournaments add an extra layer of stress due to time, where more mistakes can be made.

I'm not going to lynch the guy for making a mistake once, because it happens - to everyone.

If you've played for lunch stakes you've played for tournament stakes since they're both about the same level.

Also are you saying that any game that includes chasing a meta is competitively nonviable?

I think the real question is, should the tournament community be held to a higher standard than the casual community?

It's a fair question. Anyone with enough money can go to a tournament. If I had wanted to go to Adepticon I could have - it's not like you have to be rich. I just didn't care to go. I could also go to the BAO, but i'm on the fence about it - i've had quite a few bad experiences lately in tournament games. Am i a "pro" player? Nope. I've won some tournaments this year, but nothing with more than 20 entrants.

So if i go, and somehow make it to the top 8, but make some bonehead rules mistake, what should the response be? Should i hang myself, or just sleep with one eye open, waiting for the community to carry out the sentence?

I mean the harshest penalty you can receive in an event is disqualification.

What more do you want?

 Primark G wrote:
Not really it’s still open to discussion.

really ?!

Just look at the previous five posts. It’s not all about accusation.

 Marmatag wrote:

It's a fair question. Anyone with enough money can go to a tournament. If I had wanted to go to Adepticon I could have - it's not like you have to be rich. I just didn't care to go. I could also go to the BAO, but i'm on the fence about it - i've had quite a few bad experiences lately in tournament games. Am i a "pro" player? Nope. I've won some tournaments this year, but nothing with more than 20 entrants.

Just to really drive the above point home: In 2014 it cost me $152.50 to go to Adepticon. In 2013, it cost $150.44. I don't have previous years because I didn't keep such good records before then, but that's when we started staying at the actual hotel the event occurred in. Previous years it would have been even cheaper. And that was hotel, TT entry fee, and my badge cost. Sure, doesn't include travel, but so what? I spent half that on an oil change today.

Literally anyone can go to Adepticon. One of the guys I went with was still an unemployed student, and he still scrounged enough cash to go and have fun. You don't have to be the best and the brightest, a tactical genius or even that coherient. You could do it flipping burgers. Far as doing well enough to get into the top 16? The cheesiest list you can build and luck is what you need as much as you need any sort of talent.

 Marmatag wrote:
I think the real question is, should the tournament community be held to a higher standard than the casual community?

Yes, I think so, but we have to take into account people don't have four months between releases to learn new books. We're in a period of high flux right now.

And like you said - slip up big and get DQ'd. Do it often and your reputation will suffer, which is a death sentence of it's own in a social game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
You don't have to be the best and the brightest, a tactical genius or even that coherient. You could do it flipping burgers. Far as doing well enough to get into the top 16? The cheesiest list you can build and luck is what you need as much as you need any sort of talent.

Some of my most fun games have been in the mid tables.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
If you've played for lunch stakes you've played for tournament stakes since they're both about the same level.

Also are you saying that any game that includes chasing a meta is competitively nonviable?

I guess that's a simplistic way of saying it, sure. I'd argue more that the point I'm trying to get across is that "metachasing" means that FAQs released immediately after tournaments are effectively pointless since once the event has happened, future events will rule against/ban that issue and the metachasers move on.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
If you've played for lunch stakes you've played for tournament stakes since they're both about the same level.

Also are you saying that any game that includes chasing a meta is competitively nonviable?

I guess that's a simplistic way of saying it, sure. I'd argue more that the point I'm trying to get across is that "metachasing" means that FAQs released immediately after tournaments are effectively pointless since once the event has happened, future events will rule against/ban that issue and the metachasers move on.

This is nuts, even professional sports have a meta.

Not that long ago over half the defenses in in the NFL ran the 3-4, now people are shifting back to the 4-3. Ever heard the saying "styles make fights"? If you're more inclined on the e-sports side of thing, show me an e-sport game without a meta.

And are you seriously arguing that if GW recognizes a problem and fixes it, that somehow makes playing the game competitively a fruitless endeavor? What is your definition of a competitive game?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
If you've played for lunch stakes you've played for tournament stakes since they're both about the same level.

Also are you saying that any game that includes chasing a meta is competitively nonviable?

I guess that's a simplistic way of saying it, sure. I'd argue more that the point I'm trying to get across is that "metachasing" means that FAQs released immediately after tournaments are effectively pointless since once the event has happened, future events will rule against/ban that issue and the metachasers move on.

How's that any different from say MtG adding cards to a banned or restricted list (I'm hoping we can both agree that MtG fits the definition of a 'competitive' game)? Also the FAQ isn't built just on Adepticon results to be clear - it is a data point but not the only one. This is really no different than the way 40k has worked for years - a list does exceptionally well, it propagates, people build to counter it and thus the new 'best' list is born.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
If you've played for lunch stakes you've played for tournament stakes since they're both about the same level.

Also are you saying that any game that includes chasing a meta is competitively nonviable?

I guess that's a simplistic way of saying it, sure. I'd argue more that the point I'm trying to get across is that "metachasing" means that FAQs released immediately after tournaments are effectively pointless since once the event has happened, future events will rule against/ban that issue and the metachasers move on.

We're in for a lengthy period of whackamole, sure, but that doesn't mean there are an infinite number of undercosted units. Once all the books are out we have three touch points a year, which is more than enough to settle in the books.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
And no-one noticed before he got that far?

Did he use Battlescribe to write his list, by chance?

This is a thing that never fails to amuse.
Last year we had the same damn thing happen at another, relatively smaller event with Guard and someone running a Primaris Psyker with the Cadian Relic.

You'd think that flipping Adepticon would have better standards.

Warzone Atlanta isn't that much smaller - its another ITC major. That said people need to actively check their opponent's list, especially relics. Its become a known issue at this point.

I think we need to ask GW to publish a step by step instructional video about "How to Write An Army List" at this point...

It's becoming ridiculous.

Battlescribe is fething awful. I legit feel it's a cancer to the game.

So many people seem to screw up writing lists with it and so many people seem to think Battlescribe = Codex so no need to buy the book - and then end up asking stupid questions, easily answered by reading the god damn codex. 'But battlescribe lets me do X' is way too common an excuse...

I thought he dqed himself after the mistake was pointed out.

Thats what happens when a free army builder is available. People don't want to buy codex, so they use free army builder. And then have no idea how their army works. And then any errors in app buildier carry over to their games since they don't know better.

Even the people that have the codex are lazy if they can build with free builder.

 auticus wrote:
Thats what happens when a free army builder is available. People don't want to buy codex, so they use free army builder. And then have no idea how their army works. And then any errors in app buildier carry over to their games since they don't know better.

Very salient point right there.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Thats what happens when a free army builder is available. People don't want to buy codex, so they use free army builder. And then have no idea how their army works. And then any errors in app buildier carry over to their games since they don't know better.

Very salient point right there.

In defensive of Battlescribe, it's free. It's done by hobbists in their own time, to make things easier for the rest of us. It has errors, but I mean... So do the Codex's their basing it off. It saves time, and I'd be sad to see it go.

I don't think we can hold BS responsible for the laziness of some people using it, their refusal to buy or read the rules, or their inability to use the software properly.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
In defensive of Battlescribe, it's free. It's done by hobbists in their own time, to make things easier for the rest of us. It has errors, but I mean... So do the Codex's their basing it off. It saves time, and I'd be sad to see it go.

I don't think we can hold BS responsible for the laziness of some people using it, their refusal to buy or read the rules, or their inability to use the software properly.

I'm curious - we can hold tournaments responsible for the laziness of some people and their refusal to buy or read rules but not BS?

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

Judge? No - I still haven't played a game of 8th, so obviously don't know the rules well enough.

Check army lists? If before the event, and for armies I have the Codex/Index for? Sure, I could be convinced to spend some time before an event reviewing lists.

How many people played in the main competitive 40k event at Adepticon or LVO, out of interest?

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

Potential? Sure. But after seeing their last attempt at a 40k army builder, excuse me for being a little sceptical of how well it will be executed.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
Battlescribe is fething awful. I legit feel it's a cancer to the game.

Can we ease of the cancer comparisons, please? Just call it a blight.

NB - I've not used Battlescribe, so I'm not advocating for it; I just dislike the trivialisation of a major health issue by comparing it to gaming software.

COLD CASH wrote:
I thought he dqed himself after the mistake was pointed out.

That's what the guy said earlier int he thread - the TO was going to let him continue without the relic (I think), but he DQ'd himself instead.

Which doesn't really say much for the TO - what was in the tournament pack re list validity, out of interest?

 Dysartes wrote:

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

Judge? No - I still haven't played a game of 8th, so obviously don't know the rules well enough.

Check army lists? If before the event, and for armies I have the Codex/Index for? Sure, I could be convinced to spend some time before an event reviewing lists.

How many people played in the main competitive 40k event at Adepticon or LVO, out of interest?

300~ for Adepticon 500~ for LVO

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
In defensive of Battlescribe, it's free. It's done by hobbists in their own time, to make things easier for the rest of us. It has errors, but I mean... So do the Codex's their basing it off. It saves time, and I'd be sad to see it go.

I don't think we can hold BS responsible for the laziness of some people using it, their refusal to buy or read the rules, or their inability to use the software properly.

I'm curious - we can hold tournaments responsible for the laziness of some people and their refusal to buy or read rules but not BS?

Yeah, I'd say that's fair.

Battlescribe is an unoffical free mod, no-one is compelled to use for anything that has no concequences on anything. [Unless you argue it's responsible for people neglecting to read their Codex's, but I'm fairly sure if you deleted Battlescribe people would still fail to read their Codex's.]

Tournaments, [And I assume here we are talking about GT type events, not you and 7 mates in a garage.] are -

Not Free.
Representative of the hobby to a wider community, including being streamed.
Judged.
Direct Datapoints for GW to make actual rules changes to the actual game.

It feels perfectly reasonable to me that we hold them responsible.
If Battlescribe was an offical app, that I paid to use, and mandatory at events then I'd hold them more accountable, too.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

Yeah, I'd say that's fair.

Battlescribe is an unoffical free mod, no-one is compelled to use for anything that has no concequences on anything. [Unless you argue it's responsible for people neglecting to read their Codex's, but I'm fairly sure if you deleted Battlescribe people would still fail to read their Codex's.]

Tournaments, [And I assume here we are talking about GT type events, not you and 7 mates in a garage.] are -

Not Free.
Representative of the hobby to a wider community, including being streamed.
Judged.
Direct Datapoints for GW to make actual rules changes to the actual game.

It feels perfectly reasonable to me that we hold them responsible.
If Battlescribe was an offical app, that I paid to use, and mandatory at events then I'd hold them more accountable, too.

Interesting still - so BattleScribe (which is often recommended to new players and generally held out as the list builder currently) is not representative of anything but a tournament is. Also while it may not be free to play in a tournament it is certainly 'free' to judge one (i.e. judges are all volunteers). I think instead of trying to hold the tournament accountable we should probably hold the players accountable. If it isn't BattleScribe's fault that people don't proof read or double check then it isn't a tournament organizers - its just that person.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Interesting still - so BattleScribe (which is often recommended to new players and generally held out as the list builder currently) is not representative of anything but a tournament is. Also while it may not be free to play in a tournament it is certainly 'free' to judge one (i.e. judges are all volunteers). I think instead of trying to hold the tournament accountable we should probably hold the players accountable.

Battlescribe is a symptom, not the disease itself--at least in my opinion. Daedalus81 and Auticus both posted about how people don't want to buy the codex--and Daedalus further had a point earlier on regarding that "people don't have four months between releases to learn new books"(I'm kind of coopting this point to discuss people not wanting to buy the books rather than just them not having time to learn the books but both have merit as arguments) and others have commented on the rapid pace of book releases this edition.

There are people who genuinely, for whatever reason, feel that they're entitled to owning all of the rules for every single army and they shouldn't have to pay for it or it should all be made cheaper/"more streamlined" so as they don't get inconvenienced. So Battlescribe and torrents/leaked stuff ends up being their 'solution' to the issue.

If it isn't BattleScribe's fault that people don't proof read or double check then it isn't a tournament organizers - its just that person.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I can't agree with you on this point. The tournament organizers are supposed to be the ones organizing the event and, ideally, ensuring that everyone follows the same rules.
Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

Ideally that would mean that the TO would ensure that measures are taken to prevent these kinds of things from happening. How we've had at least 2 notable instances of people writing lists with invalid Relic setups and no measures being put into place to avoid them raises some serious questions regarding organizers for myself.

Ideally? Sure, practically it is incredibly difficult and the players and community at the event have to take a role in it (they did, they're the ones who caught the Adepticon list issue). There is simply not enough man power and time to validate over 250 lists while also taking care of the huge myriad of other things that have to be taken care of to run an event smoothly. I think that's the biggest divergence I have with some of you in this thread is that I, through personal experience, understand how hard it is to validate lists (especially against non overt rules issues such an improper relic) for a major event. There is this expectation that since these people are putting on a tournament that they should be able to make sure that this never happens and it honestly just isn't possible given the manpower and time available.

Would it be great if an organizer could go through and validate every list prior to play and ensure with 100% accuracy they're all legal? Yes - that would be fantastic. Is it practical - no. And ultimately I'd rather folks keep putting on Adepticon and NOVA and the LVO as opposed to effectively telling them if they can't handle that then don't run an event. The players have a responsibility to both put together a legal list and to check their opponents. That's why you open list submission early so that you can crowd source the verification.