Primark G wrote:
I am sure if they do it will say something in regards to cheating and how to handle these types of situations (not how to not handle it).

 Primark G wrote:
I’m sure itc going to clocks is at least partly due to pressure from GW after the LVO fiasco. They are a completely different company now.

 Primark G wrote:
None of those games were streamed.

 Primark G wrote:
Warmachine has been using clocks for a long time now.

 deviantduck wrote:
From my perspective participating in the team tournament, the Adepticon judges were pretty worthless. I have two anecdotes and my only interactions with the judges.

1. The table next to ours was having an assault related rules issue. They couldn't agree and called a judge. He came over and they spent a few minutes and went through the scenario and he stared blankly at them, then laughed and goes, that's not really my strong suit, let me go grab another judge. He left. At this point, our table paused, and told them how we thought it should be played. The team about to lose out said we'll wait for the judge. Works for me. We went back to playing. A few minutes later, Judge A comes back with Judge B. They explain everything to B. He replies with, Hmmm.. I'm not really sure. Let me go ask someone. He leaves. A few minutes later Judge C strolls up. They explain everything to him. He says oh yea, blah blah, and reaffirms what we told them 10 minutes earlier. They continue their game.

Is having uninformed judges for the sake of having extra bodies on the floor worth it, or would fewer, better judges be more effective? It's kind of like you're being carjacked and you call 911 and they send a mall cop. My car is already in pieces at a chop shop and I'm bleeding out in the street, but thanks for that tip about hosiery at Sears.

2. This one actually happened at our table. We (both teams) took nearly 30 minutes to setup terrain and deploy both armies before top of 1. It was terribly slow and everyone was just goofing around and not paying attention so I didn't think anything of it. No ill will as of yet. Game starts. We have an amazing first turn and wipe out half their army. They are not happy. They fight back. Turn 1 ends. We're now 90 minutes deep into the clock. At this point they have one of their team mates go grab a judge claiming we're slow playing them. Judge comes over with a chip thinking we're the turds sand bagging and he's defending the complainers. He said since we're slowplaying, (not even asking for facts, just assuming it's our fault) he'll be watching the rest of the game to make sure it moves along and we finish all turns. He then says, starting now each team gets 15 minutes per half to play for the remainder of the turns and pulls out his phone and starts a clock. it's now turn 2, we still have a full army, they have 50%. We burn through our 15 minutes and have to stop mid assault phase. We leave locked units unable to make their attacks. Our opponents with way less models now play and easily finish all of their shots and attacks. We lose out a bit due to the nature of assaults and swinging first. We didn't get to swing back with all of our units because they went through their charges and not everything else was activated before their 15 was up. Next turn. Same scenario. At this point in time, there's absolutely no danger in us losing the game. But, the judge says, OK, we're switching to 7 minute halves. They're down to 30%, we're still at 80%. The only real goal left is to kill their warlord. At this point, it is my fault for not telling my partner to stop shooting so I can swing. I'll own that, but again, locked in assault and no swings. Turn 4 comes up. This time I flat out tell my partner to stop at the 2 minute warning so I can switch to assault. We did so, killed a bunch of stuff. Time's up. Our opponents interject, But we didn't get to fight with all of our stuff! The judge is like, "Oh. Ok. Finish all your assaults." So they spend 5 minutes finishing their assaults. Then he starts their 7 minute time. Then he leaves for the bathroom and comes back 12 minutes later. We end up playing another turn, never kill the warlord, and the judge stops the game with about 15 minutes left on the clock.

Now, I understand we had equal time per turns, but that's not the same as equal time per game. If this we're chess clock style, which someday soon it probably will be, we could have used more of our share of our remaining time in turns 3 or 4, instead of 7 minutes, and probably tabled them before turn 5. But since we were arbitrarily and unfairly limited, because they were upset, it was a giant cluster .

Anyone have any of their own to share?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Because quite often when someone suggests a narrative game it' is always a recreation of Pickett's Charge. Where they get all of the terrain and I'm standing out in a field getting shot to death. Yea story games.

Sounds like you didn't cooperate enough on the story you wanted to tell with your opponent... but here you go, Farseer. Someone who thinks matched play is automatically less of a pickett's charge than narrative play, just because it has matched on the tin. I've seen plenty of hopeless games in tournaments as well, which is exactly where they're not supposed to happen (apparently? I don't really want to get into a discussion about what balance exactly is here. I actually think hopeless situations should be allowed to exist in the game-state from the very start, but I'm weird and eccentric).

 Marius Xerxes wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
From my perspective participating in the team tournament, the Adepticon judges were pretty worthless. I have two anecdotes and my only interactions with the judges.

1. The table next to ours was having an assault related rules issue. They couldn't agree and called a judge. He came over and they spent a few minutes and went through the scenario and he stared blankly at them, then laughed and goes, that's not really my strong suit, let me go grab another judge. He left. At this point, our table paused, and told them how we thought it should be played. The team about to lose out said we'll wait for the judge. Works for me. We went back to playing. A few minutes later, Judge A comes back with Judge B. They explain everything to B. He replies with, Hmmm.. I'm not really sure. Let me go ask someone. He leaves. A few minutes later Judge C strolls up. They explain everything to him. He says oh yea, blah blah, and reaffirms what we told them 10 minutes earlier. They continue their game.

Is having uninformed judges for the sake of having extra bodies on the floor worth it, or would fewer, better judges be more effective? It's kind of like you're being carjacked and you call 911 and they send a mall cop. My car is already in pieces at a chop shop and I'm bleeding out in the street, but thanks for that tip about hosiery at Sears.

2. This one actually happened at our table. We (both teams) took nearly 30 minutes to setup terrain and deploy both armies before top of 1. It was terribly slow and everyone was just goofing around and not paying attention so I didn't think anything of it. No ill will as of yet. Game starts. We have an amazing first turn and wipe out half their army. They are not happy. They fight back. Turn 1 ends. We're now 90 minutes deep into the clock. At this point they have one of their team mates go grab a judge claiming we're slow playing them. Judge comes over with a chip thinking we're the turds sand bagging and he's defending the complainers. He said since we're slowplaying, (not even asking for facts, just assuming it's our fault) he'll be watching the rest of the game to make sure it moves along and we finish all turns. He then says, starting now each team gets 15 minutes per half to play for the remainder of the turns and pulls out his phone and starts a clock. it's now turn 2, we still have a full army, they have 50%. We burn through our 15 minutes and have to stop mid assault phase. We leave locked units unable to make their attacks. Our opponents with way less models now play and easily finish all of their shots and attacks. We lose out a bit due to the nature of assaults and swinging first. We didn't get to swing back with all of our units because they went through their charges and not everything else was activated before their 15 was up. Next turn. Same scenario. At this point in time, there's absolutely no danger in us losing the game. But, the judge says, OK, we're switching to 7 minute halves. They're down to 30%, we're still at 80%. The only real goal left is to kill their warlord. At this point, it is my fault for not telling my partner to stop shooting so I can swing. I'll own that, but again, locked in assault and no swings. Turn 4 comes up. This time I flat out tell my partner to stop at the 2 minute warning so I can switch to assault. We did so, killed a bunch of stuff. Time's up. Our opponents interject, But we didn't get to fight with all of our stuff! The judge is like, "Oh. Ok. Finish all your assaults." So they spend 5 minutes finishing their assaults. Then he starts their 7 minute time. Then he leaves for the bathroom and comes back 12 minutes later. We end up playing another turn, never kill the warlord, and the judge stops the game with about 15 minutes left on the clock.

Now, I understand we had equal time per turns, but that's not the same as equal time per game. If this we're chess clock style, which someday soon it probably will be, we could have used more of our share of our remaining time in turns 3 or 4, instead of 7 minutes, and probably tabled them before turn 5. But since we were arbitrarily and unfairly limited, because they were upset, it was a giant cluster .

Anyone have any of their own to share?

As a former core judge for Adepticon for many years, the Team Tournament was the hardest part to have experienced and knowledgeable judges for. Its the premier event for the entire Con and most everyone (during my time) was playing in it.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I'm overseas.
I've never met anyone whose even suggested using ITC rules. The amount of times the words 'ITC' is mentioned on this forum, or if I put up a list for comment everyone commenting does so assuming it's for ITC missions is baffling to an English person.

While I'm sure someone somewhere is playing ITC, I'd hesitate before calling it 'Popular' for sure. The format for the London GT seems much more sensible and true to the core game, the combined missions they're running work really well and simply.

 quickfuze wrote:
Most "Judges" are painfully unaware of actual rules. They are simply volunteers (or paid staff) making sure that they assist in generating as much revenue as possible. I have seen very few that continuously stay up to date on discussion forums, reading every codex, ever FAQ, post convention issues and scenarios, etc.

 techsoldaten wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I'm overseas.
I've never met anyone whose even suggested using ITC rules. The amount of times the words 'ITC' is mentioned on this forum, or if I put up a list for comment everyone commenting does so assuming it's for ITC missions is baffling to an English person.

While I'm sure someone somewhere is playing ITC, I'd hesitate before calling it 'Popular' for sure. The format for the London GT seems much more sensible and true to the core game, the combined missions they're running work really well and simply.

The ratio of ITC mentions on Dakka to actual players is inversely proportional to it's actual popularity. The joke at my FLGS is it stands for Idiots Taking Crack, it's taken a little too seriously by some people.

 Primark G wrote:
Warmachine has been using clocks for a long time now.

 techsoldaten wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I'm overseas.
I've never met anyone whose even suggested using ITC rules. The amount of times the words 'ITC' is mentioned on this forum, or if I put up a list for comment everyone commenting does so assuming it's for ITC missions is baffling to an English person.

While I'm sure someone somewhere is playing ITC, I'd hesitate before calling it 'Popular' for sure. The format for the London GT seems much more sensible and true to the core game, the combined missions they're running work really well and simply.

I'm domestic. Which I am sure means overseas from your perspective.

The ratio of ITC mentions on Dakka to actual players is inversely proportional to it's actual popularity. The joke at my FLGS is it stands for Idiots Taking Crack, it's taken a little too seriously by some people.

I enjoy the idea of experimenting with different systems and finding ones you might enjoy better. But the Internet has a way of distorting the actual failings of any system, and looking to ITC or any other system to solve them is like counting on Orks to win in a shooting match.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The purpose of the ITC is to give players a common ground rules for playing a tournament. They are completely voluntary, but because they exist at all. It's considered oppression by casuals unable to take control of their own damn hobby.

ERJAK wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I'm overseas.
I've never met anyone whose even suggested using ITC rules. The amount of times the words 'ITC' is mentioned on this forum, or if I put up a list for comment everyone commenting does so assuming it's for ITC missions is baffling to an English person.

While I'm sure someone somewhere is playing ITC, I'd hesitate before calling it 'Popular' for sure. The format for the London GT seems much more sensible and true to the core game, the combined missions they're running work really well and simply.

I'm domestic. Which I am sure means overseas from your perspective.

The ratio of ITC mentions on Dakka to actual players is inversely proportional to it's actual popularity. The joke at my FLGS is it stands for Idiots Taking Crack, it's taken a little too seriously by some people.

I enjoy the idea of experimenting with different systems and finding ones you might enjoy better. But the Internet has a way of distorting the actual failings of any system, and looking to ITC or any other system to solve them is like counting on Orks to win in a shooting match.

I don't understand this mentality much. ITC gets the name recognition it does because it's the biggest tournament circuit in North America. That's about it.

As for 'experimenting with different systems' all the ITC really is since 8th dropped is a scoreboard and a book of optional mission types. All of their rulings are suggestions, not laws. Less than half of all ITC ranked tournaments use actual ITC missions. People use Nova missions, or renegade open missions, adepticon missions, custom missions, maelstrom, etc all the time. People even do their own FAQs and list construction rules. I'm sure someone out there is running ITC ranked events with 7th ed rules.