Hulksmash wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
I think the saddest part of the whole thing is the constant defense of the behavior by FLG, the ATC crew, and effectively the rest of the 40k talking heads. Once you're one of the cool kids you're in, cheat all you like, you won't be punished and instead you'll be defended as 'a great guy who just had a lapse in judgement'.

This is pretty far from the truth. Several members of team happy are pretty prevalent in the gaming scene and they got hit. QC has a guys that are pretty prominent in the scene and they took a loss based on an error made by a guy who plays twice a year. Granted Happy has a player or two with an unfortunate reputation which is likely to draw more ire than any other team out there.

 Primark G wrote:
I think there is a lot of truth to it. The explanation given by ATC read like they had a gun held to their head.

JmOz01 wrote:
Out of curiosity, the BOLS article mentions something about a guard player cheating by combining different regiments...I can be paranoid and I plan on running two different detachments with different regiments, would like more details to make sure i am not screwing up

 Kirasu wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
An illegal list is a bigger deal in 40k as compared to a card game.

Your comment shows you don't really understand how much larger MTG is compared to 40k in a competitive sense, it's not just a "card game". It's a game with $100,000 prizes. 1 card out of 60 is somehow less impactful than 5pts in 2000? 1 card drastically alters the probability of winning.

Team Happy response to the issues at ATC this weekend:

First off, I want to congratulate Beast Coast—that team is full of great guys and great players, and for their part, we know they didn’t want to win this way. They absolutely deserve the win, no questions asked.

I’m going to walk through the event from our perspective with as little bias as I can manage—you’ll note that this will match up more or less perfectly with the ATC organization’s version of events from yesterday, but we wanted to get this out there from both sides to cut down on rumors.

For their part, we feel that Shane and Chris were very civil toward us—we obviously disagree with the decision to ask us to leave, but we have no personal issues whatsoever with them or the event. They’re amazing guys and they run an amazing event—we feel like so much of what happened here was outside of their control. I’ll outline the source of our disagreements and our opinions on the matter at the end; first, let’s walk through the event:

In Rounds 1 and 2, a team member was using a Plasma Pistol that was not in his list. As soon as this was brought to his attention by his second round opponent, his first round opponent was also notified. We were informed of the event’s decision on a penalty (a battle point deduction) following Round 3. (Note: We were extremely supportive of the event’s decision, and firmly believe a penalty was warranted)

In Round 3, there was an extended argument between a Team Happy player and one of our opponents regarding rules. Our player took the action that had been advised to us by the event staff and actively sought out a judge to arbitrate the remainder of the game. The conversation between the two players remained heated, but the game was finished with assistance from the judge. After the game, a sportsmanship warning was assessed. (Note: Again, we feel we were absolutely treated fairly here—the event took into account that our player was the one who asked for the judge, but also still felt things went to a bad place and a warning was fair)

Rounds 4 and 5 completed with no further issue. After Round 5, we were tied for second place, and were notified that our penalty regarding the Plasma Pistol was being increased to a game loss. This moved us to third, but we were still in a position to play for the potential win the following morning.

After arriving in the morning for Round 6, we were immediately told we were disqualified and would not be allowed to play the final round. The reason given was a conversion (Rough Riders) was substandard and being interpreted as modeling for advantage.

We left the building, allowed time for the round to begin (in order to not cause any distraction for the other teams), and then came back to have a conversation with Shane and Chris once the games had started.

Again, we feel this conversation was constructive—ATC has a great organizational team, and we just wanted to speak directly and honestly to them about how we feel the situation was handled, and what we disagreed with. There’s no need for that conversation to remain in the shadows—reasonable adults can disagree without further drama between them—so here is our version of why and how things ended up where they did.

The primary issue we have with the stated outcome from ATC is that the pressure from the other teams was not a factor in the decision. From a simply human standpoint, we fail to see how dozens of people constantly badgering them about perceived issues with our team could NOT affect them in some way. From a practical standpoint, if a meaningful number of teams are raising issue with a single team, it may absolutely seem like the healthier choice for your event to have the single team removed.

To clarify further, even if this pressure from other teams WAS a factor in asking us to leave (effectively the sole difference in opinion between us and the event organizers), we hold no ill will toward Shane/Chris over it.

What we would like to focus on instead is the source of that pressure from other teams.

In the short minutes after our departure, I found myself most upset with the teams at the event we’d had no interactions with at all—we only played 5 teams (3 of which I know, beyond all doubt, had absolutely no role in any of this) which meant the vast majority of teams complaining to the organizers had no interactions with us at all. Why are dozens of people we’ve never met and never interacted with asking for us to be removed?

Having had 48+ hours to gather additional information, I no longer hold any ill will toward those teams either—I instead believe they were being intentionally misled by a small, toxic group of players whose sole intent was to see us removed from the event.

I’m now going to outline what occurred from that perspective, but first want to make very clear that I am not going to name these people under any circumstances. Speaking with other captains has made it very clear who this group was, but the goal here is to clarify—to start a whole new witch hunt would only serve to make the situation more toxic, and the community has had enough of that as of late.

Shortly after Round 3, we were informed by people we trust that a small group of people had begun directly approaching other captains, asking them to threaten to boycott the tournament and walk out if we were not removed. We do not have a real idea of how many people agreed to this, but the number was definitely higher than the amount of teams we had played (see above regarding teams we had no interactions with).

We believe this, then, had a direct role in the unexpected change in our penalty regarding the Plasma Pistol at the end of day 2. We still believed a penalty was warranted, but were concerned that the penalty was being increased based on pressure from the mob.

As a secondary note, in a vacuum and with further time to reflect, the second penalty is likely the more fair one—the increase to a game loss made the penalty equivalent to the teams who were found to have illegal lists (which included 2 of the top 5 teams at that point) which is the most analogous situation—in either case, using wargear in-game that you failed to pay for accurately on your list. Again, we accepted the penalty as warranted, but raised concern that from our perspective the decision appeared to have been made based on the opinions of the other teams.

As stated earlier, Rounds 4 and 5 completed with no major issues. The head judge had been posted at our tables to ensure any issues could be dealt with quickly and accurately, and their staff did an amazing job at doing so. (I personally tracked down their head judge after our disqualification and thanked them for handling everything without bias, given how toxic the environment felt otherwise, we were genuinely impressed by their judging staff not being affected)

When we arrived for Round 6, we were disqualified due to a conversion issue.

This one requires a lengthier explanation; in my experience as a player, judge, and organizer of large events, here are the penalties I’ve personally seen assessed for a conversion (modeling for advantage/line of sight profile reduction) issue:

1. Consider the model to be in LOS to all enemy models at all times (A lenient penalty for very minor issues)
2. Remove the model from play immediately and for all subsequent games (The most fair and most common penalty)
3. Remove the model from play immediately, and the player is assessed a point penalty (A harsher penalty for extreme issues)
4. Remove the model from play immediately, and all prior rounds are a loss (An extreme penalty—I’m not actually certain I’ve ever seen this occur for a conversion issue)

Removing the player from the event is not in the same ZIP code as these discussions. I’ve never even heard that suggested as a conversion penalty. Removing a team of FIVE players over such an issue is not even in the same solar system—this, from our perspective, was an outrageously harsh ruling with no basis on the actual offense.

So again, we end up feeling as though the pressure from other teams must have played into the decision, and are not going to be allowed to play our final game. We leave the event until things have calmed down and games have started.

Upon returning to the event to say our goodbyes to our friends, I had an interesting occurrence—while speaking to a friend (linking Jared Friedman here) I sparked up a conversation with his opponent, who was a complete stranger to me, about his perceptions of us and why he thought we were removed.

Everything he said matched up perfectly with what I’d been hearing rumors of, from both other players and even from people off-site messaging me about the drama at the event.

I then approached a small handful of other people (all complete strangers) to have a similar discussion with them, and in all cases, they had identical stories about why we’d been penalized and removed. Their stories were, unfortunately, completely untrue. I’ll outline them here:

1. Our team continued using the Plasma Pistol after being alerted to the mistake after Round 2.
2. During the altercation in Round 3, our player was verbally abusive to a judge.
3. We were constantly in violation of the event’s slow play/minimum turn guidelines but not being punished for it.

None of these statements have any basis in reality, yet they were the opinions held by a likely majority of the people attending the event—a majority who had had no direct contact with us period. So the question becomes: How did ~300 people all come to believe the exact same incorrect version of multiple events?

From what I’ve been able to gather since, the small group of people asking other teams to sign up to boycott the event was purposefully misleading other teams about the nature of our infractions, and directly lying to them about the penalties assessed so far in order to rile up an angry mob to assist in having us removed.

Out of fairness I do want to point out again that Shane and Chris deny the opinions of other teams weighed into their decision at all—this is entirely from our perspective, and from our perspective, we fail to see how it could not have been a factor.

The situation ended up fueling itself—I was being contacted by people who presumed the rumors were true, as our penalties were so extreme, they could not see how we’d have been asked to leave if they weren’t true. Somebody (or a small group of somebodies) on-site at the event was sparking fires, spreading rumors, and handing out pitchforks. As our penalties increased (with no further problems) and our disqualification became public, the general perception was that the rumors must have been true.

This is what led to ATC posting their clarification yesterday—which we were appreciative for, again Shane and Chris have been very direct and fair with us—as they’d seen by that point that the rumors had taken over and very few people had an accurate picture of what happened.

We feel that anyone who reads this statement alongside the ATC statement will come away with the correct version of the events as they actually transpired.

Again, the extremely toxic nature of the event seems to have been set in motion by an EXTREMELY small number of individuals—the overwhelming majority of people we interacted with were great toward us, and we have no remaining hard feelings toward the event or even the teams who signed up to the boycott, as they likely did so under false pretenses.

The only message I have for the other players (and particularly captains) at the event is this: If you were asked to join the boycott, or provided any of the known-incorrect information I’ve outlined above, I want you to think very hard about the person who you were speaking with at the time. Ask yourself whether or not that person may have had an ulterior motive, or anything to gain from our team being removed. Then, taking into account what’s been explained here, come to your own conclusion as to whether or not our removal was warranted.

Thanks for reading,
--Justin Curtis on behalf of Team Happy

meleti wrote:
So, to anyone on Team Happy: were you informed by ATC staff that any further infraction would result in your team voluntarily withdrawing from the tournament?

DJ3 wrote:

meleti wrote:
So, to anyone on Team Happy: were you informed by ATC staff that any further infraction would result in your team voluntarily withdrawing from the tournament?

There absolutely was an agreement--following the sportsmanship warning, we agreed if there were any further issues along those lines, we would immediately withdraw from the tournament.

From our perspective, this meant sportsmanship issues/excessive arguments with other players, of which there were none.

We did not expect this to extend to the point of an uninvolved third party bringing issue with our models (which, for reference, we do not consider to be problematic--but that argument is not really necessary for this context) before the final game being enough to have us removed.

Farseer_V2 wrote:I think the saddest part of the whole thing is the constant defense of the behavior by FLG, the ATC crew, and effectively the rest of the 40k talking heads. Once you're one of the cool kids you're in, cheat all you like, you won't be punished and instead you'll be defended as 'a great guy who just had a lapse in judgement'.

Primark G wrote:Pretty much so unless they catch you on twitch.

bogalubov wrote:
Would you be able to post a picture of the models in question?

DJ3 wrote:

bogalubov wrote:
Would you be able to post a picture of the models in question?

Absolutely--we were going to add this to the FB post, but it was locked before I was able to (probably the right call by the group admins) but it's actually a good idea to have this out there somewhere.

They're not my models so I'll have to track down pictures and it's been about eight years since I posted any images on dakka so I might screw it up a few times, so give me a few minutes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adding images of the models in question.

These models were an attempt by one of our players to convert Catachan Rough Riders--being a jungle planet, he didn't figure they'd have horses. Note also that GW also does not currently produce Rough Riders (which is why they weren't in the Codex) so conversions are your only means to field them.

To make the units distinct for tournament play, one unit rides alligators, and one unit rides turtles. The spears were intended to be extra long (particularly on other models, some of whom were placed next to their mounts rather than on top of them) to account for horses being taller/longer than the alligators and turtles.

Keep in mind that the models pictured were the final cause for 5 people being removed from a tournament they'd invested thousands of dollars, hundreds of hours, and a week away from their families for.

 Primark G wrote:
How do you know which card game to which I was referring?

7. Scratch built models and conversions can be used for units, but must adhere to the following
guidelines:
 Models may NOT contain significant elements of pre-assembled and/or pre-painted models or
toys.

DJ3 wrote:

bogalubov wrote:
Would you be able to post a picture of the models in question?

Absolutely--we were going to add this to the FB post, but it was locked before I was able to (probably the right call by the group admins) but it's actually a good idea to have this out there somewhere.

They're not my models so I'll have to track down pictures and it's been about eight years since I posted any images on dakka so I might screw it up a few times, so give me a few minutes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adding images of the models in question.

These models were an attempt by one of our players to convert Catachan Rough Riders--being a jungle planet, he didn't figure they'd have horses. Note also that GW also does not currently produce Rough Riders (which is why they weren't in the Codex) so conversions are your only means to field them.

To make the units distinct for tournament play, one unit rides alligators, and one unit rides turtles. The spears were intended to be extra long (particularly on other models, some of whom were placed next to their mounts rather than on top of them) to account for horses being taller/longer than the alligators and turtles.

Keep in mind that the models pictured were the final cause for 5 people being removed from a tournament they'd invested thousands of dollars, hundreds of hours, and a week away from their families for.

 djones520 wrote:
Taken directly from the modelling rules made available for every captain, and player.

So... how were they wronged?

DJ3 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Taken directly from the modelling rules made available for every captain, and player.

So... how were they wronged?

Again, we don't want to focus on the nature of the conversions themselves (which is why this was not included in the main post). We did not dispute this point--they do have a written policy on conversions, and we did not follow it to the letter.

We're willing to accept the standpoint that these models were not acceptable (I'm only including them because we've been asked repeatedly, and wished to explain the reasoning of the player who brought them) as was the case in our official statement.

The issue we have is with the punishment not being equivalent to the infraction.

 Kirasu wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
How do you know which card game to which I was referring?

Because the very post before your response ONLY referenced MTG and you responded to that context? It's okay to admit you didn't know what you were talking about :p

 djones520 wrote:
Welp... I think best policy is agree to disagree at this point. Not selling me for half a second that the plasma usage was a mistake, and this was just one more rule violation, stacked onto the other issues. Now if there is one thing I will say I didn't like about how the ATC crew handled this, was that it was only you guys they nailed on the poor conversion issue. There were a ton of armies that were in clear violation of that rule, and should have been penalized as well.

 Peregrine wrote:
DQ for cheating with the plasma pistol.

DQ everyone else who had an illegal list.

"Sorry, you can't use those here" at sign in for bringing models which clearly violate event rules. It's unfortunate that the army wasn't banned up front, but it never should have been allowed.

I am disappointed that people admit to breaking clear and explicit rules and complain that it is unfair that they don't get to keep playing. Follow the rules and you won't get DQed.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Your post would make more sense if DQ meant Dairy Queen. Like, take players aside, discuss issues, collect perspectives from multiple people, work out the best possible situation for everyone.

Sort of like the ATC organizers did. Only with ice cream.