Greets all's,
This post contains edits in light of new information and feedback from the TO and other sources.
So this post is going to have a lot. I just returned this morning from the ATC. For those who don't know, it mimics the ETC style tournament. This means you go as a team, but play individual games which collectively score for the team. Pairings for each round are based off of overall team score, and individual game pairings are determined by the two teams playing each other. In essence one team will put forward a player / army list, and the other team will select an opponent for them to play. Then that team will put forward a player / opponent, and the first team will select an opponent for them to play.
It results in really interesting matches and is really quite a fun format.
http://whatc.org/40kstandings.php
So let me get out front and center that Tim G and his team, "The Gypsy Curse", are a bunch of cheaters and were caught multiple times at the event doing so. In my opinion Tim should not have been given best grey knight player.
- Tim round one "Misplayed" Coteaz's "I've been expecting you", by not following the RAW and resolving the shots immediately after the unit arrived from reserve, and instead waited for a drop pod player to bring in/deploy his entire army, then shooting all of them (essentially crippling him). His opponent trusted him as Tim is a GT player, big mistake. He did not find out until after the game ended that Tim has misplayed it, and by then of course its to late.
- Tim was lying to an opponent saying Banishment is a 24 inch NOVA power. His excuse was that he had a BOLS print out saying it was so... Right....
- A team called a judge over for suspicious dice rolling
- They brought an army that was explicitly banned (Legion of the Damned), and played it. Despite the fact that lists are turned in a week a head of time, this was unfortunately missed. It was not caught by players until round 4. The TO's of the event solved this problem by docking 10 points per game played by the LOD player, and forcing him to change the LoD to vanilla marines.
There were lots of other word of mouth rumors about the bullshit he and his team were pulling, but those were the only ones I can directly verify as truthful / accurate, by direct participation or direct contact with opponents / judges.
Those alone, add up to a picture of a cheating, disingenuous team. As the saying goes.. fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.. Tim's repeated shengigans each round should have been more than suitable to incur serious repercussions
So that's out of the way..
What did I think of the event?
Positives
- The venue was solid and was priced beneficially to maximize player returns. The on site food / drink vendors was good.
- Shane and his judges made sure their presence was felt. They were responsive and friendly. I never felt like I couldn't find a judge, or couldn't have a reasonable conversation with one.
- The event more or less kept on schedule reasonably well
- Location was good with lots of hotels, food places and such
- Table themes, I enjoyed that the event organizers attempted to keep each table themed, so it felt cohesive and not a hodpodge of random types.
- The format was good, the atmosphere was positive and energetic, and that was quite an accomplishment considering how annoyed many of the attendees were by the before mentioned BS.
Other notes
- It was difficult to see round to round progression and verify the results were correctly input. Only the overall results were displayed which is not ideal for a nervous team hoping their 72 points were entered properly and forgot their previous overall scores.
- Lack of clarity on terrain types and placement. Spending the first few minutes of a game having to discuss or arguing with your opponent about how to rule terrain pieces can be awkward. Especially as people play all sorts of different ways, impassible vs. not, battlescapes vs. difficult terrain, what's considered a ruin etc. I had the normal GT issue where people shoved their terrain out of the way to put models / displays / books on the table. Then left it that way at round end, and unfortunately next round opponents insisting that we don't touch it to fix it.
- The quality of the terrain. Many of the tables were just fine, but there were always one or two tables in each team match that needed some extra LOS blockage.
- Starts to damn early. I think it'd be better to do 3-3 rather than a 4-2 split. But that's just me grumping about waking up super early, so maybe its fine.
- Prize support did not follow as stated on their website. Their website explicitly stated teams 1-6 would receive prizes, instead at the event only teams 1-4 received prizes, and the top two teams were allowed to select a second prize each. Shane has noted since the event that this was an accidental oversight, and that the teams involved will receive their appropriate support.
- CSM award - Edited based on Shane's feedback.
- Swag bags could have used a bit more oomph. A secret weapon miniature base + random other thing, and a ton of advertising.
- Objective markers were randomly colored poker chips. When trying to run an event with 6 objectives on each table, 4 of one type and 2 of another, it left open the potential of people forgetting which colors represented which type of objective over the course of a long game. Shane has noted this was not the intent of the ATC to use the poker chips, but was to correct a last minute problem.
I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting for both positive and negative. So Shane and company, if you read this, I hope you take this as a critique, instead of me just bashing. The event is promising, and I think with a few changes it'll be much better in the future. I'll state for the record I do plan on attending again, so clearly I have faith that the team will fix issues, tighten up the rules ship and handle things properly.
You know who else cheats at 40k and plays LOD? :)
ReplyDeleteSorry this happened to you guys and your team. Hopefully other TO's will take note and be more attentive in the future.
ReplyDeleteAs far as ATC I am honestly surprised they didn't do more. They posted these updates the DAY BEFORE the event:
SOme last minute reminders and policy updates on Sportsmanship, Cheating and Slow Play:
Some of these may seem severe, but we are serious about keeping the ATC as clear of these issues as possible.
Also, our FAQ has been updated to reflect these statements as well.
1 - In the case of Armies with lots of special abilities or powers (like Daemons), players are required to make things clear
to their opponent at all times. This should be done by putting markers near affected units. Dice should NOT be used as they easily get lost in the chaos of the table top.
2 - Army lists must clearly state which model is the warlord.
3 - Players caught playing with an army that is not the same as their army list will receive at the minimum a current round loss and possibly a round loss for every game before and will not be able to continue until the list is corrected and approved by ATC staff.
4 - Players caught using Loaded or Cheat Dice will be removed from the ATC and their team will have to play one man down or use one of our extra ATC Staff Players for the remainder of the event.
5- The ATC Slow Play Policy will involve us tracking all players number of turns and incomplete game totals throughout the event. Whether intentional or unintentional, points will be deducted for Slow Play and could affect previous round scores as well if it is determined that the player has hindered other players scores through the use of Slow Play. The penalty could be as severe as round losses (30 points per rpund deducted). The amount will be determined by ATC Staff, Judges and players involved. You should bring an army that you can play a complete game with in 2.5 hours, "I'm new with this army" and "There are a lot of models in my army" are not valid excuses.
Thanks guys, see you in a few days!
-Shane
If they actually saw the "dice" in question as one of the items mentioned that is just stupid they didnt do anything. But I can say I have seen events that choose to do nothing when cheating is brought to their attention. I understand that events try to not be too harsh, but this hobby is small/close enough that this just shouldnt be happening. I have also had some..less than savory interactions with the players in question and I hope that TO's take note and actually enforce their policies. Hopefully some of the upcoming events will take notice and be more attentive (NOVA, 11th Company, BFS, BAO)
-Tsarith
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Alex,
DeleteI was on James' team (Necron Player). There were a couple of shenanigans presented by your team that I personally saw. However, your Eldar player (David I believe?) was who I played, and we had a good game, and neither of us I believe came away from our game with ant sort of predisposition of how the other team acted.
I honestly believe that Tony's list was an accident, and was not done maliciously. Tony seemed like an upstanding guy that tried to follow the rules and settle an argument between yourself and Rob Tilly. It's unfortunate there was an oversight by your team in the ATC rules, as well as an oversight by the ATC itself at not catching your list. This I chalk up to just 'life' happening. However, I see in the eyes of the ATC that the list was illegal, and 'actions' should be taken etc. Whatever was decided was up to the ATC staff at that point.
As far as "I've Been Expecting You" rule. I think this is both players faults to some extent. However, your opponent shouldn't be expected to know your rules better than you do. In this case, Tim should have known how I've been expecting you works, as it's his army. It's my understanding that he has played GK frequently, and I was given multiple other examples from other tournaments of other "mistakes" he has made. I'm not mentioning names, as it isn't my job to put on the scarlet letter or throw others under a bus. I don't know Tim personally, and I would go into a game with him assuming he is there to play accurately and to the best of his ability.
As far as loaded dice. This is the first I've heard of this, and it is most likely just a bad rumor. I'm going to ignore this.
There was also an issue with your time in your, and not going to turn 4, etc. I'm not going into details, but it did seem to be a time sink for the last 35 minutes. Regardless of the outcome, it would have supposedly had our team win a few more points (objective grabs/contests/etc), which in the grand outcome, most likely wouldn't have mattered... unless you go to butterfly effect where it would have paired us against different teams, etc.
Alex,
DeleteI appreciate you defending your team and its honor. I'm not going to attack you for that. Allow me to go bullet by bullet and provide a few more thoughts / details.
1) Tim should know his army better. He's played GK a ton, he's a GT level player, and he is expected to know his army rules. This is not an excusable oopsie! If he legitimately "found out" after the game, the honorable course of action would have been to go to the judges to have the score changed to reflect a TIE or given Chip points for the game. For the record, I have retroactively changed my score giving myself a loss to Matt Defranza at BFS, as I accidently flew off my dakkajet giving him a win on KP, and thus a win on the game, which we only remembered after turning in scores / taking lunch. So, I've been in this situation myself, and did what I consider the right thing. He should have done the same.
2) Tim's use of the NOVA power banishment nonsense was confirmed to me by the judges, and by the team he played against. I suggest you go ask him about it.
3) The dice issue was told to me by my opponents in our round 5 game, who had played your team round 3 or 4
4) The list was explicitly banned. I asked Shane about it. He specifically did not have it on the list, as it was not allowed purposefully. Your team was the only team to make this "oopsie". No other team made this mistake.
I run the NOVA Open Trios. I've had teams bring illegal lists before, and I've had to handle this kind of situation before. I had a team with Tony Kupach, his brother, and Scooter. Tony and his brothers list were illegal. We found out after their round 1 game was settled and scored. I had to make a decision on it, and we decided to remove models from their lists, and give their opponents a full score.
This isn't always fair, but there are rules, and people come with set expectations. We as judges have to meet those expectations with as reasonable decisions as possible. We can't set a precedent of allowing things, as then people who are inclined to take advantage will do so.
I'm sorry to hear you did not get a swag bag, there was a very lovely lady at the front of the gaming hall handing them out and yelling at people as they walked by to pick them up. We paid a lot of money to attend this event, a calculation of costs puts the overall cost of the event somewhere in the 6k range including all prize support / venue. Theres about 3k there unaccounted. I'm all for TO's making money (not that I have ever made a cent running events), but those swag bags were paltry when contrasted with every other large event.
Hi Mark?
DeleteI'm glad you and David had a good game, he is a good kid, and doesn't deserve any of the negative attention that's seemingly being drawn here.
I'm also happy to see it acknowledged that Tony's list problem was an honest mistake. I can't seriously think that anyone would believe that a player would attempt to knowingly cheat by submitting evidence of their cheating to the judges a week in advance, you know. My main issue with this is the original author's claims that the 'punishment' handed out was insufficient. I mean, a 40 point deduction cost our team 5th place and cost Tony Best Necron. To demand that harsher penalties should have been applied comes across as both petty and vengeful, for what was an honest mistake that the judges did not even notice. Ideally, we'd have known about this, and corrected it, before we left Chicago...
I really have nothing to add to any discussion of Tim's game(s). As you noted, Rob and my game was pressed for time, and neither of us were paying attention to anything happening on other tables. We both played time-intensive armies, and sometimes that happens. I'll note that at no point was I spoken to about slow-play by the judges, and the majority of my games completed. In Rob's shoes, I'd have wanted to rush through an extra turn as well, as in his place, it was his best chance to earn more points for your team. But, there was no way we'd have finished both of our turns before dice-down, and sticking to my guns was the best chance I had to earn points for my team. I don't believe either stance is 100% right in this situation, we were both looking to help our teams. I will say that I did not intentionally stall in order to get that outcome, but I do keep my eye on the clock during tournaments as I've lost games at other events in the same way. Rob and I shook hands after our game, and I hope there are no hard feelings, though I didn't get that impression at the time.
Sigh. Reminds me why I don't like to play competitively more than once a year and why I don't drive more than 45 minutes for gaming.
Delete1 hiccup from 1 team shouldn't deter you from gaming. Every game I played was pleasant. I would gladly play any one of my opponents again. When you get ~150+ gamers together, there is bound to be issues, no matter how you look at it.
DeleteHi Birdux
Delete1) Yes, Tim should know his army better. However, I don't think of this as cheating or a case where one party is 100% to blame. I was surprised by how many people at this event did not have the codex for their army available. I dragged a copy of the rulebook, stronghold assault, and both chaos codexes around with me. Not only that, half the army lists I was handed simply had unit names and point costs, with no explanation of stats or what special items did. The lists I prepared for my opponent not only had the stats for the models in my army, but also for all the models I might summon, and all the special rules for wargear and warpstorms.
I bring this up to point out that there are different approaches to the game. Some people want to play transparently and openly and some want to keep as much in the dark as possible. Based on the armylists I saw this weekend, I'd say that more people aim to keep things in the dark. So, yes, Tim should have known better, and should know how his army works, and maybe even should have tried to redress the issue after the fact. But maybe there's a larger issue with the 'competitive' gaming community as a whole. If I were in Tim's opponent's place, I wouldn't have taken his word, I'd have asked to see his codex. That's how we did it when I was more active in tournaments. And, my opponent would have given me a list that said what that power did, like the lists I handed my opponents at this event. If we've gotten away from that sort of civility, it's not only Tim who has done so.
2) Again, I didn't see his game, and I don't want to go into he-said/she-said. My comment was directed at the facts I can contribute directly to. Tim's cheat-sheet was created by ArbitorIan on Dakka. The cheat-sheet does not say that banishment is a Nova power.
And, again, do people really not check the rules anymore.
In my local gaming circle, we have a house-rule that states that if someone forgets something, either good or bad, once you're past the end of the current player-turn, you don't unwind the game-state to redo it. Is that a good gaming culture? I dunno - it encourages people to learn their rules and learn to check their opponent's plays too. But it also means that sometimes, we have game results that don't match the rules 100%.
How many turns of unwinding do you think are reasonable to expect for a mistake?
I believe that both players have a responsibility to get the rules right. If Tim's opponent allowed something to be played as a NOVA power, with nothing to base this on but Tim's word, I'd say he's at least somewhat complicit in creating an invalid game state, even though that invalid game-state worked to his disadvantage.
(As another side note, I had several different opponents tell me I was playing "Psychic Focus" wrong over the course of the tournament. Let me try and clarrify that statement. My initial belief was that a Chaos psyker got Chaos Focus, and not Psychic Focus. But an opponent told me I was doing it wrong to swap out a power to get summoning, when I had it for free. Okay... and then the next opponent told me the other way was wrong. People get things wrong. I played it however my opponent at the time thought it should be played, because I practiced in the way that was less advantageous to me, but I still really don't know what's correct.)
(Hit a character limit, continued)
Delete3) So someone told you that they thought someone on my team had loaded dice, and that the judges had inspected them, and let them keep using those dice, and you felt this was substantive enough to post to the internet? If someone is suspected of using cheat dice, and the judge checks those dice and lets it go, either you're saying that it was the worst run event in the history of bad events, or you're conceding that the judge did their job and determined that the dice weren't loaded, in which case you're just spreading a bad rumour. I don't even know what else to say about this. Either you're saying that the judges were completely inept and/or corrupt, or you're spreading slander and hearsay. Neither are good, and I hope you'll consider recanting on this point.
4) You say no other team made this mistake, but I was told (and must admit that I have no evidence one way or the other) that at least one team ran a list with GK+INQ+SM and was not penalized, despite this also being explicitly banned.
"This isn't always fair, but there are rules, and people come with set expectations." - I agree with you. Oddly, though, one of those expectations is that if you submit a list a week in advance, that the judges have given their tacit approval when they accept it. I acknowledge that our team made this unintentional mistake, and I believe we were penalized appropriately, with both our team and the player with that list being knocked out of prize contention with the penalty applied. Where we disagree seems to be that you feel even further sanctions were required, and I believe that we, as a team, should have a reasonable expectation to play with a list that's submitted ahead of time and acknowledged. If the staff isn't going to check lists, why set the expectation that they will be by requiring them a week ahead of time?
Yeah, the 'best player' isn't calculated well at all. Strength of schedule, sportsmanship (was this used for ANYTHING?), wasn't taken into any sort of consideration.
DeleteI was 2 behind for best Necron (4 if tony didn't take a hit). But then again, I played the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place teams. Not sure what the winning team played, but his team was 22nd. I'm a bit butthurt about it, but I know I did well either way. There is a ton of calculations that would have happened and games changed had any sort of outcome taken place.
Tony took my best Necron, so I took his best General. If you're reading this Kopach *muhahaha*.
I don't disagree at all on the list thing as far as the event staff should have checked them, especially with a week's notice.. The event staff clearly did not check lists and it was highly inappropriate. I even had one team provide me a handwritten list. I don't agree though that just because they did not comment on the list submission, that is approval. That means the staff dropped the ball, it does not give someone the right to take benefit from it.
DeleteThe more I think about it, I will be penalizing the staff of the ATC by spreading far and wide several of these issues which came up as far as the lists etc go. As clearly many of the problems could have been avoided by proactive judging prior to the event start.
I would offer the same penalty to the GK + INQ + SM team. I hadn't heard about that.. but /sigh/ circling back to that staff should have checked the lists. No exceptions for anyone!
I'm not going to recant the dice thing. I was told this by a team of guys who I trust. If it was just once incident, I'd never even mention it, it's the fact I heard this dice thing, as well as several other incidents that combine to form a bad picture for me.
The post is not going to change. I appreciate your feedback, I'm glad you did choose to comment and provide your perspective, and obviously your comments will remain unfiltered as a response. The audience can decide.
It is up to the player who is playing the army, to be as knowledgeable as possible about the army he is playing. Blaming the other player for not questioning is not an excuse for behavior in the slightest.
Thank you for your comments, maybe in future events we can laugh about it and grab a beer.
Please read my response below. Thanks.
DeletePerhaps it is unwise to comment on a blog and disagree with the owner of said blog, but since you're making some wild claims about an entire team of people, I feel compelled to weigh in (as one of those people).
DeleteSo, I don't know who you are, or if you even use your real name here. I'm Alex K, I played Daemons on the Gypsy Curse team. I managed to score a whopping 80 points, so if I was cheating, I was doing it poorly. I did manage to get 4 Lords of Change on the table at one point though.
You've made four accusations.
#1 - I have no idea. I was playing my own game. If this happened, I can see how it may have been an honest mistake, because standard Interceptor fire is resolved at the end of the movement phase, when all movement is completed. If you're predisposed to believe someone is cheating, I'm sure you'll say as much.
#2 - this is absolutely untrue. Tim didn't have a nova printout, he had a xerox copy of my printout of ArbitorIan (from dakka)'s 7th ed cheatsheet. I've got it in front of me, and it 100% does not say Banishment is a nova power. I don't know where rumours like this come from.
#3 - Really? You really believe that someone brought loaded dice, the judge verified that they were loaded, and let them keep playing anyway? Three of us ended up with less than 100 points. That's not rally indicative of loaded dice, is it? I used Adepticon dice, because they all work as scatter dice, as I demonstrated to all my opponents.
#4 - You're right, Tony brought a list with Legion allies. I wouldn't go so far as to say this was "explicitly banned", as it's not mentioned at all on the Whatc.org site. It's not explicitly allowed, which we should have caught, but as you mention, we submitted the lists a week in advance and got a confirmation email. It's not hard to understand why someone brings an army after the judge confirms having received the lists. You say that he should have gotten a game loss for all those games? That seems harsh to me, I mean, we drove nine hours to play in an event and brought models for lists that had been submitted well in advance.
Did we even play you? You seem to have some sort of axe to grind with Tim?
P.S. I didn't even get a swag bag, so your secret weapon base sounds pretty good to me.
(Edited to remove last names so as not to stick in search engines of potential employers.)
From atc website.
ReplyDeleteAllies are allowed and must follow the below rules:
5. Inquisitorial Allies may be taken once on a Team as an allied force (regardless of the capacity) and once on a Team as a Parent Codex
Even some of the judges couldn't find this - not sure why. 'regardless of the capacity' means to me that no matter how many allies are on the team (0 or 1 in this case), you can still take Inquisition.
As for rewinding a game - it's a big deal when you lose 1/2 your army due to a 'oopsie'. As a GT player, we all try our best to know all the rules - but I've never met anyone who hasn't been wrong about a rule or two at some point in their life. Be in theory, just asking questions, to even shorting themselves an attack. That being said, it's not my job as your opponent to have your codex or ask you for it every single time you do something that isn't a basic function of the game. At that point, I become the jerk opponent who was always second guessing. The absolute onus of understanding a rule is on the player, not the opponent. There is a contract between opponents, one that is sometimes broken unfortunately. I make the ASSUMPTION that my opponent is playing correctly. Now, if my opponent told me there was a 24" NOVA power... logic dictates you double check that. Seriously, a 48" bubble?
The loaded dice issue needs to be dropped, as it's a rumor and probably just a disgruntled player started it.
I happen to agree with James on the issue that 'further sanctions' required. Was the list illegal? Yes. That is really the end of story. Accidents happen, I understand. But the list WAS illegal, no one is disputing that. You start to get in some ridiculous gray area of "how illegal is illegal, and at what point do we raise the level from a slap on a wrist, to tournament removal". I looked at it this way, if you're going to take 40 points from the team, that removed them from the running of anything anyway - just take the whole 30, send a message.
If you guys lost 30 or 120, it didn't change anything. Infact, it would just make the next 2 games easier. Tony then had an option, continue to take 0 for the next 2 games (which really have no bearing on the top teams), or change his list and play as normal. The buterfly effect has no bounds at this point, but I hope you get my point.
This also
DeleteJustin from James and Mark's team here. I'd also like to say that I had a great game versus Tony. I 100% believe that he took the LoTD allies as an honest mistake. I do not understand at all why the LoTD Dex was banned. I heard that Shane thinks it is "broken", but why someone would ban that book and allow Knights is beyond me. But I digress...
ReplyDeleteIt is completely unacceptable that the ATC didn't catch the mistake on Tony's list. However, I do think that something needed to be done about it. I hate to see a nice guy and amazing player get docked points, but it was an illegal list. The ATC's decision was fair enough, though I did object to the fact that by docking Tony 10 points per round, the teams that played Gypsy Curse were denied an opportunity to pick up 10 points. Funny enough, our team missed 5th by 10 points.
As for the Tim stuff--I don't know the guy personally. The Coteaz rule mistake and Banishment mistake does fall on both players. 40k is complicated. We all get stuff wrong. It is impossible to know intent. That being said, the classy move is to own up to it if you win a game by misplaying something major and make it right. Those mistakes are pretty huge. The ATC staff should have stepped in, but they seem very afraid to be the bad guy and make a definitive decision.
But the Force org for the event, also found on the ATC website (http://whatc.org/PDFs/ATCDetChart.jpg), doesn't allow for an inquisitor exception to get an additional ally. It's confusing to say the least. Tim's normal tournament list uses the additional inquisitor, but cut that out for this event specifically to fit within the rules, so to find out other teams were allowed to do that didn't seem right.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, it is a big deal. I have lost a GT when my opponent conveniently forgot that his guys disembarking from a turbo-boosted valkyrie had to take a terrain check on landing. One casualty in a squad of eight and I win the game and the event, but he forgot, and that last guy is the one who was placed close enough to contest the objective. Does that suck? Yes. Does it mean my opponent cheated... not necessarily. Does it mean I should have double-checked the rules at the time? Absolutely. But I didn't, and he got away with it, and didn't feel honour-bound to give me the game after I brought it up after scores were turned in. (in 5th ed, when there were no saves from that sort of thing too)
I don't really disagree with anything you're saying about onus of responsibility. But, it is important to remember that we're all human beings and we do make mistakes. If you simply assume that your opponent is infallible, then when they make a mistake, you suffer. I think that, if Tim's mistake was so eggregious as to cost someone a game, maybe his opponent should have taken the opportunity to ask in that situation.
As for your "send a message", what message do you think they're sending? That they accepted our list via email and will then essentially DQ us from the tournament? It seems to me that the message in that case is don't bother coming to our event, because we're not going to do the job we said we would (validate lists ahead of time) and will screw you over if you made a mistake. You're right, no one is disputing that the list was illegal. But I am disputing that we should have been in the situation at all. The judges had time to review the lists, tell us it was invalid before we left Chicago, and rectify the problem before any games were ever played, let alone scores needed to be affected. I don't think it's fair for a staff to "send a message" as a result of their own inattention to detail. I hope you can understand that we feel as cheated by the judges failure to correctly validate the lists as any of our opponents must feel in having to have played against that list.
I honestly don't think the lists were even looked at ahead of time. What was the point in collecting them an entire week before hand? I could have manually checked ~140 lists in my spare time by that point... not to mention if you just passed out 4-5 teams to different judges and had them verify.
ReplyDeleteJust a cluster of a situation, and hopefully it will only improve.
Please read my response below. Thanks.
DeleteHey guys, I will be replying to birdux directly in an email regarding his “critique”, but I want to state a couple things here.
ReplyDelete1 - We checked lists. We spent an entire day checking lists, most of them a jumbled mess. It was a crappy day of list checking. So if we could put that accusation against me to bed it would be appreciated.
2 - As to why it was missed, what I am about to say in no way is me putting blame on Tony, nor is it meant to be an excuse, it is honestly the only way that I can think of that it could have happened: Tony's list was submitted in a Word document that included another army list on the first 2- 3 pages, his list was only 1 page and all I can think of is that we reviewed the first list (which at the end of the last page of the first list was practically half a page of blankness) thought that was the end of it and moved on. I tried to not rush the players and give them an extra week to play and work on lists due to the 7e change and instead it made things very rushed on our side and we were unable to post them online. I understand that all of you put on large events and know how there is plenty of "spare time" in the days before to kick back and do nothing, no wait there isn't… we had two days of loading trucks, terrain and travel and an entire day of setup on top of Chris and myself both owning stores that had a Magic Pre-Release the same week of ATC. In hind sight I should have said "too bad guys, lists are due earlier" and worked to post them online. I will gladly and humbly take responsibility for the list miss but I will NOT take 100% ownership of it as A: That LOD was not allowed was the most posted thing on our Facebook page, B: at the time it was found, 25 other players had had direct access to it at the event to recognize that it was illegal. C: players have full access to our legal army list at all times MONTHS before the event.
3 - As far as Tony's rep goes. He is an upright guy, he is a tough player and he proved that in turns 5 and 6 after we made him play with an army that was at the very best, mediocre list and still scored 26 and 30. I have no doubt that it was a mistake. It was not intentional on his part.
4 - Someone above stated that we were afraid to do the right thing? As to that, I would point out that we have banned players from the ATC in previous years, we have had some hard discussions with players every year, we walk out onto the floor and stand face to face, eye to eye with players when addressing issues and we make a call that we feel is as fair as it can be to everyone involved. We spent 2.5 hours discussing all of the options and the affect those options would have on the overall event, and all of the teams directly affected by our decision as well as discussing it with every team captain involved. So I will strongly disagree with the statement that we are afraid to address things. Sorry but can't help but take that any other way than personal . Tim was told that it was wrong, our judges made sure that he did not do it again and his opponents should know their opponents armies. It is part of the game, especially in a competitive event. If he had "forgotten" and did it again, there would have been actions taken. If it had been brought to my attention before the second day, we may have been able to address it better. I can't fix what I don't know.
(CONTINUED BELOW)
I think that we can all appreciate that running a tournament is a thankless job that involves plenty of unforeseen issues and hard choices. I don't believe that James wanted to come off as hostile--it may just be an effect of miscommunication via the internet. I can also speak to the fact that despite some hiccups, everyone I talked to seemed to have a great time. This was my second ATC, and I enjoyed it both years.
DeleteThat being said, I wanted to elaborate on my "afraid to make a call" comment. In round two, my teammate Rob Tilly was matched up with a member of Gypsy Curse. Both played summoning Daemons. There was a controversy in that game stemming from the fact that they only made it through three turns, and despite a discussion at the top of turn three about calling it last turn, the Gypsy Curse member was noncommittal. This ended with a situation in which Rob was unsure whether or not to make "end game" moves, and it cost him points.
In this instance, I specifically got you to make a call. It is your event--you are the final word. What both teams got was "you have five more minutes, come to an agreement." To me, this is a cop-out and an attempt to avoid being the bad guy. I felt similarly on the decision about the illegal list. I understand the decision, but taking 10 points without granting them back to teams means that the opponents of Gypsy Curse were denied the opportunity to get the full 30 points (unless of course, they happened to win already). Now, Tony is a great player. It sucks that this situation even happened. However, the LoTD did matter in my game. They are Wave Serpent kryptonite, and Marine allies would have made that a much easier game.
All in all, I was a bit surprised that after a rather bold facebook post a few days before the event about slow-playing, cheating, and other tomfoolery, the ATC would be so light when it came down to it. Just my two cents. Again, I appreciate all that you have to do to run this event. Just wanted to elaborate.
It's all good. Like I said, we ran numbers. etc for 2 hours and giving points back to players in a situation where they may never have been scored was not what we felt was right to do. It was a damned if we do, damned if we don't (no pun intended)
DeleteI didn't make that call personally, but it is def one to go into the policy book for future use.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
ReplyDelete5 - DICE : In that particular instance, we watched the player for the next three rounds. He used the same dice, and his rolls never seemed crazy good again after that. Again, our staff did their job at the event. So let's put that to rest please.
6 - Inquisition Allies Rules and questions of their legality? Let's squash that right now too.
Inquisition can be used as either a primary detachment and therefore a prime army or it may be taken as a special kind of detachment called an Inquisitorial Detachment.
From Codex: Inquisition regarding Inquisition as allies:
“INCLUDING INQUISITORS IN YOUR ARMY"
When you choose an army, Inquisitors may be taken as a primary detachment or as a special form of allied detachment known as an Inquisitorial detachment.
If you take Inquisitors as a primary detachment, use the Inquisitorial detachment Force Organisation chart instead of the primary detachment Force Organisation chart.
Alternatively, an army may include an Inquisitorial detachment in addition to any other detachments. Other detachments, such as allied detachments, additional primary detachments and fortifications can be taken normally. So, for example, you could field an army with an Imperial Guard primary detachment, an allied detachment of Space Marines, and an Inquisitorial detachment”
7 - Our Finances and our costs - For everyone's information, we pocketed $1000 which will all be put back into the event for next year. Our objective marker guy failed us and I spent some of that "spare time" in the 2 days before scrounging through every Wal Mart, K-Mart and Target that I could to scrape together enough chips. It was not an issue of us being cheap and the implication of that is very unappreciated. BTW 600 Custom made markers costs us roughly $300, so if it was a couple of dump truck loads of dirt, it may be "dirt cheap"
Ill shut up now, and I apologize for the long rant, but I can't just sit back and not respond to and defend my staff, my event and my players. All I can do is make sure that there are triple checks in place and continue to move forward with what I hope will be one of the best events that anyone can attend. We take all of your input every year to heart and try to improve in every way possible. Thank you all!
-Shane
I have edited my above comments in order to be more civilized with birdux.
ReplyDeleteI do apologize for responding so aggressively.
Shane.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your feedback, comments, and informational inputs providing more context to the discussion. See my last email for edits please.
- James
I think the event was a lot of fun .... I remember hearing Tim's name before wasn't he a part of the team from Chicago that got DQ'ed from first place 2 years ago at the ATC? I don't really know the guys so I am sure a lot of what is said online is exaggerated but it does seem suspisious to hear allegations again with some of the same players.
ReplyDelete