Saturday, November 09, 2013

Blog Wars 6 - Tabling for Maximum VPs

Sorry for the delay with these posts. I've had a busy week getting the house ready for the in-laws coming this weekend so I'm just catching up.

So entering round two I was somewhat flustered by having to sort the scores out and going from 15 minutes ahead of schedule to 5-10 minutes behind. I was hoping that I'd be able to make the time back by playing my second game quickly allowing me to sort out the scores and hopefully get us back on schedule. That all went to pot when Dan Lane and Franco called me over to adjudicate on their game....

The Incident
Before I get into it I want to say that I'm going to attempt to write this as impartially as possible. I'm sure Franco will mention it on the 40KGlobal podcast so please read this and listen to that and form your own conclusions.

Anyway, they'd reached the end of their game and Franco had tabled Dan at the end of turn 4 (although it may have been turn 5 depending on who you asked). The rules pack stated that tabling your opponent did not automatically give you maximum points. Knowing that this is something that is somewhat controversial I reminded everyone before the event that this was the case. I'll go into more depth about why I decided to use this system later but suffice to say it'd been in the rules pack from the start which had also been sent out to everyone a couple of days before.

Well Franco had tabled Dan but wasn't controlling any of the objectives. Franco's argument was that he should be allowed to play his turns which would easily allow him to claim the objectives. Now I could understand Franco's frustration that he'd tabled his opponent but yet would actually be given a score of zero (although he would get 3 secondaries). I hadn't specifically said that people couldn't have their remaining turns but it's generally accepted that the game ends immediately when the last unit dies. In his mind though anything other than ruling that he could have his turns would be "ridiculous". If I ruled against him he would "leave now, and never come back". With both players (quite rightly) trying to argue their case and me struggling to think clearly I made a mistake. First, I tried to get both players to see it from the other's point of view. Dan could see that to table and score no points sounded daft but justified this by saying that the rules pack was quite clear. Franco refused to see it from Dan's point of view.

I was hoping there might be a middle ground so I assessed the situation on the table to see if, in the "remaining" turns Franco could get the objectives. Sure enough he'd got Farsight (scoring thanks to the BW rules) near the central objective, a landspeeder full of scouts near his objective and some kroot outflanking near Dan's objective. Essentially then I was rulling between a 25-0 defeat and a 0-0 draw. The kroot weren't guaranteed to make it to the objective so I thought I might've found a middle ground. The kroot would need to move 11" through cover to get to the objective. With Move Through Cover they moved 5" but they'd still need a 6 to run into range of the objective. Of course Franco rolled a 6 thus removing my option for middle ground. Having allowed him to do this though I'd essentially permitted him to have his turns and backed myself into a corner.

I wasn't happy with the decision but I needed to get back to my game. In the meantime I was chatting to various people who'd finished their games and had heard about the problem. Some of them had tabled their opponents but not claimed full VPs, as the tournament rules stated. Clearly then I'd need to decide whether I was changing the rules in the middle of the game or if I should go back to Franco and tell him I'd changed my mind.

I probably should've decided sooner rather than later but I wanted to get my game done as my opponent had already suffered enough delays. With the clock ticking down I got my game finished and there was now no choice but to make a ruling. Knowing that other people at the event had managed to play to the event pack I decided that I should enforce this in Franco & Dan's game too. This would therefore mean a 3-0 win to Franco (on secondaries). This wasn't good enough for him though and he stuck to his guns, packing up his models and leaving the event probably never to return.

I'm not thrilled that this happened as Blog Wars is supposed to be a friendly event that welcomes all comers. To have someone leave over a decision doesn't fit in with the Blog Wars philosophy of friendly competition. Whilst I still believe I made the right call in the end the problem was that I hadn't made it straight away. The rules in the event pack should be gospel. This means everyone is competing within the same parameters. To change them in the middle of the event is unfair.

Lessons Learned
I'm sure any 40K player who's been at it for a while knows that the rules aren't perfect. At a tournament you want the referee to make confident decisions that are based on a deep knowledge of the rules. The worst thing they can do is to go back on a call. That's the main thing to take away from this I think.

The other thing to think about is being totally explicit in the rules. If I intend to keep the rules regarding tabling then I need to specify that the game ends when the last unit is removed as a casualty. There are no further turns and if you haven't got the objectives then you don't score any points. Provided everyone is well aware that this is the situation then they can play their games accordingly.

Franco argued that "no other event since 2011" has used this system. At the time I was thinking that perhaps it was a good idea to follow suit to avoid situations like this being repeated. However, with more time to think about it I think it's something that should stay. It's important to realise why I want to keep the rule.

Why I want to keep the rule
The scoring system at Blog Wars doesn't have a binary win or loss result from each game. Instead, players are rewarded for winning convincingly and not penalised too heavily for a narrow loss. This may not be the way other tournaments do it but personally I think it works. Obviously there's the potential for someone to win all three games and not finish very high up (it's been Luke Fogg twice now - sorry Luke) but hopefully they've still enjoyed the day and their games will have been close.

That's the crux of it really. Winning doesn't actually matter that much at Blog Wars. Your ticket costs £15 and the most you can win is £25 for 1st place. Essentially then you're playing for a tenner when you take away your ticket cost. That's hardly stellar. Conversely the raffle offers a couple of hundred pounds worth of prizes which you're eligible for regardless of where you finish. Perhaps then Blog Wars shouldn't be viewed as a tournament but rather a social club. Yes there's a competition but, cheesy as it sounds, it's more about playing different people and having fun.

That's why I started going to tournaments in the first place, to play different people. If I win my games great if not who cares. Obviously I bitch and moan about it with the best of them but hopefully my opponents don't think of me as a power gamer.

So anyway, if you aren't awarding full points for tablings then you're encouraging people to play their games differently. In fact you're encouraging them to build their lists differently too. There's no doubt that the current meta encourages people to take cheap scoring units like kroot, cultists, etc so you can afford to pump more points into units that will devastate your opponent. Look at the top lists right now and with the exception of lists where the power comes from the troops section (e.g. wave serpent spam) the lists have barely any points in troops so they can afford the deathstars.

If you don't get maximum points from tabling you can't build your list that way. Your opponent may look at your list and think "I can't hope to beat that" but when they see your scoring is some kroot they'll be thinking they can easily take away your opportunity to score too many points. At Blog Wars the number of points you give away is almost as important as the number you score.

The Blog Wars system isn't the same as the major competitive events and it never has been. For starters there's the compulsory special character rule which came at a time when a lot of the major events were banning special characters. I don't post the results on Rankings HQ which I've been asked to do in the past.

The point is that I don't want Blog Wars to be like other events. I don't get a huge number of players attending but I don't want that either. I'm not trying to make money, I'm not trying to compete with the big GTs. What I want is for people to come to the event, no matter how experienced they are, and enjoy the day. The rule will be staying because Blog Wars is different by design. Perhaps I'll spell it out more clearly next time though.


  1. A difficult position you were in but ultimately your tournament your rules. I guess it's hard rationalise when you feel like you've won because you've killed everyone but you have to play to the mission and the rules. I see it as a tactical game, if your tactic is to just go round killing everyone you're missing out on all those opportunities to grab, contest objectives that actually add most of the drama. Still, we all have different approaches.

    I have to say the three people I played were all 'gentlemen players', they obviously all wanted to win but not at the expense of having a good game. I've since worked on my battle reports and I've looked up a number of 'rules debates' I had on the day which may have swung my way but, you know what? It doesn't bother me, I just put it down to an 'anomaly of the warp'. I'm not sure if it would have changed my situation if I'd won more convincingly because of it but I'd rather have had the fun of playing the guys like I did with no problems whatsoever.

  2. WELL DONE on having the balls to realise you made a mistake and act on it accordingly i think the rule on tabling should be used universally, it focus's on tactics as opposed to just blast someone to death to win, war is about being in the best position to exploit your enemy not just to kill them, great post by the way and will be defiantly attending the next one
    El Reevo

    1. Indeed, the main rules clearly state if your opponent has nothing left on the board the game is over. If you've spent all your time intent on decimating your opponent and ignored the objectives that are the aim of the game then tactically you made the wrong choice.

      It's only the same as forgetting to be next to an objective on turn 5, oh sorry I didn't want to be 12" away I was focussing on something else - more fool you. Equally when a time limit is in place you have to play to that time, not if I had another 30 minutes I could move everything round the board so it's exactly where I want it to be.

      I have to say I've only tabled one person in a tournament and that got me all 6 objectives even though I was nowhere near them. It felt very odd but whatever the rules or missions are then that's what you should play for or else you may as well have three missions of Purge the Alien.

    2. i think the issue is that the rules state "you automatically win if.." not draw. but to be fair the hissy fit is still unbecomming by the player.

    3. Well he would've "won" (3 secondaries to nil) but in the context of Blog Wars that doesn't mean much. GW don't play automatic maximum VPs for tabling at their events but I realise they're hardly the benchmark for tournament organisation.

  3. Man, that guy was such a baby! I would've helped him pack up his models!

    I can along to the first Blog Wars and had a great time because of the way it was organised and the overall ethos of the event. Sadly I've yet to make it back since, but it's on my list!

    Stick to your guns Alex, you run a great Tourney and it should stay that way

  4. The reason I made the trip from germany to BW5 was that I wanted a great time playing friendly games in a tournament. There are of course tournament here in Germany too, but a lot of them tend to be rather competetive. And that's not what I'm looking for in W40k. I want to have fun playing a game, no matter what the outcome may be.
    Also as Dave Weston mentioned in his comments, you always have to play to the mission, if you want to get maximum points. You should always keep that in mind. Though going on a killing spree can be quite distracting at times.
    In a way I can understand, that Franco was ... unhappy. But I'm confident, that this issue is nothing, that can't be settled with over a beer or two. ;-)

    Alex please keep BW as it is! It is a great event to have fun at. And if my companies boss stays true to his words and grants me some days off, I'll be back for BW7!


  5. As a review coming from a BW newbie, I am happy to say that this has been one of the most tournaments I have been to.

    This is down slightly to the venue, but mostly to the attitude of the players. So many times I have been to a tournament where this is always at least one person ruins your day for various reasons but i did not experience that in stockport.

    Thanks to last weekend, I am eager to come to the enxt one, as well as thinking of starting my own blog thanks to feeling slightly left out with all of the representative blogs.I just hope that the fun attitude remains and I will happily come again and again :)

  6. Hey Alex! I think the main thing is that you called it right in the end. Tbh over my three blog wars I've only actually lost one game so far, (6w 2d)but I've never placed high- this was my highest placing! In some respects, I need to play the missions better! W/d/l would break the atmosphere of the tourney I think, and I'd probably4 end up doing worse anyway!

    I think things should stay the same even thou I can't come to bw7 (stupid friends wedding) but I am looking forwards to 8 being played in the same style! Making you take the objectives encourages more than just two small units of scouts in a 1850 point list. I understand Franco's point, but look to the rules pack for the final say, and it disagrees with his opinion. Play (& spend months practicing) by the rules pack!


    1. This makes me feel really special as that one loss came at the hands of my monkey thunder :D

  7. I've got to say, I've always thought it says in the book that as soon as your opponent has no models on the table, it's game over, in fact I think there's also an FAQ to that effect and how it even counts if it's because things are in ongoing reserve.
    Just because other tournament's Franco's been to do it differently, unless your pack states it explicitly, then he should play as per the rulebook.

    You've recognised you could have handled it better, but with the time pressure you're under, these things happen. Quite frankly, if he's going to throw all his toys out of the pram (or literally into his case in this instance) then that says more than enough about his attitude to gaming.

    Good on you for deciding ultimately to choose what you felt was how you wanted YOUR tournament to be.

  8. ...If it's any help at all, I really dislike competitive play, and I'd still like the chance to play at blogwars...!

    Keep up the good work, eh?!

  9. All I have to say is I have really enjoyed every event so far, and will be booking my ticket for BW7 as soon as I can. Chris and I don't play much 40k but both of us love coming to Blog Wars as its a very forgiving and friendly atmosphere - you run it really well and I've never had any problems with my opponents or the rules of any of the games. To be honest, what makes Blog Wars different is the 'club night' feel and that's what keeps me coming back - don't be disheartened and keep up the great work!

  10. Honestly, it was the right call to make. If he didn't like it, he can lump it.

    It said quite clearly in the rules pack, tabling does not give max points, and its quite common knowledge that No units on the board = game over.

    If he didn't read the rulespack, that's his problem and nobody elses...

    This was my first blogwars, and out of the... 12 or so Tournaments I've been to, this one is by far the best.

    A Damn good event and you can sign me up for BW7 where my Nidzilla shall reign SUPREME*!!!!

    *Unless they've been nerfed, in which case bottom table hoooooooo!

  11. If nothing else the tabling is not an auto-win rule adds an interesting tactic. If your opponent is fielding a list designed to obliterate you and it's working you can always attempt to 'suicide' your force before he can claim the objectives. Although perhaps not 'realistic' (in a game of plastic toy space knights!) it could cetainly add tension to an otherwise one-sided game and could allow a more tactically flexible fluff-based list to prosper.

    As to the issue, you made the right call in the end, perhaps the call should have been made sooner but don't beat yourself up. As you've always said in the BW pack you want to play not judge so you (and your opponent's game) should have been your priority.

  12. Couple of things worth mentioning dude.

    It was after you made your call to allow me my remaining turns and after I made my moves to win the game that I told you you had done the right thing and if you hadn't called it that way I would have just went home. I didn't say it before hand because I didn't want to emotionally blackmail you into making a decision, I just wanted you to make a fair one. When you then went back on your original call I stuck to my guns and left because, to me, getting a draw out of tabling your opponent is kind of silly and I don't attend silly tournaments. Also, if I had been awarded a draw I would have ended up on the mid tables, and only have tabled someone else, rather than ending up on the top table and getting a good game at the end of the tournament. I turned up for some good games but unfortunately I tabled my first and second opponents pretty quickly, I wasn't up for repeating that in game 3 basically.

    I actually tabled the guy in 3 turns, not 4, or even 5 as he was claiming. If you remember, my kroot were on a table edge because they had just come on, and I had some more kroot in reserve. They were just on a table edge because in turn 2 I got no reserves at all, and then on turn 3 I got those guys. So the reason I made no real move for the objectives (although I was moving towards them or hovering around the area) was because I hadn't really had much of a chance. Dan (I think that was his name?) was saying it was turn 5 because he was pretty much saying anything he could to get his draw out of being tabled. He also said that's what he played for, and the only reason he even got tabled was because he lost a round of assault with his dire avengers against my scouts, failed the Ld test, and got run down. So let's go over "what he played for" and how he played to achieve it.

    In order to get tabled in the assault phase of my turn 3 (because it wouldn't have worked at any other point) he: charged 5 scouts with as many dire avengers + exarch so that he would lose assault in my turn, fail a Ld9 test, and get run down by something with lower initiative. He did this knowing that I was just about to jump over and shoot up his 20 man guardian squad + phoenix lord and kill the whole squad in one turn. It's a bit of a stretch to set up so much. But what's really strange is that, assuming he was trying to get tabled in my turn before I had a chance to jump on any objectives, why did he cast protect on his guardians? How does a +1 to armour saves make getting tabled happen? Funny that...

    But he pleaded his case, we both did, you saw how ridiculous it was that a guy who had just been tabled could get a draw out of it, and ruled in my favour. He then went on to bitch and moan about it while you tried to get on with your own game and after enough bitching and moaning and pleading of disbelief at how he could possibly get a loss out of being tabled in 3 turns you swung around again. And not wanting another steam roller game and thinking it was a bit of a ridiculous call, made all the more ridiculous because you were now going back on your original decision, I went home and got to spend the evening with my girl instead.

    1. Firstly, I don't want this to descend into a petty slanging match so I'll be moderating any comments that I feel are heading that way but I've let Franco's comments be published as he has a right to reply.

      @Franco I wasn't intentionally trying to say you'd guilt tripped me, I just got things out of sequence. You DID say that though which seemed a little unnecessary at the time, especially when at that point I'd just ruled in your favour. It came across as though you felt your presence was a gift, you may not have intended it that way but that's how it sounded. My original decision to let you play on was, in actual fact, the unfair decision. It may not have felt fair to table your opponent and only score 3/28 points but to rule in your favour was actually unfair to everyone who was playing by the rules pack. I was trying to find a solution to keep you both happy but I should've realised that wasn't going to happen.

      As I said to you on the day, fair play for sticking to your guns and leaving as you said you'd do. However, I find it a little arrogant of you to say you'd have just tabled your next opponent, mind you, given you'd brought easily the most powerful list it would hardly have been suprising. It's a shame you didn't take the opportunity to bring something fun and enjoy the day. Is it honestly fun to win so comfortably? Obviously gimping yourself intentionally isn't fun but hopefully you see my point?!?

      Regardless of how "silly" you think my tournament is, the rules were made clear. I personally think the scoring system at the GW doubles is stupid but, whilst I may complain about it, it doesn't stop me from attending. I go for the atmosphere mainly but play to the rules regardless of my opinion of them. Does it annoy me that I've won all my games but placed below someone who didn't? Of course it does but then I think, "it's just a tournament", go home, bitch on this blog and then get over it.

      Anyway, back to your comments, whether you tabled him in 3, 4 or 5 turns is pretty irrelevant to the discussion. Perhaps it would've been cocky to be playing for the objectives on turn 3 knowing you'd table him but you must've expected it given how the first couple of turns had gone and knowing your list was just about the only hardcore competitive list there?!? Whether he played for the draw or not is irrelevant too. It had no bearing on my decision. The nail in the coffin was when other people asked if they too would get full points. If I wasn't going to change the system then I needed to do it at the start and not half way through a round. Dan may not have played for a draw but it was feasible that other's had and I wasn't about to take a poll to find out.

    2. Perhaps Dan was trying to say anything to get a draw out of a tabling but essentially that's what you were doing too just in reverse. Whether he played for it or not doesn't matter. The rules (whether realistic/fair/whatever) were made clear. In theory it is ridiculous for someone to table their opponent and gain a draw but if you played Relic and tabled your opponent at a more normal event you might've only won by 1 VP (less than you actually won your game by). Equally ridiculous I'd say. How often do you play Emperor's Will and have it finish in a draw even though your opponent has a single unit or event model left? Surely any experienced player knows that 40K is full of nonsense results like that. What I hate more is playing the mission and scoring maximum VPs and getting say 10pts for the win in the same way as someone who won by a single VP. That's why I want to keep the scoring system like it is.

      In his defence, Dan didn't actually bitch and moan much about it after I'd made my original call. He was resigned to the result and was actually encouraging me to get on with my own game rather than dwell on it. He did, however, say that I should let everyone know the decision so that they'd score their games correctly. He's not totally innocent in this but I wanted to make it clear that wasn't what was happening. I changed it because it was the right thing to do.

      TL:DR version: I may be biased but I like what I've created with Blog Wars. It'd be nothing without the guys who support as they're the ones who actually create the atmosphere it but I actually WANT it to be different to other events not just go along with the accepted "fair" system. I put a lot of work into making Blog Wars as enjoyable as possible for everyone involved and I was genuinely saddened that someone had felt the need to leave over a decision I'd made.

  13. OK, now time for my serious response to this. I can understand both sides of this. However, no matter what the circumstances I find myself agreeing with Alex's final decision. It had been made clear in the Rules Pack that tabling would not give Maximum VP and ultimately that was Franco's mistake. I like Blog Wars as an event- a non-competitive tournament. It encourages diversity and unique armies. The inclusion of a character is fantastic and I think the general lay out works brilliantly as it is. I had an absolutely brilliant time but I will say that I am glad my second game changed from playing Franco (lucky break for me I guess) as he is not the kind of person I would have enjoyed playing and I have to admit that while I have no doubt he is a very keen and competent player, I do not feel that his gaming style is not necessarily conducive to the Blog Wars Atmosphere.

    To quote; "And not wanting another steam roller game"- does anybody else feel this sentence may be slightly arrogant?

    Just my Two Pence.

  14. I think you made the right decision in the end. Franco should have read the rules pack.

    However, do you think you made the right choice in playing in your own tournament ? Had you not have been playing, you could have given this your full attention. I think it’s also slightly embarrassing when you end up winning your own event.

  15. I see your point. It was indeed embarassing to win but I did so fairly. I didn't cheat, didn't use any TO advantage at all and if anything had more time pressure than anyone else. I was mostly just lucky with my matchups which again I did fairly.

    I've played in 5/6 of the events and I've never won (I did come 2nd once). Obviously if I'm playing then there's always a chance it can happen. I can't win any of the other prizes though as I'm not in the raffle, don't enter the painting comp (or vote) and can't win the spot prizes. That means the most I can win is effectively a tenner.

    I considered rolling down the prizes but didn't because my third round opponent wouldn't let me (he said it wasn't fair) and if anything I'd handicapped myself enough by trying to concentrate on playing games and running the event.

    I probably would've made the same mistake in ruling on Franco and Dan's game whether I'd been playing or not. My big regret is not giving my 2nd round opponent my full attention. I have to say though that this is the first and hopefully last time that something like this has happened where a quick ruling isn't sufficient.

    In future I'll probably just act as a stand in if there's an odd number but having not played at BW4 I know how long it makes the day if you're watching for 7.5 hours.

    I really can't see me winning it again mind you.

    1. Keep playing Alex! We read your blog, hear about your list and kinda want to play you / take you down! Nobody is going to begrudge you the tenner for running 6 events (£1.66 per event!). We know from the rules you're taking part and get to see your list before submitting ours. The day we don't want you to play we'll all take an army thats 50% AP3 and 5)% AP4 ignores cover. Bye Bye Tau!

  16. I have to say that in Sweden we follow the similar rule that tabling does not constitute a walk over. But at the same time we allow the player the remaining turns to move and consolidate objectives so as they are not unfairly penalised for outplaying their opponent.

    Not getting involved of if it is right or wrong, just saying I get where the idea of not giving the walk over comes from but think it is a little harsh to say the game ends there and then thus denying objectives.

    Should be a balance IMO

    1. The problem with is that the rules state "if at the end of any game turn one player has no models left his opponent wins" (or words to that effect). Fair enough you could play until the end of that turn (and do any runs/assault phas moves) but the idea of having turns where your opponet is just a spectator doesn't sit right with me.

      Ultrimately if everyone understands that the game will end immediately and they'll only get the objectives if they're on them then there shouldn't be any problems. I need to make it clearer in the rules pack. You have to play the mission. Obviously some armies are designed just to wipe out opposing forces but then they aren't playing the mission.

  17. I also agree that a tabling should not be max vps, however allowing a player to finish his turns seems the fairest way.

    I think the biggest problem seems to be making a ruling and then changing your mind about it. I think in a lot of situations this makes something worse.

    1. There's no doubt that me changing my mind was the biggest problem. That's my main (if not only) regret about the whole thing. I should've stood by the rules pack. It's taught me I need to be explicit in the rules and enforce them to the letter. If people think they're unfair then they have the opportunity to question them before the event or suggest improvements afterwards.

  18. It is the kind of situation you don't want to be in as TO but like it or not you have to play by the rule pack and if the players have neglected to read it that is their own fault. This should come as no surprise as at least half the entrants to most events do not read the packs properly

    Your error was to rule against the rule pack in the first place. As mentioned before you can not change the rules of the event halfway through because other players would not have played on an equal playing field. The right thing to do, was what you did, however unsavory or ridiculous it my have felt to some people.

    I understand and sympathise for Franco but if I were the TO in that event I would reluctantly have to rule it along the rules as written in the rule pack. To rule it otherwise would have put the results and pairings from the previous round out of kilter among the rest of the field.

  19. I heard this on 40k global and read the thread. Regardless of the rule pack, as TO you made an in-game call and then reversed this after the game. Right or wrong, you can't go back on in-game rulings.

    I did think it was then a bit rich to criticise Franco for taking a competitive list after winning the tournament yourself with a dual riptide Tau list with a buff commander etc. I'm sure the opponents you beat all thought your list was so much fluffier than Franco's ...

    1. Just listening to the podcast whilst I'm blogging. I've said several times now that I made a mistake. You're totally right I shouldn't have gone back on the decision. It was definitely the wrong decision though given the rules pack stated the situation clearly. I'm human at the end of the day though and I've learnt from the error.

      Whilst I can't deny that dual riptides isn't exactly friendly it's far from a top end tournament list. There's no broadsides, no Farsight, no allied Eldar, no FE units. Oh and it isn't a buff commander at all but rather Shadowsun with a couple of bodyguard. Of course it's a strong list but at a competitive event I'd be surprised to be on the top tables. I misjudged the strength of everyone else's lists, it's actually difficult to get right.

      Having said that I've also already stated that I realised my list was too strong and that was a mistake too. I didn't expect to win but there was certainly some luck in the matchups I got. I'd have struggled against some of the lists there. I don't think Franco could've said the same.

      If you're really going to talk about fluff I don't see any issue with my list whereas Franco's has Shadowsun and Farsight and in case that didn't break the fluff enough he throws in the Tigurius the chief librarian of the Ultramarines. Let's not forget I've been playing Tau a long time too. My list may not be friendly but I don't see any issues with fluff. Let's not get the two confused. There's a difference between taking some strong units and taking what some would called "broken" combinations.

      Anyway, the point is, I made a mistake with the ruling and I've made the rules pack for BW7 clearer as a result. I also won't be playing at BW7 unless I'm needed to make up the numbers in which case I'll be using something very "fluffy" indeed.

  20. Having read the reports and listened to the podcast I have a few comments to make on this. Please bear in mind I was not there at the time and do not know either party involved and tend to be a for fun rather than tourney player.

    I have to mostly agree with Franco on this issue, getting a 0-0 draw for a tabling is not the right call.
    The rules pack says you will not get max VPs but it does not say it will be a draw. The 40k rule book states that if a player is wiped out or has no models on the table then the opponent automatically wins (it states in the wiped out part it is a crushing victory). I cannot think of any instance where 0-0 is a crushing victory. Neither is getting 3 out of a possible 28. Maybe saying you get 80% of the points or something but make it clear.

    Another issue is the flip-flopping on the rules call. As a TO you have to make a call and stick to it, regardless, anything else leads to confusion and ill will. Even if you turned around straightaway and said "oi no, this is what the rules pack says" and stick to your guns and everyone will be happier and help you and your event save reputation.

    A further little issue I have is with a TO playing in their own event and then winning it. Even if it was done 100% above board and honest it still raises eyebrows. May be a comment in your rules pack that if a TO does play for any reason then they cannot finish any higher than 4th regardless. It just keeps things neater although I would go so far as saying does not count for a place at all.

    Also complaining about another competitors list and if it was a tough list or not is a bit of a cheap shot, he brought what he wanted to play to a basically zero comp event and at the end of the day you have event with prizes for the top players then it can and will be viewed by some people as a competitive event to go and win.

    And yes Franco's comments may have been cocky to the point of almost rude but he had already tabled 2 opponents so sticking him middle of the pack would probably lead to the same again. That as he said would not be fun for him or his opponent in what you state is supposed to be an event mostly about having fun.

    The iffy rules, TO flip-flopping, TO winning his own event and criticism of a participant means that even as a non-serious fun gamer I would be very wary of attending this event in the future or any other TO'd by the same person.

    1. Thanks for the comment. I seem to be repeating myself a lot on this but I agree the main mistake I made was going back on my call. It was actually the original incorrect call that would've caused the most confusion though. I should've said "sorry but that's the rules as written in the pack" and left it at that.

      Having listened to the podcast I should point out that Franco actually got a few things a little wrong. One of which being that he may not have scored any primary VPs but he would still have taken all three secondaries. That means he'd have still won his game, although by a minimal margin. He'd have then probably tabled his mid-table opposition and, based on the final scores, he'd have still come third. It's a little difficult to define a "crushing victory" though. Any tabling will be "crushing" to the victim but how does one quantify that in scoring?

      Whilst I can see your point about giving 80%, I've now made the rules pack clearer on the issue. I know people don't read rules packs but I have to say I always do for this exact reason. I'll be making it abundantly clear at the start of the event and in the objective based rounds. The rules for BW7 are already up and people have ample time to challenge them. I do my best to take on board all suggestions for improvements whether people are planning on coming or not.

      The issue of me winning my own event is, again as I've already said, an embarassment. The atmosphere at the event is a friendly one though and I hope there was no ill will. I never expected to win it and was prepared to give up my prize but the general consensus and paritcularly the view of my final opponent was against this.

      I've been thinking for a while about not competing as it would be fairer for both my opponents on the day and for the player group as a whole. As such, as I've stated in the BW7 pack, I'll only be standing in and trust me, the list I'll bring will not be winning the event.

      I've discussed at length that I understand that I can't prevent people from wanting to bring a strong list and win the event. I do try to encourage people to bring more interesting lists but I admit, with the benefit of hindsight, my list was a little more powerful than most that were there. I misjudged it but I hadn't seen anyone else's lists at the point so didn't expect it to be as good as it was.

      As it turned out there weren't (to my mind) any lists that could've hoped to compete with Franco's. He knows the level of the event having been a few times before. Giving him full points would've meant he'd have played the same guy I did in the final game and that list would've been tabled easily by him. Perhaps in the "two turns" he was aiming for on the podcast. That still wouldn't have been fun.

      I'd hardly call the rules iffy. I admit I hadn't foreseen that particular scenario but there was ample opportunity for people to clarify it with me if they weren't sure. I made the wrong call initially though and I'm sorry for that.

      Ultimately, Blog Wars is an ever evolving event. I'm not content to just play the same missions every time like some events and I'm constantly tweaking things to make the event run smoothly and give everyone a good day's gaming. I appreciate the reasons why you'd be wary of coming but I'd encourage you to give it a try and see for yourself before consigning Blog Wars to a list of events to avoid.

  21. Thanks for your response :)

    I have to admit, I wrote my comment, left it re-read it, thought about it then posted but still appears to have come out a bit stronger than I was intending!

    It is not one I would actively avoid just be a bit wary, I will not be in a place to attend many events, if any at all over the next year or so but being a one day event your is one i would consider and will be watching the next few with much interest.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...