As per Algesan:

"EDIT:  This is a rant to blow off steam.  Remember that when you read it.

For now at least.  I'm not touching the stuff until I see the FAQ and see how much I enjoy the screwing we are all going to receive.  Yes, most of it will be fair or at least something that can be worked around, but this is turning into a damned money and time pit. 

You know, I might just be a "scrub" and not worthy of competing on the top tables.  It might be a pure talent issue, but it definitely is a time issue.  I cannot go out and play multiple games of 40k most days of the week.  Which means the more I have to change my list and play style, the less capable of having any shot at the top tables I'll be.  Which means being biased towards the "scrub" tables anyway. 

I'm not in this for the money (although it would be nice), I'm not in this for the glory (yes, that is nice too), I'm in this to test myself.  I'm not in this to tie one or more limbs behind my back (or have them tied there for me by having to learn how to play a list on the fly because I cannot finalize the thing until two weeks or less before the tournament and maybe get two games with to playtest).  All of which means that I don't give a flip if "even the guys in the 0-4 bracket have something to compete for".  For most of the last 9-10 months, I've maintained fairly close to a 3-1 win/draw vs loss rate.  Which means if I go 0-4, 1-3 or maybe even 2-2, I'll probably be polite, but hope you draw my name if you are in those brackets at NOVA for the first two rounds of the second set, because I'll probably walk to the table, shake your hand, congratulate you on your win, fill out the paperwork with you and then go do something else. 

The problem is, I have put in a lot of my time, including time taken away from other things that might have needed it, to prepare for NOVA.  As much as others?  No, which is why I can figure I'm not going to go 8-0 and 6-2 would probably be great.  However, it was the time I could budget and I gave all I could to it.  Of course, as long as NOVA gets to brag about being the first 6th Ed GT (which nobody will care about in a few years anyway) rather than the last stand of 5th, then we should all sit around and sing Kum-By-Yah and give it our all for the cause, right?

Oh, there will be a pretty face put on it all no matter what, but I think if Mike thought last year's explosion was bad, then this year is going to be worse.  Especially since I've already gotten hints of NOVA FAQ rulings which are not going to be in line with what I think GW will rule.  True, I think most of the NOVA FAQ rulings will be spot on, but I've seen a couple of snap calls and use of flawed logic to make rulings that will make some builds a lot stronger.  Oh wait, the NOVA terrain meta last year did the same thing didn't it?"

I agree with parts of this post, so I thought I'd draw some attention to it.  The main thing that I wanted to note is the absolute importance of getting a FAQ released soon.  Algesan mentioned why this is important, as a great many of us are spending huge chunks of time and money to attend this event.  6th Edition was released only 3 weeks ago.  I understood the desire to be the first major 6th Edition tournament, but it has created a huge work-load for the Nova Open staff.  And time is running out very quickly.  There is only 35 days left until the event.  Some of us still need time to paint and play-test our armies.  ;)

However, I need to be fair to Mike and his staff.  Throughout the year, they have put thousands of hours into setting up the event, as well as tens of thousands of dollars in front-end financial costs.  No matter your feelings on the event, you have to appreciate the work that Tournament Organizers put in to put on such large-scale events.  No one is perfect, but they are doing their best to create the best event as possible for us.



07/22/2012 5:19pm

I am on a similar vein as you. As it stands right now myself and my brother both are giving Mike and team till the 28th of June for him to get his FAQs out so we as the players of the tourney have a solid 30 days to playtest and organize around the FAQs. Anything post that is unacceptable and will recieve an email request from Mr. Brandt requesting my prepayment back.

07/22/2012 6:50pm

Running giant tournaments at huge personal financial risk is a ton of fun, especially when you read the lovely things people say. We spent all day Saturday working the FAQ, all day today on terrain. They'll be out before Mr. Kevin's deadline, fortunately. I really need a vacation.

07/22/2012 8:20pm

Email incoming!

"I really need a vacation."

If it makes you feel any better, the only vacation I get all year is Nova Open. The rest of my time is spent working and dealing with IRL obligations. :(

07/22/2012 10:22pm

Ahhh, I realized after I posted this that I probably should have reinforced that it was a pure rant post. It got frustration off my chest. Just after I got back in tonight (after doing some more testing) I actually put the edit in to not take it too seriously, then came here to find it.

I know Mike and company are busting their arses to get stuff up and running for the best possible tournament we can have. In fact, kudos for the idea of the rules discussion forum to help find a lot of the bombs in the rules prior to the FAQ and the tournament.

You can look at it this way Mike. Love me or hate me, when I get back, I'll stick you for what I think you screwed up, congratulate you on what I think you did right and give you a waiver on what couldn't be helped. Oh, and it won't matter how I do either.

One thing I'll tell you now, I'm already through 25-50% of my disposable budget for NOVA. You know, the stuff I was going to have to spend at vendors. I have no clue if you get a piece of that or not, but it is just less I have to spend. I will tell you that if I do end up frustrated enough to show up at the table, shake my opponent's hand, fill out the paperwork and walk off...let it go. First, you don't have time to deal with that kind of crap from one irate customer. Second, I'll be too pissed for you to want to deal with and trying to will just piss me off more.

In the meantime I'll just have to try to scrape up any kind of extra practice time I can and pray that I don't end up having to do a rebuild yet again on my list.

07/23/2012 7:31am

It sounds like the two of you should volunteer to help mike with the FAQ! NOVA is like a gamer charity. If NOVA were linux, then Mike would be Linus. Say three 'holy novas' and Mike will probably forgive you. ;)

07/23/2012 8:49am

Well, he did ask us, that is what the NOVA forum is for....

Mike is actually playing this smart and straight, even if I think he may be making bonehead calls. He listens to his playerbase and responds to their concerns. I'm just waiting on the FAQ because trying to figure out which way the rules will jump is getting insane.

Lots and lots of truly stupid rules interpretations on the Internet, but they get taken seriously because they "sound good" or "they make a good case". It hurts that we haven't had several years of fixing last edition hangover, but it also doesn't help that I can see some of these becoming enshrined as "RAW" despite being actual misinterpretations of the rules as written. Biggest problem now? The NOVA FAQ coming out soon will do a lot to enshrine consensus (mis)interpretations of RAW. I'm aware that the NOVA FAQ will probably be including at least a couple and from preliminary comments, perhaps several more.

Huge example, 5th's "No Retreat" rules. From the context, it can be read that each Fearless unit on the losing side takes wounds equal to the full amount the combat was lost by. It can also equally be read from the context that the full amount of wounds the combat was lost by is divided up among the Fearless units. So, instead of two units taking four wounds each, they take four wounds together.

I'm not going to get into the whys and debate that again, but the justification for the primary from the rulebook is logically shaky, but it does "sound good". The key point comes from a game design perspective, namely that you do not build rules that are intentionally set up to be exploited. Which is exactly what the consensus interpretation did, it set up the potential for exploitation vs certain lists.

So, when I could, I exploited it. Little hard to set up elegantly, but doable. Look at it this way, at the most extreme example, I had two MCs locked up with two model squad remnants (one on MC, other on "patsy") which meant they could only kill two models at most (I actually only lost three) and ended up winning combat by seven wounds. Seven!

Let's see....Marines at S4, MC at T6...6s to wound means I would have needed to roll 42 hits. 4+ to hit would have meant 84 attacks. So, that is the equivalent of an extra 28 Marines armed with BP/CCW on the charge or 42 with Bolters on the charge. Against _each MC_. For free, thank you so much for allowing me to do the equivalent of tripling my entire force of models for one turn.

Yes, we all played it that way, despite the fact that quite a few players I chatted with about it knew that it was a misinterpretation. After all, everyone had to play with it and it usually wasn't that bad in most games. So, shrug, move on and if you happened to play that kind of list that could be exploited, just figure it as being a tax for GW not specifying the correct reading from the context.

07/23/2012 9:09am

Abject/B&W statements that one side of an argument built around poorly written rules is simply boneheaded is the quickest way to unhinge one's argumentative relevance.

The reality of the situation the NOVA is in, is that we will have to make calls that people will not agree with. Some may turn out to be wrong when GW release their own FAQ docs; some may turn out to be things we change, upon the fullness of time and thought; some may be 100% right, but people will still call them boneheaded and say their position is "obviously" the correct one.

Pre-empting ethereal and unnamed rules disputes with the statement that we'll invariably make boneheaded calls is a little disingenuous in the sense of trying to make legitimate input and change. Whereas, contrarily, your inputs in places like the rules forum for NOVA have generally been useful and constructive - some I find merit with, others not, but all are well thought out.

Arbitrarily and preemptively stating that dissenting opinions are boneheaded does not align with a "normal" approach you take of reasonable (if acerbic) posting.

07/24/2012 10:35am

When it comes to the ruling(s) of a TO, be it in a FAQ or table side, players can only agree or disagree. Judging right-ness or wrong-ness is not an option because it is *impossible* for TOs to be wrong about rulings. TOs have the power over the rules, not GW, even when it comes to FAQs.

Some people no doubt believe that since GW releases the rules they have final say, but that's not really how things work. As long as events are organized independently of GW, TOs will maintain all the power over the rules. This power is extensive. If, in a years time, a TO wanted to run a 5E tournament, there is nothing stopping him. If a TO disallowed a specific codex, there is nothing stopping him. If a TO ruled contrary to a GW FAQ ruling, there is nothing stopping him. And players would have to follow the TOs rulings if they wished to compete in the event.

The counter-weight to a TOs power is community demand, and the 40k community prefers GW rulings for at least two reasons. First, FAQs are a window into design intent. GW designed the system, therefore, in theory, their rulings are more likely to be in line with the overall game design. Second, consistency. A GW ruling allows for consistency throughout various events. Even TOs prefer GW rulings because they're more convenient... all they require is an index finger and 'there's your ruling.'

TOs have all the power, but they need to draw the community to their event so they have to listen to community demand. What does that mean for this discussion? Mike and the NOVA staff, FAQ the game however you want to FAQ the game. You might piss some players off and lose some attendance. But, if the process by which you create your FAQ is through and open, stick to your guns. Remember, it's impossible for you to be wrong. In the long run you'll add worthwhile players to your event (who agree with your FAQ process but not necessarily with every ruling) because they understand how tournament work. And the players you lost... you'll never miss them.

07/24/2012 10:06pm

Well said BigDunc.

We want the Nova crew to put out their rulings ASAP and for them to be as right as posible. Not asking much really, just be completely infallible and have it done yesterday.

Ya'll are acting like this is a starcraft tournament with $100k on the line. Just chill and have some fun at one of the biggest days of 40k in the year. Hell at least you get to go some of us just get to read about it.

07/24/2012 10:15pm

It matters when you're spending 1/6th of your yearly income to make a 4 day trip. ;)

I sent out an email to Mike, so hopefully he understands my position a little bit better, but he hasn't I don't really know. In any case, I respect what they are doing quite a bit. Takes a helluva long time to do what they are doing and lots of work. If I could volunteer, I would. But being halfway across the country, that isn't really possible. :(

In the end, I'll be there. My hope is that I'll have a painted army by then so that I can play in the GT. If not, then...I'll enjoy my chilled beverages from the sidelines. :)

07/25/2012 8:39am

If your email was anything like mine, even if he gets it, it won't be something he needs to respond to.

BTW, I did notice when reading the painting rules that you could actually base coat (not just prime) and then slap a couple more colors on them, not bother with "beautifying" the base and even not bothering with a display board. Then show up at the paint judging table, give them your name and tell them to give you a zero. Maybe the guys at the next table would notice, but I doubt it.

It's a comment I made back in June about this issue and one I'll stick to. I'm going to make an honest effort, so there better not be _any_ official NOVA complaints if I (or anyone else in my hearing) field any models with base coat and two colored stripes. I'm fairly sure MVB is going to instruct his people to look the other way as long as minis aren't obviously just primer coated or even totally unpainted.

I'd rather deal with bad rules rulings that chicken excrement about paint jobs.

My question is WHY is a textured black base NOT an option unless I add something textured and black to the textured black base the mini comes with? Just to show that a player made the effort? I mean, it really isn't that big a deal, I think I can even enlist my seven year old to apply a little Elmer's and sprinkle colored sand on the bases, but....

07/26/2012 5:18pm

Well if it's turning into a money pit at least dont rush the models or paint them thickly so it's a un recoverable.

Below is not a proven method, but it may help at least make a fast job leverage up to a good job later.

1. Attach legs to base, then super glue on top of base and dip in sand. Get arms, heads, torsos.
2. Spray that chaos black.
3. Paint The boltguns seperately metal in one go (easy and fast)
4. Then either airbrush or use skull white spray on the white parts and shoulder pads (use tape if you need to seal off black areas)

That'll save alot of time on those consuming parts, and you can add in highlights later.


Leave a Reply