Burning of Invites? Was that what the DQs were about?

28 minutes ago, colki said:

Burning of Invites? Was that what the DQs were about?

Nah. They’re talking about people who already have a worlds invite winning a spot, and then it not being passed down.

1 hour ago, TalkPolite said:

Nah. They’re talking about people who already have a worlds invite winning a spot, and then it not being passed down.

Ah! Thanks for the clarification LJ. Sounds a *lot* better than someone burning another person's Invite cardboard!

The biggest things for me hype wise: Clone army and the heavy upgrade packs.

I like having more ways to fine tune my existing minis over buying less thematic, less well known units.

The not handing down invites is a strange choice imo. It unfairly villifies people who have the resources to hit multiple high tier events and do well and locks all the pass-down invites behind an event that might be cost prohibitive for some (LCQ) that already went to Gencon or something similar.

It baffles me why the invite wouldn't be handed down. It's not like FFG is keeping a close record of who wins every RPQ. When I got mine, the store hosting the event didn't even bother to write my name on the card.

I will say, when you guys brought up people getting DQ'ed, I thought you were going to talk about the incident down at a Texas RPQ involving a well known player and an illegal list. Would love to hear what went down "officially" because what I've heard through the rumor mill isn't favorable to the player in question.

14 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

It baffles me why the invite wouldn't be handed down. It's not like FFG is keeping a close record of who wins every RPQ. When I got mine, the store hosting the event didn't even bother to write my name on the card.

I will say, when you guys brought up people getting DQ'ed, I thought you were going to talk about the incident down at a Texas RPQ involving a well known player and an illegal list. Would love to hear what went down "officially" because what I've heard through the rumor mill isn't favorable to the player in question.

Huh. FFG is keeping a list, and the store should have done better than what they did. Sorry about that.

Also it was my understanding that the player recognized a problem and forfeited. He was very open when asked about it, and it seemed to be handled well.

14 hours ago, TalkPolite said:

Huh. FFG is keeping a list, and the store should have done better than what they did. Sorry about that.

Also it was my understanding that the player recognized a problem and forfeited. He was very open when asked about it, and it seemed to be handled well.

Well, let's hope FFG actually received the right info; be a shame to make it up to Chicago and not actually get to play because of a bureaucratic snafu.

And that's why I would like to hear an "official" account of what happened. What I was told was it was round two before the problem was discovered, meaning an entire game went by before the very, very obvious problem was recognized (and my source was unclear as to who recognized it), and even then the player in question was upset about the DQ/Round 1 becoming a loss. Again, this is through the rumor mill, so I'm not saying that what I've heard is accurate, just trying to get a bit closer to the truth.

6 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

Well, let's hope FFG actually received the right info; be a shame to make it up to Chicago and not actually get to play because of a bureaucratic snafu.

And that's why I would like to hear an "official" account of what happened. What I was told was it was round two before the problem was discovered, meaning an entire game went by before the very, very obvious problem was recognized (and my source was unclear as to who recognized it), and even then the player in question was upset about the DQ/Round 1 becoming a loss. Again, this is through the rumor mill, so I'm not saying that what I've heard is accurate, just trying to get a bit closer to the truth.

If it makes you feel better, that’s part of the reason why I’m doing the LTC data tracking. I’ll likely be helping Brendon again, so we’ll have a good starting point if FFG drops the ball.

7 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

And that's why I would like to hear an "official" account of what happened. What I was told was it was round two before the problem was discovered, meaning an entire game went by before the very, very obvious problem was recognized (and my source was unclear as to who recognized it), and even then the player in question was upset about the DQ/Round 1 becoming a loss. Again, this is through the rumor mill, so I'm not saying that what I've heard is accurate, just trying to get a bit closer to the truth.

I was at the TX RPQ. It was a not so obvious mistake (he was running a whole lot of new stuff), that he (not his opponent) recognized early in round 2. He called the judge, ratted himself out and even showed the judge where the FFG Tournament Floor Rules say he should be get the Game Loss. There was no drama, he and his opponent even played the game out. No one I saw was upset about it, he handled it like a champ and took it in a very gentleman like manner.

His round 1 game wasn't ruled as a loss because it the window had passed, pairings already set and games under way. After round 2 we had a laugh and a commiserated him about it.

Don't eat any bread that comes from that rumor mill.

Just curious, what was wrong with the list? At least it souds like he was a good sportsman about it.

10 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

And that's why I would like to hear an "official" account of what happened. What I was told was it was round two before the problem was discovered, meaning an entire game went by before the very, very obvious problem was recognized (and my source was unclear as to who recognized it), and even then the player in question was upset about the DQ/Round 1 becoming a loss. Again, this is through the rumor mill, so I'm not saying that what I've heard is accurate, just trying to get a bit closer to the truth.

That rumor mill spinning jerk! Of course I know him. He's me.

I posted in the Discord exactly what happened and as far as I can see I was the only one who talked about it.

It was an easy mistake, here was what I said on the discord.

Quote

I was used to having 5 Z6 squads on the table, i deployed with all 5, noticed in turn 3 while I was heavily in the lead (thankfully not because of the extra squad...)
I had to call the judge on my self and conceded the game to my opponent as per the rules. My opponent was flabbgergasted and wanted to just keep playing but we were all in agreement that I dun goofed and at an RPQ that means game loss.
Looks like I got to get gud at NOVA now...
when I looked at my army on the table everyone i knew were like "yea that looks right" as our eyes were not used to quickly seeing that tiny rebel vet gun as a core choice.

Lesson was that when you radically change your list and are busy helping set up the tables and assist with random rulings, triple check your list.

Has my friend said above (DrRichardSplash), I literally pointed at the regulation to my opponent that I had to take the loss and we all generally had a good laugh about it.

My first round opponent was more in shock at TaunTauns supressing everything and the extra squad didn't do much other than stay near my home objective with a sniper them.

17 hours ago, DrDickSplash said:

Don't eat any bread that comes from that rumor mill.

When the only bread available comes from the rumor mill, it's what will be consumed. That's why I asked.

It is good to hear the official version, and it is noticeably different that the version I had heard. (clearly) I'm not on Discord, but I did check the main Legion FB groups for more info after being told about the incident by a friend who was playing there. The extra core unit seems to be more than a little obvious to me simply because it was so different, and thus something that would need to be heavily considered before adding it to the list, and the uncertainty of who pointed out the mistake is what added a sinister air to the mistake.

On 8/10/2019 at 10:11 AM, Alpha17 said:

When the only bread available comes from the rumor mill, it's what will be consumed. That's why I asked.

It is good to hear the official version, and it is noticeably different that the version I had heard. (clearly) I'm not on Discord, but I did check the main Legion FB groups for more info after being told about the incident by a friend who was playing there. The extra core unit seems to be more than a little obvious to me simply because it was so different, and thus something that would need to be heavily considered before adding it to the list, and the uncertainty of who pointed out the mistake is what added a sinister air to the mistake.

You should jump on the discord; the news there is usually more timely and accurate than whatever you hear/see elsewhere.

I am one of those that is glad that FFG limited invites to the top 8 only at GenCon and don't see them opting not to reward any for people below that cut as burning invites at all. In fact, the allowance that RPQ's have if the first place finisher already has an invite has already had some unintended consequences. First, there seems to be an assumption that when there is the potential for a certain number of invites (that is 1 or 8 depending) that there are a physical number of invites that should be given out a each event. There is a difference between a potential number of invites and a set number of invites. On the consequences of allowing an invite to pass to second place in RPQ's there has grown a sense that invites are something that can be passed down or around as opposed to a potential reward for a predetermined level of performance. I have personally witnessed on a recent occasion where this misguided impression almost landed two players heading into a final game DQs for collusion as one of them had an invite already and wanted to find a way for their friend in 3rd place to get the invite. Neither player realized they were doing anything wrong until it was pointed out, and I think this stems from two issues. Certainly one is not realizing that any this for that discussions before a game with talk of prizing or outcomes is collusion (a large number of players don't realize this). The other I think stems from viewing invites as a prize like tokens or alt art cards as opposed to a physical way of tracking who has qualified by their performance for Worlds. That is, by viewing invites as a thing you can give to someone as opposed to a qualification, we are opening our community up to seeing them as commodities and all the attendant baggage that comes with that view.

1 hour ago, Kyln said:

I am one of those that is glad that FFG limited invites to the top 8 only at GenCon and don't see them opting not to reward any for people below that cut as burning invites at all. In fact, the allowance that RPQ's have if the first place finisher already has an invite has already had some unintended consequences. First, there seems to be an assumption that when there is the potential for a certain number of invites (that is 1 or 8 depending) that there are a physical number of invites that should be given out a each event. There is a difference between a potential number of invites and a set number of invites. On the consequences of allowing an invite to pass to second place in RPQ's there has grown a sense that invites are something that can be passed down or around as opposed to a potential reward for a predetermined level of performance. I have personally witnessed on a recent occasion where this misguided impression almost landed two players heading into a final game DQs for collusion as one of them had an invite already and wanted to find a way for their friend in 3rd place to get the invite. Neither player realized they were doing anything wrong until it was pointed out, and I think this stems from two issues. Certainly one is not realizing that any this for that discussions before a game with talk of prizing or outcomes is collusion (a large number of players don't realize this). The other I think stems from viewing invites as a prize like tokens or alt art cards as opposed to a physical way of tracking who has qualified by their performance for Worlds. That is, by viewing invites as a thing you can give to someone as opposed to a qualification, we are opening our community up to seeing them as commodities and all the attendant baggage that comes with that view.

By not having invites pass down what you are encouraging is the exact type of behavior you are worried about.

It encourages people to opt out of playing in top cut games because why would they want to deny invites to other people? This is doubly true once it goes invite only. You're going to have alot less climactic tournament ends because people are just going to concede games rather then burn invites.

Now before you call that collusion, it isn't. Legion isn't a big community, people are going to be aware of if their opponent doesn't have an invite. There doesn't need to be any conversation for a player to concede so that their opponent gets the invite. FFG has also already stated their collusion rules as written aren't what they intended and they are looking to rework them as they are currently unenforceable.

17 hours ago, ScottieATF said:

By not having invites pass down what you are encouraging is the exact type of behavior you are worried about.

It encourages people to opt out of playing in top cut games because why would they want to deny invites to other people? This is doubly true once it goes invite only. You're going to have alot less climactic tournament ends because people are just going to concede games rather then burn invites.

Now before you call that collusion, it isn't. Legion isn't a big community, people are going to be aware of if their opponent doesn't have an invite. There doesn't need to be any conversation for a player to concede so that their opponent gets the invite. FFG has also already stated their collusion rules as written aren't what they intended and they are looking to rework them as they are currently unenforceable.

You are still operating under the assumption that an invite is a discrete thing. Of course players can concede if they don't need the invite, that isn't what I was saying, and the situation wasn't hypothetical, but an actual occurrence. The perceived option to just pass the invite down to someone else created the motivation to try to negotiate what to do with an invite before the game started. If the invite had been locked regardless, there would have been no incentive. In fact, when it was explained that the instructional documents made clear it passed down only in the case the qualifying player already had an invite and that the invite was not a bargaining chip the top two players could decide on their own what to do with, the discussion ended. Quite simply, this notion that it was something that could be traded or handed off created the scenario. Locking it does not encourage collusive behavior, as it makes clear the fate of the invite is not a negotiable option available to players outside of how well they perform.

The current rules on collusion are enforceable. Of course players don't have to discuss something for one player to concede. If they don't they aren't colluding. However, if players engage in a discussion of how one of them will offer part of their prizing in return for something else that determines the outcome of their game, they are colluding. It isn't difficult once you know where the line is. The whole "if you do this, I will do that," in regards to determining the outcome of a game without playing is an easy short cut to know if you are crossing a line. I myself have happily conceded games where I didn't care about the win, but my opponent did. In reference to the situation I mentioned, if I had been in the top two that event (I wasn't, but I had won my last game it would have been me) I would have happily conceded if my opponent was considering going to Worlds. I couldn't make it, and if neither of us could I would happily have played the game out for the trophy and prizes. They wouldn't need to break the rules by asking me to concede. The fact Legion has son many people courteous enough to offer a concession to the benefit of another player is a good thing.

To be clear, I am in favor of having invites at RPQs go to the highest ranked player that has yet to qualify. I am also completely in favor of an event that gives invites to the Top 8 staying at the top 8 regardless if some of those players have qualified or not. The notion they are somehow discrete commodities that should be passed along instead of symbols that someone has qualified is creating problems. I have seen it. I used my first hand experience to support my position. Invites are given to people that qualify through their performance and should only be given to those people. If you need top 8 for an event, it should only be top 8. If you need to be the top ranked player that hasn't already qualified, it should stay limited to that. There is a reason FFG wants people's names written on the physical receipt of the qualification. They are not meant to be transferable, because they are not meant to be commodities. The physical card only gives a tangible record that the person receiving it qualified (hence the name Rally Point Qualifier,etc.) to be invited to the higher profile tournament.

I think it’s possible the tenor of this conversation changes after GenCon; the rest of the convention tournaments only have four invites but are the same size (64), so you need to go 3-0 on your heat day and then also win a fourth game after the top 8 cut.

If you get some high level players going to multiple events, and they are filtering into those top four... it’s going to get really sticky when you are talking about only giving out 2 invites at a convention because players that have invites already keep making the cut. 8 invites down to 6 is a very different conversation than 4 down to 2 or 1.

Maybe the real question is if there is a better way to handle how people qualify to go to worlds. The current system is based on meeting a performance level at certain events. I see that as fundamentally different than we have X invites, how is the best way to distribute them. Likely, that difference in approach is what is causing some of the dissonance here. If we are talking about World's being a tournament where the primary way to enter is through qualifying finishes, and a last chance tournament to fill out spots, the current system is fine. If instead, we see it as a lump of X invites to be administered, well then there are all sorts of questions we should be asking about the fairest or best way to distribute them.
I think the current system is fair and makes sense. If you finish with a certain record at designated tournaments, you qualify. If you don't, you don't. It takes out all the side questions of fairness, or waste, or use with an X invites system and makes it simple. You can qualify for the event if you perform sufficiently at a qualifying event. In that sense, I don't think it matters how many of the top players keep competing and a top 8 only has 1 or 2 new people qualifying, as there is always a last chance qualifier for people that haven't qualified yet and really want to play in Worlds.