OFCC list submission dates

[Sinewgrab]

Over 3 months before the actual event?  What the $h*t?  When did a fun event become a high-pressure 'do it now!' instead of a mellow 'hey, I think I'll bring this this year' event?  If you don't live the game, but have to work games in maybe once a week at most, this isn't time to playtest a list, or even decide which army you want to play.  

 

First you comp it harder than I have seen in 7 years, and now you tell me I have to know exactly what I am doing over 3 months before I'll even be able to go?  Are you trying to make people stay away? 

 

This is a hobby for fun, not a job interview, for f*ck sake.

[savion47]

Read this thread for due dates!

[Sinewgrab]

My post does not change in tone - July, August, most of September.  3 months.  Too soon.  Murphy's Lawyer (sorry, don't actually know who you are) mentioned 10 minutes bam to change your army when there was a conflict, but you completely missed the comparison - one thoroughly modeled army and another who didn't own or was not able to afford another - with your 'bam - 10 minutes and done' response.

 

Did you read the concern in the message?   While I myself own probably 7 or 8 separate armies, this can be a real issue - it has taken me 22 years and 6 editions.  And I flit from project to project often enough, that 3 months is ridiculous amount of time to be tied to a project.  What if I find another way to add a unit I couldn't find a way to model before - and don't like the official models - for in 2 months?  You're telling me I'm stuck because you wanted lots of time to check they followed your comp rules?

[Murphy'sLawyer]

@Sinewgrab. If you think the decision I made was super easy you're wrong. It was hard because I have my DE further along than my Empire which I am still needing some models to complete my list. But a decision was needed so I made it.

 

And if I really didn't want to change I would like to have more time Now to find a new team to join so he could continue to play his DE.

 

Two months is not a short time at all either. It should be plenty of time to get a list together. I also know some of the list raters and have heard the stories of what happens when they don't have enough time to review lists, it is complete hell for them. So keep them in mind too.

 

I am partly playing the Devils Advocate here because I use to help setup music shows and events in the past and I know what happens when you leave artists on their own to get organized. They don't.

 

So I am pushing the boundary a bit because I know this is not that difficult when you put your mind to it. (Trying managing and bouncing a three band 200+ crowd punk rock show. Mostly on your own! Now that was a challenge. Helping three others get some lists done? Yep, easy.)

[Munkie]

*Edited (to remove rant)* Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

[ClassicFlava]

the deadline is July 1st now.  Thats like 7 weeks away which should be more than enough time.

[Munkie]

Agreed! I am a happy munkie now. I even clicked on that link and somehow read June 1st still....

[savion47]

I think July is more than fair. The comp has been known for some time. It is not like we are only giving people 2 months to make their lists, they have had months before this annoucement as well.

 

While almost 3 months to handle lists seems like a long time, I think most people vastly underestimate the amount of volunteer time it takes for the list rating committee to complete its job. Trying to get 100+ lists in the correct format, with correct math takes weeks (and for some individuals much longer). Then the volunteers have to look at all the lists whilse still living thier regular busy lives. This is not a task they take lightly and rush through. It is a huge job and I am thankfull to them every year.

[Sinewgrab]

@Sinewgrab. If you think the decision I made was super easy you're wrong. It was hard because I have my DE further along than my Empire which I am still needing some models to complete my list. But a decision was needed so I made it.

 

And if I really didn't want to change I would like to have more time Now to find a new team to join so he could continue to play his DE.

 

Two months is not a short time at all either. It should be plenty of time to get a list together. I also know some of the list raters and have heard the stories of what happens when they don't have enough time to review lists, it is complete hell for them. So keep them in mind too.

 

I am partly playing the Devils Advocate here because I use to help setup music shows and events in the past and I know what happens when you leave artists on their own to get organized. They don't.

 

So I am pushing the boundary a bit because I know this is not that difficult when you put your mind to it. (Trying managing and bouncing a three band 200+ crowd punk rock show. Mostly on your own! Now that was a challenge. Helping three others get some lists done? Yep, easy.)

 

I don't live WH, so you have given me 3-6 games to build a list that I will be forced to stick with 12-16 weeks in the future, instead of the opposite.  If you can't look over 100 lists that have already been vetted in a month, don't volunteer to look them over (and one of my regular opponents is a rater, so don't play that card).  And if you have anything going on right now (I have another convention Memorial Day weekend I am running several games at as a historical gamer, one of our Captains is moving, and another player just had his second child), it is too damned soon for something this far away.  I understand the Devils Advocate side - I have a degree in Ethics, so I have argued both sides before - but this seems decided by people who don't grasp there might be disagreement.  Instead of taking a couple months to make a list I like and use it, I have couple weeks to make a list and hope I can find a way to make it work before the actual event - and somehow hope it fits within a rating structure that is utterly without guidelines other than some vague 'pornography' stylings (The "I know it when I see it" quote).

 

It feels like a way to cut down on who shows up, not a way to make it fun for everyone, which is what originally brought me to the OFCC.

[ClassicFlava]

Again the deadline has been pushed back to July 1st. 7 weeks should be more than enough time

[savion47]

I don't live WH, so you have given me 3-6 games to build a list that I will be forced to stick with 12-16 weeks in the future, instead of the opposite.  If you can't look over 100 lists that have already been vetted in a month, don't volunteer to look them over (and one of my regular opponents is a rater, so don't play that card).  And if you have anything going on right now (I have another convention Memorial Day weekend I am running several games at as a historical gamer, one of our Captains is moving, and another player just had his second child), it is too damned soon for something this far away.  I understand the Devils Advocate side - I have a degree in Ethics, so I have argued both sides before - but this seems decided by people who don't grasp there might be disagreement.  Instead of taking a couple months to make a list I like and use it, I have couple weeks to make a list and hope I can find a way to make it work before the actual event - and somehow hope it fits within a rating structure that is utterly without guidelines other than some vague 'pornography' stylings (The "I know it when I see it" quote).

 

It feels like a way to cut down on who shows up, not a way to make it fun for everyone, which is what originally brought me to the OFCC.

If you feel that you or some members of your team cannot make the deadline for whatever reason, it is best to contact AgentP (in charge of the list rating committee) or Raindog (WFB Team Event HOG) via PM and see if arrangements can be made.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

I don't live WH, so you have given me 3-6 games to build a list that I will be forced to stick with 12-16 weeks in the future, instead of the opposite. If you can't look over 100 lists that have already been vetted in a month, don't volunteer to look them over (and one of my regular opponents is a rater, so don't play that card). And if you have anything going on right now (I have another convention Memorial Day weekend I am running several games at as a historical gamer, one of our Captains is moving, and another player just had his second child), it is too damned soon for something this far away. I understand the Devils Advocate side - I have a degree in Ethics, so I have argued both sides before - but this seems decided by people who don't grasp there might be disagreement. Instead of taking a couple months to make a list I like and use it, I have couple weeks to make a list and hope I can find a way to make it work before the actual event - and somehow hope it fits within a rating structure that is utterly without guidelines other than some vague 'pornography' stylings (The "I know it when I see it" quote).

 

It feels like a way to cut down on who shows up, not a way to make it fun for everyone, which is what originally brought me to the OFCC.

First I want I say I am not your enemy, I was trying to get this discussion past "we can't do it." and get players to explain a little more. Also I have been working on my list on and off for just over a month now because Empire is completely new to me. Before I found out my team mate was going with DE I had never played them. So I understand wanting to play test and learn lists.

 

I also was more pushing a two date time frame with one soft date and one hard date. (Check my earlier posts.) That way teams having issues have some wiggle room.

 

And if you hear some of the stories of past years a lot of lists have not been vetted. That's most likely why this thread was started, to remind players that time is ticking.

 

I also have no say at all in the decisions that the senate makes, I'm just a player too.

 

But if your team is going to have issues I would also suggest contacting AgentP or Raindog with concerns. They are good guys.

 

If I offended you that was not my intention, sorry if I did.

[Burk]

I don't live WH, so you have given me 3-6 games to build a list that I will be forced to stick with 12-16 weeks in the future, instead of the opposite.  If you can't look over 100 lists that have already been vetted in a month, don't volunteer to look them over (and one of my regular opponents is a rater, so don't play that card).  And if you have anything going on right now (I have another convention Memorial Day weekend I am running several games at as a historical gamer, one of our Captains is moving, and another player just had his second child), it is too damned soon for something this far away.  I understand the Devils Advocate side - I have a degree in Ethics, so I have argued both sides before - but this seems decided by people who don't grasp there might be disagreement.  Instead of taking a couple months to make a list I like and use it, I have couple weeks to make a list and hope I can find a way to make it work before the actual event - and somehow hope it fits within a rating structure that is utterly without guidelines other than some vague 'pornography' stylings (The "I know it when I see it" quote).

 

It feels like a way to cut down on who shows up, not a way to make it fun for everyone, which is what originally brought me to the OFCC.

 

 

So just a question.. You are concerned that you are not given enough time to figure out your one list over the next 6 weeks, but say that the raters should be able to fairly rate 100+ list in under 4 weeks?

 

Just want to make sure I am reading what you wrote correctly.

[Sinewgrab]

So just a question.. You are concerned that you are not given enough time to figure out your one list over the next 6 weeks, but say that the raters should be able to fairly rate 100+ list in under 4 weeks?

 

Just want to make sure I am reading what you wrote correctly.

 

In a nutshell, yes.  Now, let me see if language will allow me to write this out without sounding bitchier than I actually am...

 

In every OFCC, there has always been no small number of people that seem to get rated way above or below their actual rating based on performance at the event.  The reality is, the raters are always going to be going by instinct, because they can't possibly be able to see how each army will actually work on the table, based on the generalship of the player, and then apply it to a malleable "3" ideal, that changes from rater to rater.  It isn't the raters fault, mind you, but it is fact.  If the raters are trying to find instances of the list or some such each time to try and see if there are hidden gambits, or netsearching each list, that would be a lot of time and admirable effort, but they will still be doing it by feel, because it is not a hard cap at "3".  This is a job - I understand that - but it will still be "this feels like a 3 to me", and move to the next one, and when it is done, it is gone with the OFCC's completion.

 

I, on the other hand, am going to be buying, modelling, painting, playing, and showing off an army that I would at least like to seem competent with, and will likely have for the rest of my life, because I don't generally sell models I have worked on.  I would like to have enough time to make sure it is what I want to play, want to spend the my hard-earned cash on, and enjoy showing off.  I am making an investment, and not a small one.

 

The only comparison I can think of that even makes sense might be that this is comparing the HR Director going through resumes from a temp agency to make sure they are qualified for the warehouse versus the race car team mechanic hoping he has enough time to put the car engine together correctly, because he'll be driving it soon, and then storing it in his garage.

 

Am I oversimplifying it?  Maybe.  But that is why I am reacting (probably over-reacting) like this. 

[Munkie]

In every OFCC, there has always been no small number of people that seem to get rated way above or below their actual rating based on performance at the event.  The reality is, the raters are always going to be going by instinct, because they can't possibly be able to see how each army will actually work on the table, based on the generalship of the player, and then apply it to a malleable "3" ideal, that changes from rater to rater.  It isn't the raters fault, mind you, but it is fact.  If the raters are trying to find instances of the list or some such each time to try and see if there are hidden gambits, or netsearching each list, that would be a lot of time and admirable effort, but they will still be doing it by feel, because it is not a hard cap at "3".  This is a job - I understand that - but it will still be "this feels like a 3 to me", and move to the next one, and when it is done, it is gone with the OFCC's completion.

 

You're right, this does happen. There is a human element (read: 'flawed') to the rating system. I've been on the LRC before (in 40k) and did my best. I know there were things I missed and things I thought I saw. That's never not gonna happen.

 

But the less time we give the raters to do their jobs, the sloppier their work will have to be. We've gotta compromise somewhere.

[godswearhats]

I'm happy with July 1st. We have a relatively new player on the team who only has one army that isn't even finished yet, me (who also only has one army, but the book just changed) and two others who are settled on what they are bringing. So for half the team, we have to spend the next 7 weeks trying out lists that are quite literally brand new in order to come with something that has to hit the mark in a soft comp environment that we've never played in before. It'll be tight but doable. Getting it done by June 1st would have just been pulling lists out of thin air for the two of us, so I'm glad it got pushed back - it'll make the tournament more fun for the team :-)

[Burk]

In a nutshell, yes.  Now, let me see if language will allow me to write this out without sounding bitchier than I actually am...

 

In every OFCC, there has always been no small number of people that seem to get rated way above or below their actual rating based on performance at the event.  The reality is, the raters are always going to be going by instinct, because they can't possibly be able to see how each army will actually work on the table, based on the generalship of the player, and then apply it to a malleable "3" ideal, that changes from rater to rater.  It isn't the raters fault, mind you, but it is fact.  If the raters are trying to find instances of the list or some such each time to try and see if there are hidden gambits, or netsearching each list, that would be a lot of time and admirable effort, but they will still be doing it by feel, because it is not a hard cap at "3".  This is a job - I understand that - but it will still be "this feels like a 3 to me", and move to the next one, and when it is done, it is gone with the OFCC's completion.

 

I, on the other hand, am going to be buying, modelling, painting, playing, and showing off an army that I would at least like to seem competent with, and will likely have for the rest of my life, because I don't generally sell models I have worked on.  I would like to have enough time to make sure it is what I want to play, want to spend the my hard-earned cash on, and enjoy showing off.  I am making an investment, and not a small one.

 

The only comparison I can think of that even makes sense might be that this is comparing the HR Director going through resumes from a temp agency to make sure they are qualified for the warehouse versus the race car team mechanic hoping he has enough time to put the car engine together correctly, because he'll be driving it soon, and then storing it in his garage.

 

Am I oversimplifying it?  Maybe.  But that is why I am reacting (probably over-reacting) like this. 

Sounds like you have an issue with ratings being accurate also...so doesnt it stand that they need more time to get it right?

[mojoslayer]

The real wrench in all of this is if 9th comes out this summer. :)

[Iraf]

40k gets their new edition. I doubt they'll give both their main games bew editions in the same year.

[Blustorm]

Yes, I've heard that 9th ed. has been pretty much shelved for the time being. 

[Sinewgrab]

Sounds like you have an issue with ratings being accurate also...so doesnt it stand that they need more time to get it right?

 

I am not sure it will help with any existing issues.  A perfect rating system is leprechaun's gold.  I think a huge problem with what the raters are asked to do is that they end up redoing the math that is the job of the captains, not the raters - thus why I compared to the HR person going through resumes.  In theory, the only thing she is looking through is the resumes that have skills that apply (or are correctly put together).  Giving them more time to do a part of the job that shouldn't be theirs in the first place at the expense of the participants? Doesn't feel like sound logic.

 

And let's face it, a fair number of us were working by precedent, and expected to need to have them together August 1st.  This was rather sudden, and somewhat unwelcome.  Am I calmer now? Probably.  Am I liking what I am seeing?  Not really.  It feels far more heavy-handed than years prior.

[Burk]

I think you underestimate what the raters do.  It takes a lot of time, and they need the time to get things as close to right as possible. Shorting them time is bad for everyone.

[dkieft]

I think that why we are where we are is the inability of people to follow instructions. Last year, we requested a specific lay out for submitted lists and had a hard deadline (about a month out as I recall). The problem was that a large number of lists were turned in late AND many were illegal AND most of them (over 50%) were not formatted in the way asked. Once most of the lists were sorted out, the rating team had a week to sort it out and get the ratings to the organizers (so they could do their pre-event setup). Pretty much, it was Bull[big bad swear word] to be a rater last year... and why? Because team captains did not do their part to give us lists we could rate in a timely fashion.

 

So here we are. Lists need to be in earlier, so they can be corrected sooner, so the ratings team has the time to rate them before getting them to the organizers...

 

Yeah, it sucks, but a guarantee you the raters have the shorter end of the stick when it comes to time lines.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

Again I say the Captains need to start acting now. Also got a feeling that with the Captains being responsible for turning in properly formatted lists it is an indication Captains will be held more responsible for what their teams' lists are like.

 

There are a number of members that follow the rules and formats properly but like all things there are those who ruin it for everyone. A fact I shake my head about everyday of my adult life. Rules have to be made to prevent people from wrecking things for others, unfortunately those rules also feel oppressive to those that follow them. But try to not blame the Senate for the rules, it really is the fault of the players of the past that took a relaxed enforcement of the rules for granted.

 

I love those people in all aspects in my life. Really has made my life super swell.

[AgentP]

The earlier time is also in response to feedback from last year.  We had many people express a desire for all lists to be posted to the web in advance, for initial match ups to be posted to the forum, and for a place for smack talking in the weeks approaching the tournament.  Responding to that request requires earlier submission deadlines.