 Hello, everybody. If it's Wednesday, it's Warhammer and that must mean it's time for another episode of Warhammer Weekly. Joining me as always, my co-host Tyler, who has a new chair. What's up, buddy? How you doing? I do, and I've got three pillows under me. I've learned my lesson from some of these past shows. Yeah, I'm here prepared this time. Okay. Rock and roll. I love it. Also joining us, look, here's the reality, folks. I'm going to come clean. I've had a blind spot in this show, and that blind spot is what's happening over on the West Coast. And we have a man here who is here to correct that problem and set me on a righteous path. And that is Tom. What's up, buddy? How you doing? We've got a new, better replacement, Tom. We've got West Coast Tom here to talk to us about West Coast Warhammer. How you doing, sir? Good, thanks. Hello, acquaintances. It is very good to have you on the show. We have been, as I said, when we were talking offline, we've been trading some snark back and forth in a fun way on Twitter. You always have a great comment for whatever, for some of the shows we've done recently. So I was very excited to have Tom on the show to talk to us about sort of his perception on the scene that he's built up, what's great about it, all that kind of thing, and just have a discussion about building a community and tournament Warhammer and all of that and what makes a great scene. Tom sent some snark my way last year, and I contacted him about quote-unquote snark. It was very light. And I think I contacted you within five minutes. And we had a phone call. We had a very pleasant phone call together. I thought it was hilarious. I put one snarky online comment and I get a call from the guy within five minutes. That's either speaks well or very poorly of me, maybe a little bit of both. I put you down as a special snowflake. Thank you. I am very well known as having special snowflake syndrome. All right, looks like our stream is being a little finicky today, so I'm going to mess with that to try to get, oh, I bet I know what's happening. Hold on. Give me one moment here, folks. I apologize. There we go. I bet that was causing some issues. Stupid thing. That should hopefully handle that. We'll see what goes on. It should catch up in a moment. But anyways, so I apologize, everyone. It'll upload normally and it won't be choppy in the actual upload itself. So, gentlemen, we're going to talk about the West Coast night. But of course, first we've got some news, not a lot of news, but some news. Oh, rumor engine. It's an interesting one. So we have had another prior image with one of these little spiked looking creatures that prior one appeared to be in some beard, someone or something's beard. The best guess that I've heard Vince is that, I sent you an email about this. I'm completely in on this theory. You're in on the theory. All right. So I found this on tga.community today that this is a new mega gargant model, specifically Olag, who had an excerpt on the pitch battle profiles page near the end of the Sons of Bay of Med Battletone. A little story about Olag and his creeper friends who annoy the hell out of him at all times. It's a great little excerpt. Check it out. You can go to tga.community. But yeah, it all seems to make sense to me. Yeah, let me sum this up. In the story, basic premise is this big mega gargant has these tiny little things that hang around with him. And they clean him and repair his clothes and stitch up his wounds and leave him little art and stuff like that. And they're like they're all around. They're like crawl over and they sort of live on him. They're like plankton or not plankton. Sorry, they're remoras. There we go. Sorry. That's what I was going for. They're remoras to his shark. Yeah, his great white shark. And I read that little section you threw out there and I'm in new giant model confirmed. I'm just that's it. That's sold me. I'm in 100%. This thing and the previous one that was in a beard is a little creeper dude from that story. Yes, I'm in. You sold me. Tom, any guesses? Well, it looks like he's on the same sort of skull that's on the Orc Warboss his shoulder. No idea why, but I have to admit, I care very little about the rumor engines. I just, I hate the whole idea of just teasing us, just release a model and be done with it. So, to be honest, I always skip this part in your shows. I just don't care. Fair enough. Totally fair. Well, then we'll move on because the reality is, we don't have that much more in the way of news. It's a quiet news week, folks. We had a little bit of a leak of some of the Thandia stuff, including the incarnate rules, but we'll be talking Thandia in detail next week. So I'm not, we're not going to go into it with Tyler and I or whatever, but Tom, any, what's your initial take having read over the incarnate of beasts? You think it's got some play? You think it's going to show up? What do you think? I'm a little bit skeptical. I think 400 points, which is what the leaked values are. It seems a bit high. I mean, yeah, if you've seen the full leaks, yeah, it can do some damage, etc., but 400 points is a lot for a model. And I think a lot of lists, you just say, can I, I can probably spend those 400 points on something that will hit just as hard. There are a few armies out there that can't. I'm a corn player and I was thinking to myself, would I take this or would I take Scar brand? I'll take Scar brand every time. I'm unlikely to take both. So, but probably I'll probably be seen in some weaker armies. I don't think any of the top tier armies. Do you take that or do you take two units of dragons right now? Or reinforced unit of dragons? I'll take the dragons, thanks. Yeah, but yeah, so it might get some play, but I don't think it's going to be meta changing. Sure. Yeah, I mean, you know, we'll see how it all comes out once we've got the full picture, but I'll tell you right now, my hope is pretty simple that they actually did hit the sweet spot, that this thing is interesting, but not auto, which is what I talked about during the, when they revealed it in the, in the, in the preview, right, was like, the, if they can, if they can walk the tightrope and make it so some armies and some lists find it interesting, but it's not auto take, which is a thin line, then it's going to be a success. So I guess we'll see. Alright, so with that, hey, let's just jump right into pick of the week, shall we? Tom, you've got some stuff you'd like to share with everybody. All links are in the description. By the way, everybody, now that the stream is not running slow and like garbage, I apologize, everyone. Don't forget to hit that like button and do all those things that are good and help other people find the show. Tom, what's your picks? So I have a few this week. The first one is the Harambe's Heroes podcast. So Harambe's Heroes are a competitive AOS team out of Texas. They include Gavin Griga. I'll probably have to explain who that is to you, Tyler. He's a really good player. Number one ITC last year and LVO winner. They have an infrequent podcast. It's usually around the time that they're going to a tournament, particularly the one of the Texas Masters tournaments. It's a lot of fun, but there's also a lot of really, really good tactical discussion and list diagnosis. The most recent show they went through, half of the lists at the Lone Star, which was like 50 lists and debated the theory behind every single one of those lists, which was just fascinating and something for everyone in that and actually just learning how a super competitive, really good team of players practice and think about the game. It's great. The second one is the In Your Phase podcast, which is also a competitive podcast. Once a month now, I believe the last Monday of every month, and that's run by a lot of the Left Coast Coursers team, which is like the second best competitive Sigma team last year, I think, and has Jeremy Vassier, who's the captain of Team USA, etc. A whole bunch of them talk again. Their show is sort of what is the state of the meta this month? What do we think is going to change in the next month? How should you build your lists to face the current top tier lists, etc., like that? Which is great. And then my third link was, and I'm going to scroll down to see the exact link, Mental Health and Wargaming, which was just a channel I wasn't aware of, but it came up on my feed and I watched it and I thought it was really good. It has Duncan and Miniac, I think, and a psychologist talking about Mental Health and Wargaming, which is something that I think it can be really useful to a lot of people. So, I thought you recommend that episode. It was great. I love all that, especially the last one. I've long said that it's amazing, this hobby, what it does for your mental health, how it engages us, the community, everything that's built here. And despite all of the nonsense of the last week on Twitter, remember Twitter isn't the real world. The fact is, most of my best and longest-term friendships are built through this hobby. It is a reason and excuse for me to get together with people I've known for 20 years, 10 years, 5 years, whatever. And it's something that is both relaxing to just hobby that's invigorating when you get together with your friends to play or you go to a tournament. It is, in all ways, the exact opposite of the rest of society. I mean, if everybody ever read Bowling Alone and all the sort of moves toward people being more sequestered in the modern world, we're not. We in the Wargaming community are more connected than ever and it's a strength of this community. So I love it. It's fantastic. Tyler, what do you got for everybody? Yeah, go through these quickly. I had a couple of events I wanted to mention since we've been doing a lot of events coverage. And as always, you can find most events at aosevents.org. Gateway Open happening August 2021. Unfortunately, that's still the same weekend as DashCon. I have not been able to fix that yet. Really hoping maybe by next year we will not have that issue on an ongoing basis. But yeah, it's one of my favorite tournaments of the year. My friend Jeff, he puts that on. So Gateway Open August 2021 is just outside of St. Louis. Raccoon Rumble, this fascinating tournament happening in Germany, September 16th, 18th. They had a beautiful website, raccoonremble.de. And they have a club that runs that, is Mini Paradise. They have some of the best looking tables that I've seen on the scene. Been doing this train project, looking at a lot of different clubs and events at the tables. And it's really remarkable. They've got some nice photos of those tables at their website. Wanted to mention Jacob Berry. He had, I thought, a pretty interesting summary of some of the discussion we've had over this last week on Twitter. Don't agree with everything they had to say, but some things definitely. He pointed out, you know, there's been this ongoing category of best overall, and we'll probably get into a little bit more later tonight, that I know when I got into the hobby, got back to the hobby, I had what I realized was an incorrect understanding of best overall, where best overall is really about what he had recommended we consider calling best all around, which of course, a combination of three categories, sports, paints, and battle, essentially gaming. And that when I got back from the hobby, I thought that best overall was like more important, quote unquote, than say best general, the award that's usually given, at least with certain events, to the person who does the best with battle. So anyway, I really like that idea of framing best overall as best all around. And probably going to do that personally. And then finally, season of war, they got to get that mentioned. And as always, they actually did a workload about a report, which is really cool to see in their last battle report with storm cast and IDENATH. Jordan had some interesting commentary on the state of IDENATH. He seems to think that there are somewhere, I think he called them a B or B plus. So B plus, yeah. But I thought that was, you know, that was, I hope he's right, in terms of how they shake out in the end. So yeah, it was an interesting game to see. Very nice. I don't disagree with the B plus. I think that because IDENATH have such a high skill floor to actually turn on and be hyper efficient, I think in the hands of a highly skilled player, they're a solid A plus. In the hands of most players, they're like a C. So average. So there you go. All right. My pick of the week is very simple. These are all great picks, but I'll be quick. Mine is the Trapped Under Plastic Boys did a live show at ADEPTECON. Now, well, live in that they had people there in the room with them. Now, unlike this show, they weren't, you know, I don't know, brave enough to actually broadcast that show live. They had to pre-record and then, you know, put it up afterward. They didn't have an audience microphone, so you couldn't hear their people asking questions, even though somebody who might have been there and was hanging out with them directly offered to hand them an audience microphone that he had purchased specifically for doing a show there. You know, I don't know, but it's still a very good show. Check it out. It's great to see Khan, John, and Scott hanging out talking about all things. And then Ben Cantor and Ben Comance both come on. It's just a lot of fun. So all good times they were doing at Saturday night when ADEPTECON was really heating up and in just complete full swing of craziness. So check it out. Okay, let's talk about some hobby time. Tom, you've been working on something big is what I'm understanding. So what do you got? What's been on your desk, buddy? So this is my more crusher proxy. All right. Does have a base, but it's all magnetized to make it easier to work on the table. Just been doing some finishing touches, but yeah, this is amazing, man. Very nice. So it comes off. Oh, there you go. There you go. So that's what I've been working on. What is that made from? This is a 40k resin model. It's got the, you know, the special edition orc war guy, but I gave him a pirate hat because this is a war boss. Of course. He's in what's the shaman and he stole a chaos boat. And then this thing is 3d printed plus a lot of green stuff and some modeling and some wood and some chains and stuff and lots of magnets. And that's fantastic, buddy. I love that. That's amazing. Yes, I am in like Flynn for that. That is awesome. And certainly that is a big project. It lived up to it. I had not seen it. Tom just mentioned he was working on something big off camera and it, it's satisfied met the hype. Whenever somebody asks me, are proxies allowed at your tournaments? I can get this out and say, this is my more crusher. As long as you're somewhere in the same ballpark, then we're okay. It's a flying giant orc thing. It works out. I get it. Makes sense. It's completely logical to me. That's like one of my big things. If you have a thing that looks that flies, like in game, it has the fly, you know, rule, I just want it to look like it actually flies. And if it doesn't, don't, that's it. That's all. That's all. That's, that's one of my big, that's sort of my dividing line. Tyler. Yeah. I know you didn't paint anything yet, but you will because the terrain is going to be happening. So you actually will be talking about painting sometime soon. You've even got paints and brushes now, thanks to our good friend bleep, bloop. I want to ask you actually, did you sign up for Nash Khan? Well, the honest answer is I am early on the wait list, my friend. Okay. So halfway there, to be good. That thing sold that quickly. It turned out. I was there like minute one, buddy. Let me tell you what, I was refreshing. I wanted in. So I will be there. Otherwise, you'll find a dead body of mine, probably by Paul Castro if I'm not there. I think that's accurate. Yes. Yeah. The painting is not happening until after May 14 15th. This tournament, unfortunately, I'm out of excuses. So it will be happening. It appears at some point after that. A couple of things. War Coda got updated for the first time. So thanks to everyone who has sent in a tremendous amount of feedback over the last couple of months on the initial release. We've kept it pretty light. We made one main change to forcing the hand, the vital ground rule. Again, it's a lot of the details, because it was so we can keep it moving. But I sent out a Twitter thread. You can find all of this, of course, at a what shorts.com slash war Coda. And then we had a couple of tweaks to battle for the past as well. Battle for the past is one that I'm still not. But it's the least confident in where it is. I think it's better. It may still need some work. So would especially like to hear any feedback on battle for the past. But yeah, that got launched today. So thanks everybody that's been sharing that around. And then other than that, yeah, dude, just been working away on the community train project that's going really well. So many people are involved in this effort around the world. It's it's getting it's really, really cool, starting to kind of build a critical mass. And, you know, if anyone is interested in printing, painting tables as part of this contributing to AOS terrain.org website will be forthcoming. Just let me know. And most importantly, making Tyler paint a unit for an army, because every table of terrain that gets donated, Tyler has to paint a unit. So we're this is like, you're getting something for your donation here. Yes. I can't wait, by the way, until you start painting. And you actually find out that it's completely super easy and cathartic for you and you enjoy it. And like three, four years from now, I'm going to be standing outside the golden demon cases with you. And your and your latest entry. And you're going to be like, this is the one, man, I was working on this for 100 hours, buddy. This is the one I'm telling you, take it home that trophy. I'm excited for it. I'm excited for the future. 2026. There's been a real dearth of good painting videos on YouTube. I haven't been able to find any good creators, but Honest Wargamer Rob actually did one this week, which I thought was hilarious and actually quite useful. I'm really glad you said that. I was wondering, like, it's seen it, but I hadn't watched it yet, of course. It's pretty good. Okay. Yeah. I want to shout out Rob. I'm, I watched his slap chop video. It's great. I'm very glad to see him putting together a great video for a technique I've been talking about for no less than five years that shows up in some of the earliest videos I ever recorded that I've been teaching classes on at conventions since 2016. No problem. I think it's good that he's gotten the message, but that's the point. I'm not going to bag on the man for it. I'm happy for him. He found a way to paint. He, as he says, he used to hate painting, but then he found a way to paint. That's not bad. That's good. Spread the message. Painting is fun. So there you go. I'll have to check it out. Yeah. I'd be remiss. I just wanted to thank Gary at Dark Fantastic Mills. We're working together on trophies and he's just doing a lot of amazing things for us. Table War have sent us some incredible game mats. Yeah. I just wanted to give a shout out to those folks for their support of Vault Wars. It's been awesome. Yeah. I'd see some of the support we're getting for the tournament. So thank you to them and many others. Nice. All right. I'll shut up now. No, you're fine. So my hobby time is still working on something that I can't show anybody. It's a lot of work, but related to that, theoretically, I don't know what I'm exactly allowed to say, but I know I'm allowed to say this. I'll be over in the UK at the beginning of next month for the Horus Heresy weekend or thing. So there you go. I guess you can put that together. So it's going to be a good time, a big event to launch, pre-launch or whatever, of the new edition of Heresy. I'm excited to be part of the larger project. It's a lot of fun. And so you can probably then infer what I've been working on. So that's been most of my life, but that's okay. Got a good game in with Slinash this last weekend. Got a good win in against Lumineth. That felt good. The key there was, as always, take as much stuff that isn't Slinash as possible, but it worked out well. I did use the Chimera as well as I added a little Cockatrice in there as well. Those were good picks. So fully down for the new Slinash Chimera meta. I enjoyed that greatly. And yeah, just been working, of course, still on Adam and I's upcoming game, which we'll talk more about soon. So look for that this summer. There we go. Hobby time over. Done. Done. Okay. I haven't kept time stamps for any of this because I got thrown off at the beginning. That's all right. I'll go back and get them. All right. So let's talk about some West Coast. But before we get into that, I want to do, I want to have just a quick discussion about tournaments in general. So we're going to talk about West Coast Warhammer and the scene that's been built out there. And we're going to we're going to get into kind of one like a sample pack, talk through various elements, have some discussions, all of that. But I thought it'd be important before we did that to just kind of lay down tournament basics. Because I think, you know, there's there's there's some part of our audience, probably a lot of people who maybe haven't been to tournaments ever. And maybe all this stuff we're discussing isn't super known to them. So I thought we'd start with some just let's just let's just lay down the basics. All right. Okay. So tourney basics. Don't forget to hit like, by the way, especially if you hit like if you didn't already, and you're somebody who is inclined to say West Coast, West Coast, because I've seen like 50 of that roll by in the chat. So hit like for that, I guess. Here we go. There's sort of three generally established tournament types. RTTs, which is a which means rogue trader tourney, but that hasn't actually meant that for 30 years, but it's just stuck. And that's like one day three game events. Very common, easier to run, often tend to be smaller, you know, etc. narrative events, very highly in format, non standard goals or environments, this is like raw or the holy events, you know, just sort of the TO head takes a very strong hand often has like some RPG type elements integrated into it. And then GT or just grand tournament. Traditionally, that means a two day, five or six game event. We don't really have the concept in AOS of like super majors, just something 40 K has. But, you know, in general, that's just because our scene isn't as big. Alright, Tom or Tyler, any, any just like pretty basic here, right? Nothing all good so far. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Cool. There are many awards that are given for these tournaments. Tournaments are in some sense a competitive thing. Obviously, I feel like that's kind of an understatement. But they're competitive often in many ways. These are sort of some of the types of awards you will see these can vary event to event. This is not meant to be an all inclusive list, but more like a sample. So you've got things like best overall, as Tyler mentioned, which is a winner based on some combination, depending on however the TO is set it up, of battle points, which are what you earn through play by, you know, actually playing the game and killing little toy soldiers by paint scores, the quality of your paint job by rubric or otherwise by TO judgment or something like that. And then sports, which could be a qualitative scoring happening each game or some other metric. You have best general, which then you sort of have three other words to kind of break those out as general, which is battle points only painted, which is paint evaluation of some form only that these take lots of different forms. Sports, which is whatever the sports evaluation mechanism is. And then you all lots of tournaments have like best in X. These might be awards for different factions for different armies for sometimes specific goals that are orthogonal to the overall battle points or whatever is going on. For example, Nashcon had this monster slayer award, which is all about killing as many, you know, whoever got that killed the most monsters over the course of the tournament, which by the way, Tom, the person who this is an interesting thing maybe you'll find this funny, the person who won the monster slayer award at Nashcon over the course of five games killed 20 monsters. I think about that. That's four monsters per game. That guy was like just praying to run into Sons of Amon. That's what he was aiming at, right? He was like, just yes, this is what I want. I'm good. Here we are. He's living his best life. I'm running a 40 man RTT next week. And that is one of the prizes that we have is the monster killer. And it's obviously highly draw dependent. You faced Night Haunt, Night Haunt, Gitz or something. And you know, good luck. Right. Yeah, I didn't have any monsters in my list. So no one who played me was taking home that trophy. That's, I was just, I was just absolutely like an anchor around your neck if you were, if you were one of my opponents. All right. So I think this is like a, is this a fair common awards list? I mean, anything, Tom, anything you, you think, anything I missed or anything like that? Nope. I think that's pretty encompassing. Okay. Cool. Now, obviously I should state these awards are sort of not the reason probably most people go to tournaments. What I mean by that is like, there are some cadre of people who think they have a good chance at winning one of these things. There is some cadre of people who want to win some of these things. But ultimately the reason you go to a tournament is multifaceted and varied and includes a lot of like softer things. Like you want to go see your friends. You want to go, you know, hang out with a bunch of cool people. You just want to have a weekend away. You want to play five fun games of Warhammer. Like, and you might want to do some of these things. Right. So it can be some mix of sort of psychological motivations. It's not as though everybody who goes to a tournament is like, well, either I get a prize or I'm pissed because that's just, that's just unrealistic. You know, you got a hundred person tournament, you have five or six prizes. I mean, most human beings are pretty rational and understanding that they, they stand a good chance of not being, you know, part of the five or six and instead would be counted in the 94. Right. So yeah, yeah. Before we, before we move on with the common words, I mean, I mentioned it briefly. Personally, I do think the best overall name is the wrong frame. And like I gave the example personally, I mean, it's anecdotal, but personally I developed the wrong impression in my mind based upon that frame as I got back into the hobby. Whereas now personally, I see it's overall best general and arguably best pain and best sports, depending on your point of view, but absolutely within this traditional scheme, best overall and best general as essentially existing sort of on a co-equal plane, you know, the same prestige value. They're both flak sort of like they should be both viewed as the flagship of wards. And if you're going to an event and you really care about best pain or best sports, you'll view them as also on an equal plane. So that's why I personally like the best all around framing. I mean, people will have done like Renaissance man and some other names, you could have, you could name it whatever the hell you want, but Barry gave the thought of best all around because we have a clear frame of reference to that, you know, these combined sports like gymnastics, that's an Olympics category. So to me, I think there's a lot of value in actually seeing more momentum, reframing best overall toward, I'm not sure what would be better than best all around to me that like nails it and would put it on an equal plane with best general or whatever you call best general. Yeah, I mean, yeah, Tom, I want to get your opinion on this. Absolutely. That's you. I was just going to say Tom go. I think naming of the whole name of a tournament I find often objectionable. You're exactly right that the vast majority of people who attend these things are going because they want to play five games of Warhammer with their friends. And they're not there to get a prize. So why call it a tournament? There is a competitive aspect we are judging people based upon how they do. But the vast majority of people are there for fun and to have games of Warhammer. So I'd like to call them all events. There are events that have competitions within them. But to say that you're I think it's very hard to get new people to attend a tournament if they're new to the game, or they don't like hardcore competitive play. In their mind, they're like, this is a competitive event. I don't want to go. And you actually know, it's just five games of fun Warhammer with new people. Right. And they're like, okay, then I'll come. So there are lots of issues with yes, the name of whether we call it a tournament or event or Grand Tournament, etc. Best overall, you know, we can get on to it, but I personally don't like that category at all. But if it was to exist, then the great Scott Reed who I see is in the chat, he calls it Renaissance Man at the tournaments in Southern California. I'm fine with that. But yeah, best overall, I do dislike. Yeah, so we did a show on this a couple years back and I had recommended changing this name. Like this was probably like 2018 2017. So it was the one with the just play guys, by the way, if anybody wants to go back and watch it, we had a really in depth discussion on these various mechanisms and awards, right? Because oftentimes in my understanding, so I know we have UK guests. So if I get this wrong, somebody in the UK can certainly correct me. But my understanding is a lot of events in the UK don't have the concept of like best general, they only kind of have what we would think of as best overall, that's just kind of like the tourney winner. And I really don't like that at all, like not even a little bit. And the, I don't see any need to create some kind of hierarchy for those four awards, like, Oh, one of these is better than the others that, like, you're the four people who are recognized with one of these prestigious awards out of potentially 100 200 X people who are there. It just like, do we need to further subdivide people? Like, can't we just be happy that that somebody got a cool award? Like, why do we need to stack these at all? That's just crazy to me, right? Like you had to be working hard to be any of these podiums. You, you are an exemplary player at that event, right? Do we, do we need to further like, Oh, but actually this person is slightly better, right? Well, yeah. And that's, that, that's the issue that I've had with best overall is that did that to me getting back in, as I've said now three times, I feel that it does that for a lot of people. It's just, it's the wrong term, I think. And it, and it creates this, this issue call it, call it everyone just best overall is the, is the wrong thing for what it actually is. Yeah. So I, I like the idea of having all four of these. I mean, I'll put my flag in the ground. I do think all four of them have value. I think all four of them are worth recognizing in the hobby, but we'll talk about that more later. But I do like the idea, but I love the idea of having them renamed in some way. Okay. As well as we just talked about, like other awards are also cool and fun. And those should be there, just like you talked about with the monster killer thing or whatever. There's 20 examples of that kind of stuff out there. All right. So to do tourney variants, I want to talk a little about variants in these tournaments, because events, whatever we want to think of them as, there is a lot of actual difference in how these things are done. I mean, TOs are kings when it comes to this. They rule by fiat effectively. Now they're, if you run a very bad tournament, you will tend to not have people return to your tournament often. But for the most part, there's a lot of leeway as to how people can set up and create the rules for their individual tournament and very much put their fingerprint on it. And many do. And so I just wanted to kind of talk about a few of the items that you often see variants in. This is, again, by no means an inclusive list. So narrative events are the most sort of varied things. There's lots of different narrative events that are around. Jibbering Dome was run at Adept Con. It's a big narrative event, but I also mentioned like Raw, the holy events and so on and so forth. These things are all around. They're an extremely broad group. We're effectively lumping what are very different events together into one broad category. Again, it's not that they don't have awards. They often do. It's not that they don't have prizes. They often do. You still play in games. You're still often determining winners. They just are usually aiming at telling a story or have or integrating some kind of RPG elements. Some of them actually have even GMs or storytellers or something like that who can take a hand. The easiest way I could explain it to somebody who's not familiar is like think something like path to glory, but on a larger scale. That's that's my kind of attempt to bridge the gap there. Terrain is often extremely varied at events. And this is the biggest thing. Tyler, this is what you're trying to address. In my mind, this is the highest barrier of entry to new tournament organizers. Because it's you know, you want to run even a a 40 person event. Not a not a huge event, right? That's 20 tables worth of terrain. You've got to have theoretically. That's a lot of terrain. It's this is and like you have to store it. You have to transport it. You have to collect it, purchase it, paint it, you know, like it's work. And so I just wanted to give you a second. Just talk about kind of what you're going for people who what you're going for with the terrain idea, just because I think it is a good idea to that will help new to use it and bring more events to the scene. Right. So we need to do a show soon on on this. Yeah, you know, the terrain project and everything involved with it. So the work in progress, I think we are getting pretty clear on what the mission is. I mean, you've laid out sort of the why. The what is we want to help facilitate hubs in the United States and elsewhere, ideally, starting in, you know, where we are locally, the terrain that can be lended out and light terrain cooperatives, you know, lending programs. There's a lot of details and doing that, many of which we've yet to figure out, you know, when we have our literally 20 tables for this first year, well, then be impositioned to start working through those details. But yeah, that's the idea is to have to build kind of like building infrastructure, building capacity, different parts of the United States that can be provided to events. You know, there's going to be cost involved with that. They're going to need to be covered, but do it in a way that makes it clear this is, you know, for the community. This has a very clear sort of public purpose mission, you know, community mission. And yeah, I mean, I don't know, Matt, I could say a whole lot about this. We're building a website that's going to have a lot of details in terms of helping people. You know, here's a lot of showcase tables with the STL files to get the specific set of terrain. Printable scenery has an incredible amount. I mean, there's just an extraordinary amount that's out there. Here's painting guide to how this table was painted, but just generally try to do various things that make it as easy as possible to help elevate, you know, raise the bar on terrain in our global community. So I think we have a lot of room for improvement. Yeah. And to me, this is one of those things that actually matters quite a lot when I go to an event. Like I want good terrain on the table that's functional and doing something and making the game interesting. I don't want to play in a grassy field or with just like the famous Nova Elves. I mean, Tom, this is this is something you've clearly met and overcome. So like how what's your general feel on terrain at events? Train is extremely important to me. It makes or breaks a single game of Sigma. And if it makes or breaks a single game of Sigma, it makes or breaks a tournament. Whenever I see reports from tournaments around the world, the first thing I look at is what did the tables look like? Because if you have essentially no terrain on the table, no physical line of sight blocking terrain on the table, then, you know, a lot of the talk right now is how shooting is overpowered in this meta. Well, if you're not talking about Sentinels, then line of sight blocking terrain really matters. The army that I've been playing for three years in a row has got full blood thirsters. I don't want to make sure this terrain on the table that a blood thirster can hide behind because I don't put those things shot off. So yeah, I have to give a shout out to Scott Reed, who again, is in the chat. He has, you know, maybe 50 tables worth of terrain in his garage, and he will lend that to me and to other people in the whole of the Southwest of the United States whenever they ask, as far as I can tell. And for events that I have held where he hasn't even been able to attend, he's driven two hours up from San Diego to my house to drop it off, etc. So that's obviously been fantastic. I also now have 20 tables of my own terrain as well that I store in my garage and I'm happy to lend that out to people as well. So yeah, in the Southwest of the US, we kind of already have that community terrain project set up and it's a lifesaver. Yeah, the local store that I run events at fairly, you know, where I started, let's put it that way, they have terrain, but it's kind of crappy. It's shared with 40k and it gets used by a whole bunch of different people and it gets lost and everything. So now I just bring my own and it makes the event so much better. Knowing and the way that Scott taught me how to do it, he has one hub for a table and he's written on the side of the tub, you know, lava terrain. And so we just go to the event, we put down the lava mat, we get the lava box, we put it on the table, set it all out. The box goes underneath the table at the end of the event, it goes back into the same box with the mat done. Yeah, it just works really well. Yeah, that's very much like Steve Herner's method here. I don't know if you've ever been to one of his events, but Steve is also very famously known for just incredible tables with just unbelievable terrain of like immense effect on the table, right? And that's exactly how he stores it, like this is the table, this is for this one, you know, because all of his tables are sort of narrative realm set things. And so every table has extremely detailed terrain in that same way. Yeah, and that's, I mean, it's, it's, it's wonderful because not only that, it also makes you feel like, oh, cool, I'm in a place. Like I'm actually playing somewhere. This means something, right? As opposed to just like, here's seven random things that why are they all in close proximity to each other? Right? So yeah, having a cool table like that is just, it just helps. It makes the game cooler. But I would say if you're starting out as a TO function over form, yeah, really matters. If you have to use some sci-fi 40k buildings, because those are the only ones that are actually big enough to have an impact on the game. So be it, your players will understand and we can just make some retcon there, KO buildings or something, you know, make it work rather than just having that tall terrain. And that's it. Right. Yeah. Absolutely agree. And, and again, I'm excited by, I saw somebody in the chat say, you know, talk to your other regional TOs and bond together to sort of create a shared pool. Basically like what you're saying right there, Tom, this, it's, you know, exactly like you can, it's the community and TOs who are running events have all gone through this. So are probably able to help. It's not, it's not only TOs. If you've got a player base that you consistently can, a lot of them will have a table of terrain at home because they play at home. Sure. Yeah. So if every player brings one table, now you don't want, you know, I see some packs where they force that and I hate that. But, you know, just ask beforehand, hey, can anyone bring a table of terrain? That helps a lot. Yep. All right. I'll also say that like there's often very different rules that get stapled on terrain, like some people use the mystical rules, some don't, some have, have actually used sort of very smart keyword system adding the appropriate rules we would expect to see, which maybe we'll talk about in just a minute. And I am definitely a fan of that. There you go. Round time is also something we see a lot of variance in. I'd say the average right now is probably two hours, 45 minutes. Some turnies use three hours, some use two and a half. And I think 3.0 has certainly brought this into forefront, just because of the level of complexity of the addition. And, you know, not every player plays at the same speed. Talk about some speed things I know, Tom, you're a fan of that I find so repulsive, it makes me want to die. But that's all right. I understand where you're at. And, but you know, it is like time is a consideration, right? It is a thing. And I do have to wonder if we do switch to like hashtag horde meta, as we predicted, does the timing issue get more intense? We've been playing pretty elite right now, right? Like most of your big armies don't tend to like, even your often big units don't often move a lot. That is to say, like sentinels aren't generally running around the table doing complex maneuvers. They're just kind of in a castle shooting at people, basically. So I have to wonder if suddenly horde becomes the thing. Does that become more challenging to the to the round time? I don't know. I don't know. I mean, real quickly, so Tom, all of the tournaments that you organize, or most of them use chess clocks, or is it optional to use chess clocks per game per player? We can. So I have an RTTs. No, don't need it. GTs. I generally have a rule that if both, what do I say? If one player requests it, then they have to be used. But, you know, I think I'm up to 32 events run in the last two years now, or 18 months, I think. And in that time, I think maybe only three times has a chess cock been on a table. So it and in all three of those times, both players wanted it. So it wasn't one player insisting. But what I did notice, and I started introducing it after 3.0, because games were just taking too long and you'd get games that were after two and a half hours, we'd got through two rounds. The threat of chess clocks had a big impact. So players actually read, Oh, I might be chess clocked at a coming up tournament. They took the initiative and actually sped up their play. So I say that having that rule in my GT packs hasn't literally made much difference because they just never ever get used. But the threat of it really did make a difference. That's interesting. That's interesting. Okay, I could see that. I could see that as the incentive thing. All right. That is an interesting take on it. I hadn't thought I hadn't thought about that sort of secondary consequence, Tom, but that's fascinating. We'll talk about it more because we're going to we're going to look at a sample pack that you kind of use. And we'll talk about that. But yeah, we can do it later. I would like to get into more discussion around round times and and all that. Yeah. And then finally, scoring, there are many different systems to determine to determine your points in an individual round. Like what do you get for major win? How do battle tactics weigh in all of that? This is a thing that just all over the board, as far as different ways to score this, some are clearly better than others. But at any rate, they are they are out there and they vary highly. That's about the most I can say for that. This has to be maybe the element of the most variance, because clearly the way the game was written, they just kind of wrote it thinking like, yeah, it's major minor, you move on, right? And just kind of stopped. And events really want more detail than that. So yeah, all right. What's crazy on that is that was it the 2020 GHB actually had a tournament pack in it with how to score for tournaments. And then with the latest GHB, they just thought, ah, we've forgotten all about that. And now we've actually made it way more difficult. Yep. Yep. Which was about the same time they decided to run big events in the United States. Who knows what they're thinking is it's very strange because doesn't the 40k world have a hard event pack that actually dictates scoring as more of a standard? You're asking the wrong person. No, that's fine. I thought I did. But who knows? Anyways, I don't know. I'm not the 40k tournament expert by any means. Okay, let's talk about this. Let's talk about a little sample GT pack. Because this is probably the best way to get into it. This is your generic RTT pack, correct? That's that's what we're looking at here. Okay. I will most of the other text is a little bigger. Do I have a way to make this larger? Yes, I do zoom. But boom, there we go. That should be easier to read for everybody. Okay, you know, that's going to be off to the side. Sorry, everyone. I just want to make sure everybody can actually read what's going on here. All right, good enough. Okay, so I mean, most of the beginning of this stuff, tournament rule is nothing too complicated. Best Coast pairings used AOS 3.0, 2000 point list, anything that you should choose beforehand you do and they have to be clearly indicated on your roster. Now, this is an interesting one. But for an RTT, completely makes sense. I support it. There are no paint requirements, but models must be appropriately based. Totally logical. Let's take a minute to talk about paint requirements here because I think this is kind of an interesting discussion. With your two day events, Tom, do you have any kind of paint requirements versus like an RTT? How do you see that world? Yeah, two day events definitely have paint requirement, the sort of three, whatever GW call the battle ready thing or the standard sort of three paint or three colors standard. Yes, everything has to be painted. Okay, which again, this is like, let me say one thing. We'll have some discussions here about some interesting differences here and there between sort of regional scene and things that I might like versus things Tom might likes. But what was really fascinating to me, Tom, on first glance of reading through this, there's obviously so much more we all agree on than anything we disagree on. The bottom line here is events have a lot of similarities across. We have come to 90%, 95% of an event has become like, yep, this is what we're doing. And then there's like this last bit work on it that tends to vary place to place. And I'll also point out that the pack we are looking at is not necessarily the pack that I use for my RTTs, but a lot of you get this in I presume all over the place, but there are a lot of like small friendly local game scores where the owner wants to run a Sigma tournament doesn't play Sigma doesn't know the rules. And so I had a lot of them coming to me and saying, Hey, can we use one of your packs? And so I just wrote this and said, actually, I can do you one better. Here's a generic pack. All you have to do is change the date, the venue and then choose what's rules. And so that's what and it's actually, I hear people using this all over the world now. So it's not just a West Coast thing. Even in the Midwest, there are events that use this pack. Who could imagine, you know, exactly. This is a, yeah, and I completely support there not being a painting requirement for an RTT for a one day event. It just makes sense. It's the way that you can bring people in, right? So don't put an extra onus on them. That's just like, like painting an army is no small thing, right? Like it is a lot of time, effort, work you have to put in, even if you're doing, you know, a speed method like like Rob's video or whatever. And so like, I don't think that should ever be undervalued. And don't put that like, let players experience the event, make friends, get to know the community, draw them in. And they'll be more incentivized to paint their force, because they'll be having a good time with their army and meeting people and getting into Warhammer, right? Which is ultimately what makes you want to paint. Not the shame of it or something like that, right? It's being an active member of the community, the hobby that gets you ultimately motivated. It's also even for experienced players, we tend to have if, you know, the two months coming up to LVO, if Scott has let us know which missions are going to be in use at LVO, then all of the RTTs for those two months will use the same missions. People want to test out their lists. They want to test out ideas. They want to see which armies are the most fun to them. Insisting before you can test out your list, you have to have it painted. It's just insane. So just use whatever you want, get it on the table, have fun. Love it. Love it. Okay. Oh, yeah, go ahead, Tyler. Well, so, I mean, Tommy just raised an interesting discussion point. What's your TLDR? I mean, it sounds like you have a clear view on do you think essentially all two-day events, match play events should have the scenarios known in advance? And so is there a certain time in which you think they should be known or what's your overall thoughts on that? Yes, I do. I have run events where the fifth and final round is a surprise, just to add some spice. But to be honest, you know, if you put the five missions in the pack, it's still a surprise for 90% of players anyway, because I don't see the benefit in hiding it from players. The whole idea that oh, well, you're going to get these whack players who are going to tailor their list for the specific missions. It just doesn't happen. It just doesn't happen. So why keep it a secret? Thank you. Thank you. Yes. My God. The number of, like the amount of pearl clutching that happens over this issue, right? Of like, oh no, we have to keep it secret or people will design their lists. So let me get this straight. Let's even assume the worst case. Okay. We have to keep it secret or people will play lists that are actually supposed to perform in the scenarios you lay out and not be surprised and have a bad time or a bad game and feel like they lost for reasons that were completely out of their control. Right? Like, is that what we're, that's the situation you're trying to, that you're worried about. Like, I just whack players or whack players. They're rare and few and far between. Most of the best players, this is something that Tom and I were talking about beforehand. I'll tell you right now, most of the best players I've played against, like the people who, if they rock up to the table and I'm at a tournament and I'm across from them, I'm like, ah crap. Okay. Most of those people are the nicest people you can ever have a game with. Right? They're not, like, again, there are exceptions. There are always, you know, a few standout people who are jerks, but that is rare in this community because it's such a known quantity. It's a small community still even now as it's grown. And I just, like, let people have a good time, announce the freaking battle plans. I just don't get this. Maybe they will read it and then they will know what the battle plans are and they don't have to spend 20 minutes looking up the rules for this mission before every round because they've actually studied it at home. Thank you. That's an important point. Yeah. Exactly. When we're concerned about time, hey, I know, let's throw more barriers of entry before we can start every game. Right? Yeah. No. Absolutely. Good. So aligned. Thank you. Okay. Look, I've been thinking about this because I had realized recently that I had accepted the assumption that has been lingering that this is just the way it's done. That was my sense of what the consensus had been. And yeah, I've been thinking about that recently. So anyway, yeah, I mean, I tend to agree with you guys on this. The other option which Crazy Horse in the chat mentioned, you know, Griffith does this with NashCon, I've seen some other events do it, put together here's seven missions that we might play, we'll play five out of seven, which I think it's better. I don't even know if that's necessary, but that's certainly another option. Sure. Another option that you can't really do with an RTT, but you could do with a GT. For GTs, I insist that lists are due two weeks before the event. You could release the missions the day after that. So then they can't tailor the lists, but they do have time to prepare and figure it out. Yep. If you're really that concerned. Right. Like as though people don't just have the list that they've been, like you just mentioned it, right? People are playing in RTTs, they're testing different things. Like they built the list they built because it's the list they want to run, they think it's fun, they think it's competitive, they think it's whatever, it's what they could paint, it's what they had time for, it's what they could afford. There's like 100 reasons why you build a list that aren't these are the five battle plans. Like who are we kidding here? Okay. Like, come on. All right. Anyways, beat that up enough. So each player must adhere to the player's code. Love that you threw this in there. Well, that's sort of all very good stuff. Chest clocks would be available. See the chest clock rules. We talked about that a little bit. List must be entered into BCP by Thursday. Remember this for an RTT. So you're pulling out a couple of days before, as you mentioned a GT, you might move that backwards more. And then, you know, here's your when your round time starts. Okay, cool beans. Player's code. I love that you put this in here that you that you actually outline this. I think there's a lot to do with moral priming. And I think like it's a real phenomenon. And I think just making sure this shows up in the pack is a good idea. Most players are good players. Most people are good people. Most people want to have a fun time at the table, putting this in there and just reminding it and saying, Hey, this is kind of the expectation. It's good. Nothing wrong with it. Like this is how most people are going to play anyways. Good. Set that this is the expectation. So no problem. All right. I don't think this is controversial, even in the least so we can move on. I did appreciate that you have the make a respectful non touching gesture to your opponent before and after the game. That's good. I like that. That's good. That's good. Most people don't like not most people. Some people don't like shaking hands. So it's always nice. And again, this this pack was written month two of COVID. Right, exactly. So it was incredibly important. Yeah, exactly. All right. I'm not going to go through all the chess clock rules. You have them in here. Let's take it. You're all kind of lay down my my basic premise. I but your story really did flip my brain around a little bit on on this. Okay. And you know, my basic issue is I really hate chess clocks and the idea of the thing and the back and forth and that kind of thing. It's just not how I like to play or worry about things. I I work pretty hard to play a fast game to make decisions quickly. And I just don't like having a clock over me, even when I actually played a lot of chess, I never played speed chess that use like a clock, right? It's just always been a personal caveat of mine. And so the fear is always when you hate something so much that you're going to show up and somebody's going to force you into it, right, because of the sort of one sided ability to declare. And that instantly I'm just like in a bad place. But your point about like, just sort of by having this here as a concept, it makes people change the way they think about things. That's interesting. That's really interesting that you've had so few actually used. But that sort of as this soft incentive that's out there, they've changed behavior. Yeah, again, it's pretty certain it's only three times of the 30 events that I've run, where I've seen them used. And in all three, both both players come from a sort of speed chess background, or I know nothing about magic. And it annoys me when you go on about magic in your shows, Vince, because I'm here, but they come from a magic background as well, where speed is a thing. And you know, and both players were kind of, let's do this to see how it works sort of thing. So I've never actually used it seen it used as a threat. And I think, you know, we're not 40 K, Sigma players are in general, just nice guys, no one's going to say, I know the only way I can beat this guy is by chess clocking him. It just doesn't happen in at least in the community that I participate in. Sure. Sure. Yeah, it's an interesting idea. I mean, like, look, I know I'm full of bias on this one because of how much I hate it, like it is my personal sense of things. Right. But I also don't ever want to give someone a bad game. And like slow play is anathema to me. You know, like I'm very much about like, if there's going to be a discussion, if somebody says something's not clear, wind it, you know, just wind it back, I won't do that thing, whatever, whatever, right, or whatever, like, and keeping moving and, you know, measure cleanly, but quickly, that kind of thing, you know, all that sort of stuff, you make your check for your opponents agreement, all those kinds of things. And so it's, it's interesting because I think if you, if you surveyed, if we surveyed a lot of the audience of people who've sort of played games or went tournaments or whatever, my guess is most people don't like the concept of being chess clocked. That probably bears out by the fact you've seen so few of them actually being used. I don't mean it in an offensive way, like try somebody trying to beat you through chess clocking you know, I just mean like by having him at the table. But there is a real discussion here about game speed. Right. This game is very complicated right now. And it's only going to get more complicated over time, like let's be straight with each other here. Right. And so there is an onus that is getting put on us by the nature of the game that you should know stuff. You just, you have to move quickly. And it may come to a point where we have to think of whether it's this mechanism or some other mechanism to move people along. One of the things that I've also seen people talk about, and I'd be curious to get your take on this one, Tom, is the TO actually announcing sort of time milestones as they go throughout the whole round, not just like you have an hour remaining or you have 45 minutes or 15 minutes remaining, but actually throughout like, and setting it like this, you know, your one hour has elapsed. Everybody should be through their first turns or, you know, should be into turn two, you know, something like that where the TO is actually making an announcement to like to bring it back to everybody's mind in the game while they're playing. Right. I hate that idea. I think that has a fundamental misunderstanding of how different armies work. There are some armies where the first turn is literally two minutes. You know, again, I play a full blood first a corn list and often my first turn is done in two minutes, but the later turns can take longer and summoning armies that start off with very little and the game goes on or death armies where they're bringing stuff back. So to say, you know, you should all be done with your first turn after 45 minutes, while some tables will be done 20 minutes before that and some tables will happily finish their game, but may not have finished the first turn yet. So I don't think you can actually put time stamps on it like that. Do you like the idea of sort of general announcements of like, hey, we're one hour into the tournament, you know, one hour has elapsed, something like that. Keep the time on people's minds. The West Coast Best Coast crowd in the chat will tell you that I often have my daughter traveling around with an iPad showing how much time is left. She goes up to the tables to make sure that everyone knows. Yeah. So yeah, that's obviously useful. Yeah, I think those kinds of memory things just like, because oftentimes one of the one of the challenges to people playing slower could be that they're just very into the game and aren't actually realizing what they're doing or how slow they're playing, right? It happens. Like the game is very immersive. It's involving. It takes most of your mental focus to be, you know, to be in a tournament game. And it's also that the term slow playing is different from playing slow. Yeah. There are the idea that gets used a lot that people are deliberately playing slow because they use that as a tactic. Again, I don't think that happens very often. I just don't see it. But there are some people who either because they take longer to think or some people are just chatty, you know, they spend the first half hour talking about what they've been doing since they last saw each other, etc. Yeah. And so yeah, having reminders, hey, guys, you're here to play a game. You need to get a move on helps. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. So that'd be curious. So Tom, before I get into my diet, try on this. What's your view on how much of an issue I'm, as there has not been a 3.0 events? It's been a big issue. Okay. Let's go to here. Actually, I think we ran one of the first GTs after 3.0 launched. And those, you know, you often those games were going to two rounds in three hours. It has got better as time has gone on and players are used to the new rules, etc. And they thinking about reapplies and stuff beforehand. But even now, it's not unusual for games to not be finishing five turns. So you can't have it that games go on forever. I do see that talked about like, well, you know, if the first round is before lunch, then you can let them play through lunch. And if the second round, you know, you have a half hour of breaking, letting play through break and then the third round, just let them play until they go home at night. I don't like that. I think everything should be on a schedule. Every game should finish at the same time. But what I think is really, really important, and I see not happening at some tournaments is there needs to be explicit instructions on what to do if you run out of time. Oh my goodness. Yes, we are going to talk about that. You have instructions in here and it was a breath of fresh air, Tom, to read it. Tyler and I had a huge discussion about this recently. Huge. So I don't want to, we can come into it later, but I'll just say I have been at an event where the top three was decided and I think the person who came third would have finished first or second, but they didn't because they had handled running out of time in one of their first games differently from how everyone else had handled it. They had lost out on points that they could have given themselves because they just said we will just call it as is and that's not what everyone else was doing and not what the people who finished first and second had done when their games didn't end. And so it wasn't, they came third because they played badly. They came third because they treated the end of game mechanic differently from everyone else. Thank you. So again, I think it's very important that the pack explains how to handle it. Now, whether everyone reads the pack or not, that's up to them, but at least I've done my bit in trying to make it that everyone does exactly the same thing if they went at a time. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Tyler. Yeah. So on, you are doing two hours 45 mostly right now. Yes. Three hours for the last round for no apparent reason. And do you have a clear sense of what rough percentage people, a number of people are getting through or percentage of people are getting through their games? Games are getting to conclusion, especially conclusion in two hours 45. It's hard for me because most of the people who come to my events have been to quite a few of them now. And so by the time that I am getting to, hey, you're running out of time, they know how to handle it. And so they've already handled it by the time I go there. Got it. So how many tables do I actually have to go up to and say, hey, guys, you need to come to a conclusion, one or two per round, if that. It's always nodal players. Yeah. Yeah. Nurgle. Yeah. I've had that experience. So I'm asking all this because I mean, I tend to think that we have not been sufficiently honest collectively about the challenges with time in 3.0. I mean, we've had a fair amount of discussion, but I get a little tired about folks. To me, a lot of people acting like this is not an issue in 3.0 when I think it's a big issue. I never had an issue. I mean, send this number of times to the show personally, never had an issue at events in 1.0 or 2.0. I've had real issues. I'm a very deliberate player. I play challenging lists. I don't play, you know, like the Stormcast list, I took the Depticon. It's generally a five game army. That's going to need to go five round army. Yeah, five round army. It's going to have to go five rounds. Vast, I play maybe 30 games with this army. The vast majority of games are very close. Maybe I, if I were a better player, that wouldn't be the case. But, you know, it's sort of an off-metal list. It's designed to give opponents a good game and for me to have challenging games. And I still have been having some issues. But then on the other hand, I've seen real sole players. I'm at, like, in some ways, I've tried to get asked at playing 3.0 games and really made, gotten more intentional about it. Then I've seen players who are actually really slow. And so, and then, yeah, there's the issue of banter, of being friendly, of, you know, having good conversations at the table. You kind of wrap all this together. At Adepticon, I was seeing a large number of games. I couldn't give you a percentage, but a lot of games that were not finishing, that were getting to round three. And that was it in the two day or Saturday, Sunday. So, yeah, just, you know, it feels like three hours. That's where I'm at right now, in terms of, or maybe like two hours 45. And then you have this sort of like 15 minute warning window. Maybe you try to frame it, where we're emphasizing, trying to get done in two hours 45. But, yeah, a long way of saying, I've been struggling with this issue of time, both from a personal and from a TO perspective, about how to do this in the best possible way. Where you're balancing people having sort of enjoying themselves, feeling like they're in a reasonably relaxed, fun atmosphere. And not under the gun at all times to get their game finished and, you know, get their game finished on time. Yeah, totally fair. Okay. I mean, or we can just make everybody play Suns all the time. That's just, we all play Suns now. So, you are only allowed Suns and Iron Jaws. These are the two legal armies now, anything else, not allowed. Okay. Let's just do pretty fast. I'll take that. Yeah. Basically, you could have any army where you can build your list with 10 or less models. Yeah. That's, that's a lot. Okay. All right. Let's move on to talk about scoring. Your scoring system in here is really interesting. I do appreciate the absolute gauche of your naming system. It's fantastic. It's so it feels like something I would write. I bet so that's why I like it. Okay. I'm not going to go through the whole thing here. I mean, the basic premise of it is the sort of game victories are a very large number of points and the grand strat and battle tactics are a small number of points to then differentiate would be my read on it. But tell me in your own words why you like this particular setup that you've used here for these, for this scoring system. So I wanted a scoring system that was purely point-based. You can, you know, I use BCP, always use BCP, BCP is great, etc., etc. Thanks, Gowit. Uh, you can in BCP set up so that the ranking is done by points and then by grand strategies and strength of schedule and everything like that. I wanted a simple particularly for this pack that I was writing for people who may not be familiar with running tournaments at all to just be able to have a system that they can count up the points using Excel or whatever it is. It's just a very simple. You get points for doing this, add them up whoever's got the most points at the end wins. So that's why we've got points. I put a huge number of points for victory because winning the game should be more important than anything else. I gave points for battle tactics and grand strategy. Again, when I wrote this scoring system, this was before the faction specific battle tactics and grand strategies, you and I are on exactly the same page events. I absolutely hate them, but I have to include them because they're part of the game. Of course, we should like I want to file a petition like I want to change or position to bin these in the game or just like put them into a non matched play section or something. I don't even know. Right. But we get points for that. But I think what the really important thing is denials. I am a firm believer in getting points for denying your opponent from scoring tactics or grand strategies or doing something. I hear a lot that it creates an NPA environment by stomping an opponent, stopping them from getting points, etc. I don't buy that. I think if you're playing the game, you're having fun. You should be playing to try and win. But what you do see and I went to an event fairly recently where they didn't have denials and every single table you see, well, I've won the game. I'll just give you all of your battle tactics. It doesn't impact me in any way how many points you get for battle tactics. So I'm just going to give you everything. And I really don't like that that the opportunity for collusion is there. I'm an economist, so I believe in incentives. So I think the scoring system should incentivize you to not stomp on your opponent, but just not to give it anything away for free. I knew there was a reason that I liked you. All right, that explains a lot. Yeah, one of the things that I was interested in, that I did like about the nature of how you've said this, was you say a lot through the waiting. And it's clear that basically what's going to happen is you're relying on differentiation around the margins. Right? So because you're going to have, let's imagine at the end of three games, we've got some selection of people depending on the size of the event who are at 1500 base points from three major victories, right? They've went three and no. Okay. But then of course, just for everybody else to let's kind of walk through the example to bring everybody else along. At the same time, you then are going to see some differentiation in there based on not only how well they were at the sub things, and again, it'll be in the margins. It's not going to be like 3000 points to 1000 points, but it's still going to rank them in some way. It will still be obvious who's doing more, where you've got one person with who may be completed all their battle tactics, but also didn't stop anybody. Then the person who's above them is the person who completed all their tactics and denied some number of their opponents, right? And so it's creating this soft, subtle differentiation between them, right? Where there's very obvious, you can very obviously look at that straight number and see exactly what's going on. No need to dig back into the secondary items. It's prima facie evident just from the number itself. It's very readable by everybody there. The first time that we ran this at a major, the old town's throw down two, I think, there were 58 players and we didn't have a tight score until 18th place. So one through 17 all had completely unique scores. And again, that means that at the end, there's no confusion over who's won, which may be appropriate given what's happened in the last couple of weeks. And equally throughout the tournament, you can look, you know, I use BCP again, every player can look at BCP and they just see one number, their score. And they know how that score compares to everyone else. They know who they're placing, you know, their relative placing, etc. in the tournament, they just have to look at that one score and that's it. It's a very, very simple system. Which that part, that last part you mentioned, is not to be undervalued, right? Because how many, I mean, I've been to plenty of tournaments where you're looking at BCP and you're like, all right, well, I think I'm going to play this person, but maybe this person, let me see what the, because you just told like people who often just use like literally the points scored in the battle is a very common way to sort of do it within all the secondary tertiary sorting mechanisms you're talking about, right? And that stuff, by the way, gets highly, highly subject to the thing we talked about earlier. If people resolve their games in different ways, right? Then all of a sudden you get like, things just shoot all over the place into weird ways, right? So, yeah, I actually like this differentiation quite a bit. I'm not sure whether I'm willing to back correct just yet, Tom, but, but I do like it. Like this really impressed me because I could see the all of the benefits right away when I looked through this as to sort of how the max score is working out. It's very calculable. It's very knowable, right? And so it's also very trackable round to round, right? For your individual items that you're doing. So, yeah. Okay, cool. Tyler, any thoughts on this one? I will say, thumbs up. I like this scoring system. It's got my vote. I think this is quality. Yeah, definitely intrigued by it. I'm going to try it out and RTT locally pretty soon. So, yeah, thank you for this, Tom. Yeah, you know, there's again another thing. So Aki just said who I think is one of your local people. He's certainly a Tom Stan in the chat. He said, and like the bonus points because of monsters don't actually affect your tournament score, right? Which is, yeah, exactly like bonus points from monsters, the new Prime Hunter nonsense, right? All of this like these things aren't just actually rocketing your tournament score around. Yeah, I mean, you talked about the bads tournament scoring systems, which is just add up the number of VP's that you've scored throughout the tournament. And that was a terrible system before this, but now with the hunt, it's become abysmal. I agree. I agree. If one mission is scored on a zero one point system, and another one is scored on a zero to 60 point system, it doesn't matter for the tournament score. All that matters is, did you win or not? Did you get your battle tactics? Did you get your grand strategy? Yep. Very good. All right, we talked a little about round timing already, but this was, so we'll kind of move past that because I think we had that discussion. But this, I really, really, really, really liked, Tom. Tyler and I were going through this in advance of the show to kind of prepare some of our thoughts. And this was the part that jumped right out to me because again, we were having this conversation not two weeks ago. Okay. If a player concedes, they receive a major loss and their opponent scores a major victory. The opponent also scores all remaining battle tactics and denies all remaining battle tactics, as well as scoring the grand strategy and denial bonus. Example, if player A concedes the top turn two and then so on, you go through the example, this needs to be in every pack. There's something like this. I don't care if it's this exact words, but directions about player concession and what happens is so important. And it's just not there. And, you know, like, easy example, I went to last year at Nashcon. This is like, this was the first 3.0 tournament that I played in. Yeah, that's right. That is a true statement. And I won my first game and the player conceded at like I'm going to say like the bottom of two or something. It doesn't matter early in the game. Right. And I was like, okay. And I just marked up my score as to what I had done that far and my win and then turned it in. And then I was talking to somebody else and they were like, oh, well, did you put in all your battle tactics for the rest of the game? I was like, no, we didn't play the rest of the game. Was I supposed to do that? And they're like, oh yeah. So then boom, instantly I like just handed away a bunch of points towards potential, towards, towards placing. Like I handed away placing, right? Because of that. I have no doubt that cost you the podium. It was, no, I know what cost me the podium. Don't worry. That's a very actual clear thing in game five against Trent and Ellie. There is a exact moment that cost me the podium. But I mean, it was, it was like, it was a feel bad moment, right? Because that, because it wasn't clear direction. And that's not me hitting David or anything. David's a fantastic TO and I love Nash con to death. But my point is I read this, I was like, my God, this needs to be in every pack. So yeah, I mean, I guess just talk about, I think I've already espoused the values, but like, yes, you did yell at me for this, Anthony, that is true. But Tom, why did you put this in here? You know, why do you like this? Have I missed anything in my praising of it so far? I think you've covered it. You know, the player concedes also, you know, what happens if you run out of time, et cetera. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on how a TO wants to rule that if it's player concedes, you know, it's just what I want is consistency. I want every single table to use the same rule, the same score for if that happens. So yeah, I mean, I don't mind whether TOs take my specific handling of it or not, but I really do care that TOs spell out what you should do. Yep. Yep. Absolutely. All right, Tyler, any thoughts on this one? I mean, you and I had this conversation. This, this needs to be in there, right? No, I love it. Yeah. I did want to go back to the round scoring. I was reading comments. I think you guys talked about what you're using as tiebreaker. I see you have this system is designed to reward winning each round. Victory points scored used as a tiebreaker. Still some difference between major, minor victories, victory points. So you're referring to if you get a major victory, you get 500 points? Yeah, that sentence is probably confusion and should probably be taken out. I think that's left over from something. My editor, Sam, who's in the chat who has a lot to do with the writing of this pack. So thank you, Sam, but we need to rework that sentence. You probably know where I was going in terms of, yeah, the potential confusion with that. Yeah. Okay. And then so specifically in relation to tiebreakers, just spell that out. How are you doing? And again, sorry if I missed it. How are you doing tiebreakers? I heard the comment that they've not been all that relevant, or at least not. They haven't. They are becoming more relevant as more and more factions get battle tactics or battle tactics are a little easier to achieve, unfortunately. I am currently using Strength of Schedule. I'm not a huge fan of Strength of Schedule, but I don't have a better solution right now. Thankfully, it hasn't impacted a podium at any of my events. I think even RTT hasn't impacted the podium. Yeah, because we went through this discussion locally for our event as well. And that's what we settled on. Strength of Schedule with that asterisk. We were not sure. It did not seem necessarily ideal, but the best of the options we could figure out. Yeah, I mean, Strength of Schedule, just to lay this out for everybody. No, you're fine. It means just because, again, not everybody might have the basics of what that actually means. And the concept of it's quite simple. It's how did the people you played against also perform, right? So the better the people you played against also did the higher your Strength of Schedule, which, again, comes from my first experience with it was with magic. It doesn't come from magic. It comes from older things than that. But my first experience with it was magic. But the problem with it is it becomes less and less and less and less valuable. Actually, like the bigger the tournament or in two day tournaments and stuff like that, because then you get more and more and more drops. And so then all of a sudden Strength of Schedule becomes this very weird thing where just because somebody you happen to play, got mad, lost one game, and decided that's it, I'm out, which can happen a lot, especially in big tournaments, very big convention tournaments where there's plenty of other things going on for them to go do or two day tournaments or whatever, where they might not want to come back. Suddenly, you're losing out on your tiebreaker for something completely out of your control. Yeah. Okay. Cool. The rest is sort of late or like the late arrivals and buys no problem, good to lay that out. Terrain. All right, let's talk about the inclusion of defensible, effectively obscuring you use the real word Wildwood, but we all know it's just obscuring and impassable terrain. Yep. Right. I mean, this is what we need. This is how, why isn't this in the game? Why isn't this just the three categories in the game? Why isn't this the standard? This is correct. I have nothing. This one, I will give it to you. This one is correct. Yeah, I do have, again, as a bloodthirster player, I really wish that Wildwood's counted for big monsters. But yeah, and I'm not going to take credit for all of these terrain rules. I mean, a lot of this is taken directly from what Scott does as well. So I can't take credit for any or 100% credit for any of this packet. It has been a team effort amongst the community, but the terrain is particularly, I borrowed a lot of rules from Scott on this. Yeah. Yeah. And we've seen, we've seen who was it? Was it Tyler? Was it Stuart Iron Gutsman, who also had a Colonel Cabbage? Sorry, Colonel Cabbage had a similar pack a while back with these three. And, you know, obviously, this has sort of become the thing I think we've all kind of agreed with, right? That cabbage got it from Rob, who yeah, had a big role in kicking off this conversation. I think the show, the two of you did gather events was, for a lot of us, yeah, the starting point for this conversation about the, yeah, the need for a more formalized approach to these things. And yeah, Tom, you've came about it from a slightly different angle, leveraging or you and company leveraging sort of operating as close as you can to the existing game rules. You know, you have one, I think, modification or addendum in relation to defensible in here. But yeah, I mean, I tend to think that we should just have a generic obscuring rule as opposed to Wildwood for that example. You know, you just gave one of the examples why I think we need obscuring and not this weird limitation that the Wildwood rule has. But yeah, we literally mentioned this at the, I guess we can talk about that, you know, the community meeting that happens every year at Adepticon, we mentioned this to the game's workshop team that there's three keywords that this game needs, or whatever you want to call them, three types, three train types. There's a fourth, which is basically normal. We all know what that is, wholly on a train piece, you get cover, blah, blah, blah, right behind behind the train, you get cover, blah, blah, blah, blah. But yeah, that's very, very simple. I'll also say that again, because we've got a large selection of terrain and my 20 boxes I built for this pack. So every table has two Wildwoods, two defensible, two impassable, two cover items on there. And we make it that any terrain piece that is over two inches tall is either impassable or defensible. So you don't have any of these models wobbling halfway up a train. That just doesn't exist in our tournaments because any terrain piece that has that problem is impassable or defensible. So goddamn tired of it. We've been doing that crap for six years now. It's insane. Yeah, brilliant. Yeah, and the two each is a really cool approach here with the eight pieces recommended in the GHB 21. So really, really nice work here. Good. All right, cool stuff. And then there's a lot of FAQs, which we're not going to read through. And then you do have some really nice maps. Do you want to jump down here real quick to talk about this as a concept? So it's going to jump down here. You have some sort of terrain maps that you're offering people like here's first blood, and then here's kind of where the terrain should go. You know, kind of a terrain map example. So tell me why you like sort of terrain map scenarios? You know, why you like this actual visual? There's a few different reasons. The way we should explain how we play it. You've also attacked a defender. Defender then can place the terrain on the table, but he has to follow the map. And the map just says where the terrain pieces go. But the defender can choose which one of those terrain pieces is impassable, which one is the, or which two of the two Wildwoods, which two of the two impassable, which two of the two defensible, and which two of the just cover. So the defender gets some choice in placing the terrain, but doesn't have complete choice. They can't just make a circle around an objective, or they can't just place all of the terrain on the boundary of the board. So there is some choice there. You could go all the way and just say, TO's place terrain. I really don't like that system for a few reasons. One is, you know, it's a lot of work because players will always knock terrain or they'll just move it at the end of every game. So you have to go around and make sure that the terrain is placed back how you want to, which is too much effort and too much time between the rounds. And also in the GHB, James Workshop added the idea that you have an attacker defender and defender sets up terrain. So we'll use the rules. The rules say defender sets up terrain. So we've got that. We just don't want him to allow it to be put anywhere. There is some thought that goes behind where these terrain pieces are placed so that it doesn't make it a negative play experience. Do you find this causes any additional time challenge since there's, you know, some consternation, assumingly over terrain being placed? No, because, again, the local community are extremely, both Scott and I have maps. We're extremely used to the idea that there will be a terrain map. And so we know that as soon as you get to the table, you know, before you're even unpacking your models, you roll for attacker defender, defender then sets up terrain while the attack is getting at them all, etc. So yeah, maybe five minutes, but it's not a big deal. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah, I'll say I'm not as hardcore against player placed terrain, a lot of the earth, sorry, TO placed terrain. I apologize. A lot of events I go to have TO based rain. Some of them do have terrain maps as well, where like there's literally just a map that says where the terrain goes. And so it's pretty easy for the players to then reset it. Like they've literally set up the tables and then how they have a map of what that table looks like. And it's like, make the, if something's wrong, you can be like, yep, that's wrong. Okay, now it's right. You know, so the players can kind of squeeze it up, score it up. Yeah, I, you know, I get it. I will say that I think I certainly don't mind the TO thing. I like having the maximum amount of time. I don't think I would ever want to be the defender. So I'm like, man, I don't want to deal with all this. It's really what it is. But I will say if you're going to go down this road of having the defender utilize this, I agree with you that suddenly the map becomes a pretty quintessential tool, right? Because otherwise it's just, yeah, you're going to get exactly what you said. You're going to get people doing wacky stuff, circling objectives, putting it around the edge out of the way, just, just generally like, I don't want to worry about it. It's over here. I'm not thinking about it. I was a final table of events that's become quite famous where it was the vice. Again, I was playing corn. They, I was defender. There was no map. I put impossible, impossible, defensible, defensible around the center objective on the vice. I brought out my endless prayer. He didn't have a priest. He couldn't bring it out. There was no way for him to get onto the center objective. I won the game. I didn't kill a single unit as corn. Fantastic. That's exactly what you want to see. Yeah. Like that's, that's what happens when you don't have a map, right? Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Okay. Cool. Good. So I want to talk about a couple other ancillary things and just how you view them. Okay. So let's talk about, I want to talk about how you, what do you do? You know, you, like in the thing originally said, there will be a painting award. You know, so how do you handle? How do you like to handle? How do you see painting stuff at your events, right? Not just the awards, but evaluation, etc. Like if we're talking about a GT, like a two day where there is some kind of paint requirement, battle ready or whatever we want to call it, right? How are you, how are you thinking about that or handling that in your attorneys? So we always have a painting prize, usually first, second, third. I also, even for RTTs, I also always submit the painting scores to ITC hobby track. So even if you're not coming first, second or third, there's something in it for you if you care about the ITC hobby track. I nearly, particularly for a GT, I nearly always do not do the judging myself. I like to think I'm a decent painter, but I also not sure that I can be completely unbiased. I'm not sure anyone can be completely unbiased, but I don't want that weight on my shoulders. So we usually get a team of good painters who from the community who volunteer and do it. There will be a rubric that they score on the first day. Again, you know, these are the armies that pass the rubric and then on the second day, they all get put together and the team of judges, judges, you know, and gets a score for which ones they think are the best. For that, yeah, absolutely. So rubric of, by the way, do you, when you're using those kinds of rubrics, do you publish them in advance so people understand what their requirements are? I figured as much, but I just wanted to get that out there. I'm a big fan of if you're going to use a painting rubric, it should be published. And also, and you'll love this, it's always display boards count for zero. I do love that very much. I am very, very tempted to say you can bring a display board, but when you are judged for paint, do not use it. You may not use your display board. I haven't gone that far, but I'm tempted. Yeah, I mean, it's just the display board thing like I like when people make a neat display. I have no issue with it. You know, it's cool. You know, like take that giant castle that the Tronzo had at whichever we all saw on socials, right? It was incredible in person, right? I mean, it was so big and it was so amazing, but like, that can't be the standard. Yeah, people fly on airplanes and stuff, man. I've got three people in my car, two of them have massive display boards. That car is already, I'm already borrowing my wife's car just because she has a bigger vehicle than me to get to the freaking place, you know? And I've got people holding stuff in their lap. There's just some kind of space limit here, you know, that has to be reasonable. It feels like it could be its own category and that to state the obvious, like if you really want to incentivize it or have a way to recognize it, best display board as a prize as an award. I think that would be fine and let the people who want to sort of participate in that participate in that, right? Yeah, exactly. Yeah. I like sectioning off, as we talked about earlier, I like having other interesting awards. Why not? Just like we talked about with other things in battle, there could also be other things in hobby as well by the by, right? Like there's no reason we have to limit ourselves to just like just best painted matters. I've been to tournaments where they award conversions, cool conversions, right? So like, for example, your your mall crush you showed at the beginning of the show, I've seen stuff where they like it's not part of the best painted, you don't have to have conversions to get best painted, but they want to recognize people who personalized their army and made it their own, right? So they have a totally separate thing that's like coolest conversion or best conversions or something like that, right? I love stuff like that, because that is some people's hobby, and it's great to recognize them for it. Like that's a positive thing. It's part of the of the broader hobby. I like it when it's not when it doesn't become a requirement, when it's something that people can choose sort of, I would like to, I would like to opt into this. Thank you. Right. That that's And I'll just say for RTT's, although we have no paint requirement, I there's always a prize for best unit of up to five models. So I never judge an army. It's always just a unit of up to five models that can be a hero because a hero is a unit. Boy, if you've got a unit of 10 liberators that you really love, just choose the best five, put them down, and that's what the paint will be judged on. I love that. A hero is a unit. Keep that in mind, Vince. We're all aware, Tyler, you're going to try to cheat, but you can't build an army of just heroes, okay? Because you're not building suns or fire slayers, so I'm not worried about it. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Tom, do you guys have a painting rubric published in a pack somewhere that we could direct folks to? I mean, I'll be honest. I either just steal Scott's again, which is I can, I mean, it's available in a number of places, or the guys who are doing the painting competition that I have offered to help me for the day, they like their own. But yeah, I can send you or two. Yeah, we're going through that right now. And yeah, we'd love to see any examples. So. Very nice. Yeah. I mean, very much inaligned on how I sort of appreciate things to be run or like things be run or whatever. I like it when things are known and transparent. And then when you get to the top cut, there's always like what you ideally want is you want experienced hobbyists, generally a panel or multiple people to evaluate amongst the top cut and fine come to a sort of one, two, three, right. And that that very logically makes sense to me. I when I as I evaluate, I end up being the judge for a lot of those top cuts. Okay. In multiple events. And I do still use a formal scoring mechanism, but it's generally separate. But I offer it to anybody whom I judged. And it has like a set scoring system on it. I use a three tiered weighted system with a one to 10 rating. And then I generally will write notes on it as to how exactly, you know, where, where, why did they get the score they got? And so, you know, I want everything to be completely transparent. All I, you know, I give them to the TOs and say, you can give this to the people if they've got any questions about how I judged to decide, you know, who's first, second, third or whatever by all means direct them to me, because I want people to be, I want people to understand completely and totally where their opportunities for improvement are and why they got the score they got. And so I'm very much about that transparency when it comes to the hobby. You can extend that to being a TO in general. Everything should be as transparent as possible. Yeah, absolutely. And in advance. Yep. Yep. Okay. Gavin just made a really nice point that I like. I really like this point. So Gavin said, I think a lot of what you guys are touching on is that everyone has a part of the hobby they tend to focus more on. And no matter what part that is, it feels bad to be marginalized. That's such a good point, Gavin. I really like that. And that's why I like all those different awards that we've been talking about, right? Recognize people for the thing, the part of the hobby that they're invested in, and bring all of those different elements to the top. To that end, let's talk about, let's talk about the other area. Here we go. I like this is good, this, this, I don't know where this is going to go. Let's talk about sports, man. Okay. Okay. Sports. Give us your philosophy on sports, sports evaluation, best sports, and so on. The test it in two words. I do not see what purpose it serves or what the, what you're trying to achieve with it. Even if I did understand what was trying to be achieved, I think that there is no good way of measuring it. And so you, you're giving an award based on something that no matter what system you use is entirely subjective and is often, often, often just abused, right? Particularly if there is a, yeah, we can probably possibly come into this, I don't have an overall, I don't have a Renaissance man. I don't have a, so what did you call it, Tyler? Yeah, all around. I don't have that. If you're going to have that and sports is going to be part of it, then there are huge incentives just to say, oh, you're, you're going for against my teammate for best overall, I'm going to give you zero sports score. So it's entirely open to that sort of behavior. And I don't know what it's meant to achieve in the first place. Have you actually seen much of that? Because, I mean, I hear that as an old wives tell in the community, I've heard, I've asked a lot of, I haven't heard that happening that much. I think I can think of two instances over the six years where I've heard that that actually happened. At least it was known to happen. Because sports scores are not very, they're not used out here. I think the very first LVO I went to years and years and years ago, maybe had it. No, I haven't seen it because sports scores are just not used. But I have what I did see, or have seen more is, you know, if you are ranking the people that you played against, well, I know him. So I'm going to give him a higher score. There is no way and it's very rarely. Actually, how did this game go? It's how much do I like my opponent? And that is usually how much do I know my opponent? Humans cannot judge a how good a person is based upon two and a half hours of competitive play. You may have had a great game. Yes, but you're still probably going to be giving that high sports score to your friend or somebody you've played six tournaments before. It's a crazy idea. Joked about it over the years about, you know, the influence of being a content creator, the benefits of being a content creator and all the downsides. You better believe if I'm at an event with Vince or Tom, they're getting zero in sports scores. That's fine. I've never won. I've never won a best sports in my life. Well, there you go. Everyone else thinks the same way. Nobody's given me a sports bump. I'll promise you that. Yeah. OK, Tyler, wait, wait. I have some words, but I'm going to pause. Yeah, it's probably more set up. Let's talk about the purposes. So, I mean, I'll try to steelman it. Yeah. How about I'll try to steelman it? OK, because there's a couple of different ways this can generally go. Like, I'll provide steelman slash counterpoints like this for the same way that I don't think like your pushback against chess clocks could also be my pushback against your point of view here. By the way, your entire view on sports has spoken like a true economist. So the Chicago School would be very proud of you for this. And like these squishy qualitative human characteristics are of so little value. No, it's just like we're looking for completely different evaluative metrics. Someone who you mentioned gymnastics before, I firmly believe that gymnastics should be thrown out to the Olympics because it's not a sport, because it's entirely subjective and it's there's no competition in gymnastics. So this is right along that way. Yeah, sure. I mean, you'd have to throw it like ice skating from the Winter Olympics and all that stuff, too. Because they're very similar. But at least you're consistent. I'll give you that. This is why economists don't make friends easily. But at any rate, the sort of easy take on this is one, qualitative metrics, even when subjective are often highly valuable in society. We use qualitative metrics left and right, oftentimes amassed and aggregated, sometimes not. And we trust them in our daily life a thousand times. So like my easy example here is for everything you said, most of our life is lived by qualitative subjective metrics. Everything like you want to find a good restaurant, you ask one person that's a completely non scientific survey, if they say they like it, you try it. Same with movies or most sorts of tastes like this, or just I need a repair man or whatever. Sometimes you use aggregated subjective scores, sometimes you use individual subjective scores, whatever, whatever. So qualitative, purely subjective metrics isn't in its own right, a defeat of a concept. Like they are simply a thing we humans are trained to like and use regularly in mass as a society. In fact, it's how society works. Because we just don't have time, capability, impetus, whatever, to collect quantitative data on life. So that's number one. Number two would be I oftentimes at events will see similar people who play completely different people who they don't know place high in sports scores. Repeatedly at different tournaments in different geographies against different players, and they still come out in the top three in sports, not every time, but often. That tells me that they're like, there's something there, there is a there there, like they're not famous. They're not known. They're just people who somehow are giving a good game and are fun to play against and their opponents are recognizing it. Right. Because no other, no other criteria has been held constant there. Different to use different geographies, different locations, different turning different rules, different opponents, different battle plans, different armies, every other thing is different except them. And yet they still rise to the top. So like something is being identified there. Right. Like in mass, somebody's putting their finger on truth, or at least some version of it. Right. Well, so yes, there is a can those people are consistently being voted for best sports. That doesn't mean that they were the best sports. It may be that they're a bubbly personality. It may be that, you know, they, at the end of first time I went to the Socal Open, I was expecting sports scores, they didn't have them. So I 3D printed a bunch of faction, faction specific measurement tools. And at the end of every game, I gave my opponent to measurement tool, thinking that that would be a great way to gain the sportsmanship scores. You know, if I did that at every tournament I went to, then I might get some good tournament sportsmanship scores. And the idea that, yeah, we ask a friend for a opinion on a restaurant, sure. But would I ask friend A for an opinion on restaurant X, and then friend B on an opinion on restaurant Y, and then rank them based upon two completely different people's perspectives on two completely different restaurants, which is how sports scores worked. If you were able to have an omniscient TO who is watching every single table, so you had one person judging every player's individual sportsmanship, then maybe I'd be interested in it as a fair scoring system. I still don't see what the point of it is, but I think it's a fair scoring system. The way that it is right now where each player plays five opponents, and you have to take their ranking of those five and compare against a completely different person's players, different players ranking of their five opponents, just doesn't make sense to me. Yeah, and of course, we don't have to do the ranking system. I've seen lots of different evaluative measures of this, right? Yeah, I'm not a fan of that one. I think that one's pretty. I mean, sorry to anybody who uses it, but stop using that one, please. No, I agree. Just give a favorite opponent. Sorry, I keep interrupting. Go ahead, Ben. No, no, you're fine, because there are clearly the way you measure things matters, right? That's sort of basic data analysis one-on-one. That is to say, data measurement isn't in itself completely agnostic. And so doing things like ranking systems or your classic, please rate the opponent on zero to five. I mean, systems that I truly hate is the rate your opponent zero to five or one to five or whatever. It's something like that, right? Truly, I do find that of basically low to no value, because when there is a, you go to a tournament and you're supposed to rate your opponent one through five, and I don't care what's written next to it, okay? Like one, they could have explanations next to it that says, one is you think they're the worst person in the world and you're pretty sure they committed genocide before they came to the tournament. And five could be they are a reborn demigod here to save us all from an impending apocalypse. They are our Lord and Savior, right? And what would everybody rate everybody by default? Five. That's what would happen, regardless of the words you put next to it, right? Because that's become the sort of standard. But the problem is oftentimes new people don't know that. So they'll just read it and do it like it says, right? And then all of a sudden, you get these really whack results, because you, because some people didn't know weren't in on it, that we're all just supposed to give each other fives, right? So I like that kind of system I would I would tend to agree with you on that that I think there are interesting elements of picking your best game. There is still recency bias in that. But I think it's a more interesting method. Because then you're saying kind of here's here's one game I truly enjoyed. I will say I generally am able to recall my favorite game and it's not usually the last one I played. But by the end of day two, I can very rarely remember any of the games if you like, I wouldn't be able to tell you who I played on day one. So that's why I said, but I understand that my experience isn't everyone else's experience, right? So that's also fair. I tend to, if you're just going to say who was your favorite opponent, you're going to end up with a lot of ties. Yeah, it depends on the size. Yeah, at a 200 person event, then you're going to get a lot of ties. And so how do you tie break best school sportsmanship? The other way to do this that we haven't really talked about, which is interesting is much like your is sort of a view on this, maybe not toward we can set best sports to the side for a moment. Okay. And have a talk about this, maybe for the first time I became familiar with this, because I think the Bendigo boys were the first time I saw this in play. But it's almost like your chess clocks is how it ends up in becoming a soft incentive. And that is, there are sort of three to five hard criteria you are evaluating people on at the end of the game as a proxy of their ability to sort of be good sports, right? So this is like, did your opponent arrive on time? Check. Okay. And so it's sort of five boolean options, right? You know, did your opponent, you know, cheat with dice, just stuff like that, right? Like, were they clear and, and, you know, efficient with their measurements, whatever, like you can I don't want to get into the exact wording, but you get the point. They're like more things you can pretty directly evaluate as a one or a zero, right? And the concept being there, yes, now the expected default is five. Again, we're setting aside the concept of best sports, right? And we're just saying, like, we're using this as a sort of almost like incentive method, where it becomes a subtractive tool instead of an additive tool. Yep. Yeah. What do you think of a system like that? I'm okay with that. Again, I don't know what you do with that at the end. If you're going to give a prize for the person who has subtracted the least, I think you're going to have a lot of ties again. I do see a lot of events where you are not able to qualify for best general or best paint. If you haven't met a, if you've got too many deductions, and I think I'm okay with that, you know, if, right, if somebody, you know, gets caught up in the lunch rush or something and arrives five minutes late after lunch, then I don't want someone to lose the whole tournament because of that. But if they are consistently late to every single game or, you know, they're consistently rolling in a unfriendly way, then yeah, maybe you do say that you are, I wouldn't do it myself, but I have some sympathy for anyone who wants to do that. Yeah. But I think giving a prize for that is, yeah, it's just weird. Okay. Yeah, it's interesting. I do like very much the sort, I'll be honest, I actually quite like that. I'm just going to call it the Bendigo system because I have no better name for it, okay? But this subtractive system, for the same reason I liked your player code being in the pack for the same reason, you know, as you've talked about for all of these things, the concept that by having these elements in there, it sets expectations of behavior and framing matters, like framing and priming are real things that humans respond to. And so I like this being in there and only like really, and it being sort of, again, like how it impacts the overall score or whatever, we can have a separate discussion about, because you could use it as part of a vessel around or something like that or not. It doesn't matter, right? It being there has, to me, has value in and of itself in setting the expectations of etiquette for the tournament and being able to find people who aren't living up to that. And to me, there's like exactly what you said, they're sort of a threshold. It's not like if you get docked one point or two points, the TO is coming over to have a conversation with you. But if you're consistently getting marked down, that is an easy red flag that maybe the TO should come over and have a discussion with you over multiple games. That's not just one bad opponent. So I can see value there. Like to go back and answer your original question of what's the point of it, there is a point to me. That's a very clear point to me. Again, the negative or the, sorry, the subtractive method, yes, I can see that. Again, it's more just players have to be aware of it. But I think if the goal is to prevent the really bad behavior, this no sportsman school prevents really bad behavior. Somebody who gets angry in the heat of the moment isn't going to calm down suddenly because they think, oh, hang on a minute, I'm going to be out of running for the best sportsman. When I was helping TO at SoCal Open on the Star Wars Legion table, there was a player who actually got in a fistfight with the TO. I don't think at the time he was thinking, hang on a minute, my sportsmanship score is up for grab TO if I- No, I mean that kind of thinking is second order thinking. When you're getting in a fistfight, you're in first order thinking like completely, right? Yes, obviously. There's our, there's a very unconnected. Yes. But that is the advantage of like, at the same time, it's good to like, if you have that kind of, that's why I say framing and priming have values, because hopefully that can sort of override and set your thought process at the beginning of it. But you're right. I think maybe I'm just fortunate, but the community that we have here, nobody does arrive late or, you know, the sort of behaviors that we're talking about trying to discourage isn't really prevalent in the community. So I don't feel the need to do something about it because it doesn't really exist. Sure. I'm not saying that everyone's an angel or the perfect player, but I don't think that introducing any metric would change that either. Yeah. Yeah. So it's, I think this is and will be the most prickly of the issues around everything. I completely understand TOs who want to use it and recognize it, because there is a cohort of people who actually go and, and this is like a big part of their game, right? They want to give people the best game they've had or something like that. Like this is a, this is a profile of individual. It exists. Right? Now, I mean, a hundred percent. It might, it might, those people should be celebrated, but I don't think that there should be an award for that. Those people are great to have at your tournaments, but you know, you, you were nicer than the person who was second nice. It's just strange. Sure. I understand. Like, I understand both sides of this issue. It's, it's a tricky one, but what I'll say is I don't know that I come down on either side of this. I think that I like the, if, if a TO wants to have a sports, I'm all for it. But I think we also do need to, at the same time, recognize that like, so I'll, I'll now go to the opposite side of my argument. By the way, um, Dameep says, if you win the fist fight against the TO, are you still disqualified? Absolutely not. You're good now. You're in. Yes. You're the TO now. That's what happens. You keep what you kill. I've seen, I've, I've seen that. I know how this works. Um, but at any rate, the, I like, I don't, I just don't have a strong side down on either one of these. I like it being there, but to, to give them one of the moves that you didn't make against sort of the best sports argument, but I think is worth saying is there is a certain type of person that is likely the most easily rewarded by how we frame sports that doesn't actually, I think we can all admit equate to the best game or the best sporting game, right? Which is it tends to reward very extroverted, comfortable, socially adjusted people who just have no problem rocking up and treating you like you're their best friend, even though they just met you three seconds ago and putting you at ease, right? Who effectively have a sort of affable nature, a high charisma, whatever you want to say. And that is, there are a lot of other types of people in the community. Like I don't want to, I don't want to bring like ableism into it, but it is very much one of those things who, who for different and very real psychological challenges they may be facing aren't that person, right? And that argument, of course, applies to best pandit or best general. Yeah. I was, I was going to say that I was saving that argument for the best overall. And my best overall shouldn't include sportsmanship because yeah, you're, you know, there are people out there who can't paint. So that's fine. You're not going to do well in the painting competition. Yeah. Great. And if there are people who aren't extroverted, fine, you're not going to do well in the sportsmanship score if there is one. Yeah, exactly. So I just, I just wanted to like lay that out there that it is sort of the obvious side. It's, it's completely valid for you to bring it there into the sort of best all around discussion as well. Right? Yeah. And that's why I like the best all around as a better solution and may not still be the best, but it's certainly, at least in my mind, which is pretty clearly away from again, what I, we started this conversation, I said, was a direct confusion I found myself having by saying best overall all over the place and coming to find out that that's actually not really best overall in the way that one would naturally think when you see that. So yeah, this is a bit of fascinating. I have a lot of thoughts. Don't want, we've gone on for a little while. So I'll try to be succinct. I mean, yeah, there are many players who this is important to obviously. I've personally found myself trying to become more of that kind of player. I used to care more about winning, used to do better tournaments than I do nowadays. Again, maybe because I'm worse at 3.0 of getting worse over time. And, but I find that I'm having more enjoyable games. And just generally that has become a better social contract. Great games with opponents is becoming a bigger part of my experience. And there are many of us who have this orientation. There are many I've seen a number of players over the six years who are not fun to play against. And they often don't realize it. They have a lot of bad habits, rolling dice in ways. You can't see them. They're going too fast and not explaining the rules. They're not, you know, they don't really orient around this playing by intent. Extraordinarily strict. Maybe that would help. Maybe need to have a conversation at the start of the game. You know, we're going to do a show on that whole side. But there in my experience are plenty of players out there, for better or worse, who just are not a lot of fun to play. And I've gone to tournaments where because they had a system of some kind, those players did not win an award. They would have otherwise won. Just keep it vague. And because of that reason. And I mean, I, yeah, we, there's a spectrum of this in terms of like, how hard do you go into sports scores? How hard do you go into paint scores, particularly in relation to best overalls, best of best all around? I tend to think those things need to have, if you're going to do them, they need to have a reasonable cap, you know, meaning you're not leaning too hard into them. But I can, I can definitely understand Tom a lot of your perspective from first principles. I think where I am personally still at the moment on this whole side of things and sportsmanship is confused and lacking clarity, I think from a first principles standpoint. So it's been interesting hearing you guys discuss it. I mean, the obvious thing to do is if you're running your own events, one one with it, one one without it and see how behavior changes, I bet it doesn't. I bet it doesn't. Yeah, the confusion comes in because again, I have gone to tournaments. We have had fewer angels than it sounds like you've had. And grateful to see that this exists. I've been grateful for the for a mechanism to account for poor behavior. And I suppose that there is that little endorphin rush at the end of a game where you felt your opponent's been really nasty and you can just go zero. And so that that goes, that's not what I'm talking about, obviously, but sure. Or at least yeah, that does exist. That's, yeah, at least my interpretation of what you just said there. That's not what I'm talking about. It does happen. And I mean, so my friend Bryce is in the in the chat and we've had this, he gave me a two out of five. Maybe I wasn't asked to him and didn't appreciate him. We had a very skewed game on the table that would like to think didn't have anything to do with how I behaved. Maybe it did. And he docked me for that. I would always view it as a bit of a joke for men, but but who knows. Anyway, so yeah, I mean, that that does happen. That's not exactly that's an interesting point in that there are some armies that are naturally negative play experienced armies. Do you dock the player because of the way that their favorite armies book is currently written? Not anyone does that. It does. It does happen, I bet. I had a really bad game because I was table top of one. And it was nothing I could do about it. That is definitely, yeah, 100% right, man. And that is part of the challenge with a number of these these systems. And that can impact favorite opponent as well. I think that's fair. You know, regardless, I'm not sure what the system would look like. I mean, part of that is getting into the intentionality and trying to be as clear as possible and getting it across to folks. You are like as a cardinal role as part of the player's code, essentially, you're not to grade your opponent on their army. That should unfortunately, that's not obvious to a lot of people still in 2022. So rather than worry about rather than worry about going into even more deep inside baseball discussion around best overall, because I think we kind of danced around it and we best all around that we've laid our opinions out. I want to actually close the show in a different way. And Jack already got there in the chat. This is where I wanted to end on. What I really want to end on is I want you, Tom, to tell us about why sort of the West Coast scene in your experience, why it's great. If there are people out there in the West Coast that maybe haven't taken in attorneys. And then, you know, for the rest of the week, we've obviously, I know you're in California. But like, you know, the West Coast is bigger than that. Obviously, there's Washington and Oregon as well, Pacific Northwest kind of talk about the broader scene as you've experienced it. And what you think is really strong and great about that scene. And if people are in those areas, why they should get out and participate in these events? I think one, the community, we have a really good community in Soquel now. It was, you know, when I first started playing Sigma four years ago, the only tournament I could go to, there was there's a couple down in San Diego, which is a two hour drive. But I was driving north of LA, which is sometimes a three hour drive to get to a tournament, which was obnoxious, just for a simple one day thing. Now, in Southern California, within an hour of me, there is a tournament nearly every weekend. So the scene is really big here. There are people who are going out of their way to make these events really fun and welcoming, particularly if you're a new player, and I don't think this is a West Coast thing. This is a Sigma thing. If you are a new player, you go to any kind of tournament, whether it's LVO or a simple RTT. And you say, I am a new player. This is my third game, etc. Your opponent is going to be more than welcoming is going to take the time to explain his army, maybe your army, what you've done wrong, etc. It's a very, very, very welcoming community. And going back to what we started with, don't think of them as tournaments, think of them as events. This is a way for you to play three or five or six games of Sigma over a weekend and have a lot of fun doing so. I'm meeting new people who are interested in the same thing you are. So that's the first one, second one. And I've talked about this. Yes, we have discussed a pack that has been used by me and a few other people, but this is not the standard West Coast thing. There are probably people sat in, you said Washington thinking, I've never heard of this guy. What's he talking about? You know, fine. So one thing I do sort of agree with you on Vince, and you've said this on a number of different shows, is that standardization is not great. I'm not saying that every single TO in the world needs to use this pack. I don't always use this pack. But as we said, transparency, having a pack that is very clear has everything written out is really, really, really important. That's the one thing I hate most at going to events where if the pack doesn't make clear everything I need to know beforehand, then I really dislike it. Yeah, I mean, I think that we, what I love is differentiation in event experience. But there are, I don't know what to call them, guidelines probably would be the word I would choose, that feel as though they should always be present, milestones, whatever. I'm avoiding the word rules intentionally, right, but things like being transparent, being open with your players, giving them as much information as you can, so that they can and have the potential to arrive and have a good time and understand what's going on, just feels like the baseline that should be there, right? Regardless, if you're running any kind of event, you should be being transparent with your players as to what they're going to expect there. What's the type of event? What are the awards on offer? What are the rules in play? We've talked about some of them that are in this type of pack that I really like seeing. And again, it's not about the exact rules you wrote, as you said, but here's the clear scoring system we're going to use. Here's the clear rules for what happens when a player concedes. Here's the clear rules for like how long the rounds are going to be, yeah, or whatever. Yeah. Yes, thank you. Guiding principles, AOS coach, that's exactly right. I think that there's a lot of push in some sectors that every event needs to be very different. And that's held over from the old Warhammer fantasy battle days. Those books didn't change for years. The meta was extremely stale. So one way that tournaments had to get past that was by reinventing things, either by inventing new rules themselves, or changing things up to make the tournaments different. With Sigma, if you go to an event once every three months, the meta is shifted so much, even though the rule set is exactly the same. Three tomes have come out, some expansions have come out, and it's going to be a completely different experience for you. So I don't feel the need that there needs to be this as much differentiation in Sigma, because the rules themselves are creating that differentiation through time. Yeah. Also, one thing we didn't talk about mainly because it's nowhere to be seen in my pack is that I do not like changing rules. I don't like comp. Yeah. Well, this is another place to be aligned. I actually, I've come out against comp so many times on this show. There's some examples of what you've seen in the community. I mean, let's hold on. There is one clear difference. Answering FAQs that might not have been answered. That's not, I don't consider that comp. Again, that's part of the transparency. Comp is you're taking a hand in the game in some way, right? Like changing a war scroll. Yeah. The famous one from, I guess, last year, where face hammer changed go track or whatever it was, you know, sure. Yeah. Yeah, they did. Yeah. Friend of the show, Joe Cryer changing pat across at Cherokee Open or whatever it was, you know, just fundamental rules changes are just why, you know, leave the roles alone. Do you see, you know, sideboards, two list formats? Nash, of course, has a two list format. I'm experimenting this year with a sort of like a 400 point version of that. Instead of, hey, you can bring 4000 points of models, you can bring essentially 2400 points, both of your lists must share a minimum of 1600 points of war scrolls. You can have some differentiation with that last 400. You could also have, you know, a different sub faction, different grand strat, etc. Anyway, how do you view sort of? This is probably going to sound more demeaning than I intend it to be, but I bucket that as just being a narrative event. You are playing a game of Sigma that is not using the rules that are set out in the GHB. The GHB doesn't allow that. That's not part of the rules. You're not playing a competitive game of Sigma, but narrative events do that all the time. And I think that's absolutely fine. Great. And I'm not saying that those events shouldn't exist. I wouldn't do it. I don't think I would particularly be interested in going to an event that did it, but in no way do I think that they shouldn't exist. If people like that, then absolutely great. Yeah, of course, because, you know, Dave Griffin, when he created NashCon, in part, he chose that format because he thought it would make it a more competitive event, his view from his first principle. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's been part of Infinity and War Machine and other games for a while. So it's a, you know, both of which have arguable personality as competitive games. We can, we can, I don't want to plumb that too deep. I strongly believe that if, if you're going to run an event as a competitive Sigma tournament, then you follow the rules in the game. But a tournament organizers role is to organize how the stuff outside of the game is done. But when you're actually playing the game, you're playing the game as written by GW. My role as a TO is to figure out everything else around that. But when you get to the table, the game that you're playing is Age of Sigma GHB 2020. I guess we're on 2021. We're on, you know, that's how that works. Yeah. I have toyed with the idea of using your missions, Tyler. I don't think I will, not because I've looked through them. I think they're very well done. I think they're great. But the events that, and again, this is the events that I run, I don't begrudge any TO for doing something different events that I run, we rule, we use the rules as given by GW. You know, that's for Matt, I'm glad we touched on this at the end here, because I have a number of friends, one whom gave me a hard time today about some related issues, bit of a hard time. He went a little light. We have these discussions all the time. He's generally firmly in your camp as I interpret what you're saying. So, yeah, we're probably going to agree to disagree on this from a first principle standpoint. I certainly respect the perspective though. So, yeah, thanks for a little chat on it. It's really interesting. Yeah, same. And I think this is one of those things that in the end, every TO is going to have their own tolerance for. Because as a TO, you're always going to be making, despite how clean you set up that world to be, of course, you're making decisions that are influencing what's happening in the game, be it a terrain map or the terrain rules or whatever. You are simply impressing some effect on the game. It's not as though you can observe the electron without affecting it, right? And so, it's just a question of what are people's TO tolerance and their player tolerance for that level of effect. And everybody's going to have their own sort of almost different way that they define what is playing straight, let's call it AOS, okay, or competitive or match player, whatever. I want to stay away from loaded terms, right? But everybody's going to have a different line than the sand they draw around that, right? And I think in the end, the, I'm fine with most any way that people want to run tournaments, especially as they, or as they wanted to find that bubble, right? You know, okay. Cool. Good stuff. All right, did we miss anything, Tom? Is there anything you didn't get to talk about you, you were hoping you wanted to talk about? Not without getting into Twitter level of arguments. I think we should talk about, we'll leave that one to the side. You don't have one in us? Surely we got one in us. No, no, I, I, this one might have to do with three letters. And I think we can just go ahead and push that one over there and just be like, yep, that's fine. Given the week we've all had, we don't need to talk about that. Because look, the reality here is what we've, what we've, I hope, shown, because again, Mike, you could take this sort of sample pack or the kind of way you've talked about running. And again, you've got differences of opinion with other TOs who might be out there and how they like to run their events. And again, as you said, it's not like you were saying bad or good, right or wrong, you were saying my event versus how you want to run your event. Totally cool, right? We all, if a TO is going to cross the incredible hurdle to run a freaking event, they are a hero in my book right out of the gate because it is not a small hurdle. They're jumping. Okay. And they, I am not, I'm not a TO and I would never be. No way. Don't have it in me. Know it. Okay. So I have nothing but respect. But the reality is 90%, 90 plus percent would look the same regardless, right? As to how people are running these events. Because there is so much more we end up agreeing on and kind of what is AOS and what do we want out of an AOS game. By the way, that's probably even true for most narrative events. Then it, then, then we don't agree on. So, okay. Anyways, let's leave it there then. I think, I think that's all good. I think that's, I think that's solid. Tom, thank you so much, buddy. I really appreciate you coming on the show. Thank you for correcting some of our long standing West Coast bias. I appreciate that. And I very much appreciate the, you've given us the time and having a great conversation and repping for the West Coast scene. So thank you very much, sir. Thanks for having me on. Absolutely. For all of you out there, don't forget to hit like. Don't forget we do have a Patreon. If you want to support the show, you can do so or the channel as it were. It is obviously a Patreon more focused on the hobby, on review and feedback, and helping you take your next step in your journey. Link is in the description. All the links for everything we talked about in Pick of the Week is also down there. Make sure to check out all those links, awesome podcasts, YouTube shows, everything like that. Thank you so much for watching. Don't forget to hit subscribe. Hit that like button. It helps other people find the show. We really appreciate it. But as always, we'll see you next Wednesday.