Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

a la www.40kradio.com episode 26

lets hope GW is listening,

Mega-sode is right, this thing is still going on and it's 154 minutes in!

But yeah, I thought that was funny. How mad he got over that anyway. "FIX THIS!" And he got bleeped out.

lol me too,

but i do think that GW needs to fix this,

Care to paraphrase for those of us who haven't managed to listen to the podcast yet?

That would be nice.

Basically during the 'ard boyz tourny the winning player used Chaos Deamons and custom made bloodcrushers. However these bloodcrushers were on 40mm bases not 60mm. Also during dawn of war deployment he tried to deploy his HQ and two troops instead of having them deep strike(though I might of misheard it so I don't know if he was allowed to do this or if this was turned down). Though I was listening to this while I was at work doing email support to my mind was 70% on this podcast and %30 on e-mails so yea not 100 percent on the second part.

basicly it is a pretty stupid rant about somebody who supposedly cheated.
1. if your opponent lets you play with bloodcrushers on the wrong bases, it is not cheating
2. getting a bad ruling from a judge is not cheating.it is chance shining in his favor.

skkipper wrote:basicly it is a pretty stupid rant about somebody who supposedly cheated.
1. if your opponent lets you play with bloodcrushers on the wrong bases, it is not cheating
2. getting a bad ruling from a judge is not cheating.it is chance shining in his favor.

First off all your models need to be on the correct size bases, period. There are no exceptions or options. If players knowingly come to tournaments with incorrectly based miniatures in order to gain a unfair advantage that is cheating. It doesn't matter if he asked his opponents permission and got it. The question SHOULD NOT have been asked in the first place.

I would like to point out this whole thing is more about GW then one person. This whole fiasco highlights a numbers of problems with how GW runs there events.

I agree with the guys for 40K Radio, GW needs to stop trying to run Tournament and leave it to the people who are willing to do it RIGHT.

skkipper wrote:basicly it is a pretty stupid rant about somebody who supposedly cheated.
1. if your opponent lets you play with bloodcrushers on the wrong bases, it is not cheating
2. getting a bad ruling from a judge is not cheating.it is chance shining in his favor.

I have to disagree for the same reasons that Evil Eli stated. You're basically saying that it's not cheating as long as you don't get caught (or if you have concent). But that's still cheating, especially to the other players.

His opponent's may have let him get away with it, and the judges may have let him get away with it. But, what about the hundreds of people that participated from qualifiers to regionals to nationals? Did people across the country agree to let someone cheat and win? Did people pay for plane tickets and hotel reservations just to have some guy cheat and win?... No

~Logic

From what I've heard from an alleged assosiciate of the apparent offender, it wasn't cheating, because he had brought the larger bases with him, and asked if the opponents minded the smaller ones.

But I'm not getting into this otherwise.

Evil Eli wrote:

First off all your models need to be on the correct size bases, period. There are no exceptions or options. If players knowingly come to tournaments with incorrectly based miniatures in order to gain a unfair advantage that is cheating. It doesn't matter if he asked his opponents permission and got it. The question SHOULD NOT have been asked in the first place.

I would like to point out this whole thing is more about GW then one person. This whole fiasco highlights a numbers of problems with how GW runs there events.

I agree with the guys for 40K Radio, GW needs to stop trying to run Tournament and leave it to the people who are willing to do it RIGHT.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:From what I've heard from an alleged assosiciate of the apparent offender, it wasn't cheating, because he had brought the larger bases with him, and asked if the opponents minded the smaller ones.

But I'm not getting into this otherwise.

See Bolded Part

Erk! Sorry...I forgot to finish my sodding setence....

Lets just say the apparent offenders alleged associate was less than convincing....asking if your opponent minds if you cheat does not then stop the act from being cheating.

Excellent. I think there should be a monthly or even weekly thread about that cheater who won* the 'Ard Boyz tournament. Informing people about this will prevent similar cheating in the future.

Does anyone have a picture of a dead horse and a guy with a baseball (or cricket for the UKers) bat?

skkipper wrote:basicly it is a pretty stupid rant about somebody who supposedly cheated.
1. if your opponent lets you play with bloodcrushers on the wrong bases, it is not cheating
2. getting a bad ruling from a judge is not cheating.it is chance shining in his favor.

So if I find an ignorant enough judge to tell me that bolters are S10 then it's totally cool if I use them to blow up your Land Raider, right?

Shopping around for an answer that you know is wrong is still cheating, even if it comes from someone with a GW logo on their shirt. It's not about whether or not the response was "official", it's about trying to gain an unfair advantage over your opponent.

Excellent. I think there should be a monthly or even weekly thread about that cheater who won* the 'Ard Boyz tournament. Informing people about this will prevent similar cheating in the future.

It might not prevent other people from cheating, but it sure will make people keep an eye out for his bs if they end up matched against him in future GW-sponsored tournaments.

I am going to start using my new model of Drop Pod, I call it the Shot Glass Pod

And I am going to use "Tactical Mini Terminators", basically Assault Termies on small bases!

rant rant rant. its done.

He won, the other guy lost.

No point crying over spilled milk. Live and learn and please keep crying its a good read when people state the obvious over and over....and over.

The reason why people have to keep stating the obvious is because certain other people insist on having blinders on and not acknowledging the point that is being made. (See my rants in the thread about that stupid INAT FAQ. Gaahh! It's a migraine in the making.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:From what I've heard from an alleged assosiciate of the apparent offender, it wasn't cheating, because he had brought the larger bases with him, and asked if the opponents minded the smaller ones.

Holy gak people... This is why I don't get caught up in the tournament scene. It's not worth the frustration.

Let me give my complete unbiased opinion since I don't play in tournaments. I see both sides of the argument, but the argument against using the smaller bases is fundamentally flawed.

One of the many definitions of the word 'cheating' (and the one I think is being referenced here) is - To violate rules deliberately.

It's apparent that everyone arguing against using a non standard base believes that this directly violates the rule that a miniature must be based on the one supplied with it. I have just one comment for you - REREAD the rules, because you're wrong!

Lets quote the rule book - "Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game." (OK, but now here's the part where you need to pay attention) "Some players like to mount their models on impressive bases. As mounting your models on different sized bases might affect the way they interact with the rules, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this."

So if the guy was asking his opponents if using the smaller bases was OK then he was perfectly within the rules and therefor was NOT cheating.

rant rant rant. its done.

He won, the other guy lost.

No point crying over spilled milk. Live and learn and please keep crying its a good read when people state the obvious over and over....and over.

You're forgetting the age old saying "cheaters never win", friend. He didn't win, he won*.

In either case though I don't see the harm in raising awareness. If you turn a blind eye to things and pretend they don't exist it doesn't actually stop them from happening.

So if the guy was asking his opponents if using the smaller bases was OK then he was perfectly within the rules and therefor was NOT cheating.

But why use the smaller bases at all? Obviously he planned on taking advantage and was hoping his opponents wouldn't know any better. That, in my opinion, isn't in keeping with the spirit of the game.

Honestly I don't really care much myself, but I think people are being too nice and just need to look at it how it is. The guy knew full well what he was doing, he was trying to gain an unfair advantage, and whether or not he had permission to do so doesn't really excuse that.

In either case, GW needs to get serious if they're going to keep hosting expensive events like this and hire real judges.

Sidstyler wrote:But why use the smaller bases at all? Obviously he planned on taking advantage and was hoping his opponents wouldn't know any better. That, in my opinion, isn't in keeping with the spirit of the game.

Cheating and rules exploitation are two different things. He probably did know what he was doing, but in the end, the only reason anyone cares and the only reason this topic is being discussed is because he won. If he would have lost then no one would care or have even given it a second thought.

Wow, this isn't Locked?

Also, why aren't people naming names here? It's all public knowledge...
____

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:From what I've heard from an alleged assosiciate of the apparent offender, it wasn't cheating, because he had brought the larger bases with him, and asked if the opponents minded the smaller ones.

Also, Deadshane can "defend" how his Wrecking Crew buddy "won" - you don't have to stoop to that level.
____

oni wrote:Cheating and rules exploitation are two different things.

He probably did know what he was doing, but in the end, the only reason anyone cares and the only reason this topic is being discussed is because he won.

Rules exploitation is the unfair use of completely legal things. Cheating is the unfair use of things tat are not legal. There is no rules basis for what the WC player did to "win", nor the tactics that the WC leadership and players defend.

The reason people care is because, not only did he "win", he received prize support with a tangible, financial value. In most other competitions with actual prizes on the line, cheaters would (and should) be stripped of any prize consideration.

I always found that larger bases give a better advantage- especially for cc units like in deamons


I don't see why this is such a big deal for some people? Its happened- move on- seriously!

Guess what GW declared him the winner, that means he won do you think arguing about will matter? All you can do is next time you go to a tiurnament don't cheat!

End of Story.

skkipper wrote:basicly it is a pretty stupid rant about somebody who supposedly cheated.
1. if your opponent lets you play with bloodcrushers on the wrong bases, it is not cheating
2. getting a bad ruling from a judge is not cheating.it is chance shining in his favor.

Page two of rulebook, first rule listed in the rulebook entitled "the most important rule", 3rd paragraph.

"the most important rule then is that the rules arent all that important. So long as both players agree you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines."

In your face!

By the way, I dont agree with the str 10 bolters, so it isnt ok if you have them. If I agreed it would be alright, but I dont, so they're not.

Bignutter wrote:I always found that larger bases give a better advantage- especially for cc units like in deamons

Not against the Dark Eldar player that was using MANY disintegraters. By the way, he chose the small bases in question. The Daemonplayer had two bases availiable for his crushers....the DE player chose.

....people seem to forget that little fact when discussing this issue. That, along with "the most important rule" make this entire issue simply a bad judgement call on the part of the Judge when considering the DoW deployment issue. Base sizes really have nothing to do with anything.

oni wrote:Lets quote the rule book - "Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game." "Some players like to mount their models on impressive bases. As mounting your models on different sized bases might affect the way they interact with the rules, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this."

So if the guy was asking his opponents if using the smaller bases was OK then he was perfectly within the rules and therefor was NOT cheating.

First, there was absolutely nothing "impressive" about the models or bases that were used - and a display base is a prerequisite for asking permission - it even says so in the rules you just quoted. If the player isn't rebasing to make a more impressive base, then it isn't allowed, regardless of whether the opponent gives permission.

Second, you can be damn sure that the "winner" didn't explain how his different-sized bases affect the way the interacted with the rules, and make sure that his opponent didn't mind the new rules interaction.

Now if the OP had said: "Hi, I prefer to play my Deep-Striking Bloodcrushers on smaller 40mm bases because I must Deep Strike them, and the smaller bases allow me to pack them more tightly into smaller places without having to risk disadvantageous Mishaps, do you mind if I have this extra, unintended advantage?"

As opposed to: "Hi, would you rather gamble that you can beat my cheaty army using smaller bases, or would you rather I zero you out on soft scores?"

This story has been beaten to death already. GW gave the guy the prizes, they haven't given any indication of yanking them. Whether or not you think he cheated (or whether or not you defend him), I'm sick of this discussion.

If there is long term consequences (either from GW or the gaming community at large), then we can post about that when it happens.

People need to realize that if you have a problem with something, bring it up at that moment it happens! And people shouldn't knock down sportsmanship scoring (not that Ard Boyz had any) because their opponent questioned something - that's their right and really their obligation to the other players at the tourney.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
First, there was absolutely nothing "impressive" about the models or bases that were used - and a display base is a prerequisite for asking permission - it even says so in the rules you just quoted. If the player isn't rebasing to make a more impressive base, then it isn't allowed, regardless of whether the opponent gives permission.

That's your opinion. Personally, I think converted models are impressive and his bloodcrushers were all converted.

[quote}Second, you can be damn sure that the "winner" didn't explain how his different-sized bases affect the way the interacted with the rules, and make sure that his opponent didn't mind the new rules interaction.

Now if the OP had said: "Hi, I prefer to play my Deep-Striking Bloodcrushers on smaller 40mm bases because I must Deep Strike them, and the smaller bases allow me to pack them more tightly into smaller places without having to risk disadvantageous Mishaps, do you mind if I have this extra, unintended advantage?"

As opposed to: "Hi, would you rather gamble that you can beat my cheaty army using smaller bases, or would you rather I zero you out on soft scores?"

By the way, I dont agree with the str 10 bolters, so it isnt ok if you have them. If I agreed it would be alright, but I dont, so they're not.

Unfortunately for you, it doesn't make a lick of difference if you agree or not. Just like it didn't matter if Gareth's opponent agreed to let his Daemons completely ignore their fundamental army-wide rule: never deploy. The judge (supposedly) said he could, so he did. End of story.