Please don't take this as a personal attack, I'm honestly curious about where you are coming from. Because, to me, alligators and an extra plasma gun in one player's list makes zero difference in what I would do at that tournament. That much interest in what other people are doing is strange and alien to me
This comes off like a lack of empathy, to be honest. It shouldn't be strange and alien to be ticked off when you see other people cheated. You shouldn't have to be personally affected to care when others are having a negative experience.
Oh, so now I'm responsible for the accuracy of my opponent's understanding of the rules? If I make a mistake and it causes someone to break the rules, now I go on a blacklist?
There is a tremendous difference between not knowing your opponent's rules and deliberately making a false statement about the rules to bait your opponent into playing something incorrectly while you film it, and then promptly calling a judge to impose a penalty. In that situation you clearly know the correct rule (as you are calling a judge as soon as your opponent breaks it), and you are making false statements about the game state and/or rules to persuade your opponent to play incorrectly. IOW, you are cheating. Let's not pretend that everyone is too stupid to recognize this and apply the correct penalty to you instead of your opponent.
Well, fortunately for the community, tournaments do not appeal to me. But planting a number in an opponent's head is not hard. There's a British comedian, Derren Brown, who's made a career of doing something similar.
As a thought experiment, try this sometime during a game. When someone is getting ready to roll for a unit but before they throw any dice, ask someone, "what do those, hit on 3s?" More often than not, that person is at least going to do a double take and agree with you before correcting to the right value. If you're any good at it, that opponent simply accepts that number and measures the outcome of the dice roll accordingly.
It's a perfectly natural question that comes up in just about every game I play. I'm pretty conscious of when I'm actually making a suggestion (but try not to) and watch other people do it all the time to each other. If you're telling me that's cheating, I want to know how you police that. If you're saying there's a worldwide audience who is going to be on the lookout, I'd be interested in seeing how 'community enforcement of natural language rule breakers' works. I suspect it involves a lot of drama, accusations, wasted time, and gets no one anywhere.
But I can think of a dozen other ways to push a player toward DQing themselves and believe, given an incentive via a zero-tolerance policy, players will gravitate towards this kind of skullduggery. That's why people pay money for NLP programs, it works and it's not very hard.
But there's this other question that comes to mind, based on something you said about players being "hopelessly uninformed." At what point do I stop being responsible for my opponent not knowing the rules for their army? A lot of people borrow armies for tournaments (I personally loan people entire Chaos armies for NOVA and LVO) and it would be very easy for someone to step into a mess where they're a little too confident about their command of an unfamiliar force. Am I supposed to keep from speaking for fear I might, unintentionally, mislead a player who is not sufficiently versed in the rules? Then am I supposed to not speak up when my opponent has broken the rules because I might have said something that lead them astray?
Personal responsibility plays a role in this. I could just be asking a question and have someone 'get confused.' I do not agree with the idea that is cheating, you have to be able to talk to your opponent and how they process that information is their deal. At the same time, a system that rewards people for playing on their opponent's doubts is just manipulative and depressing.
So, I see you pointing a lot of fingers about what is and isn't cheating but I don't see where you have a good grasp on what it means. You talk about how nice it would be to have a smaller group with great adherence to the rules and I think you understand perfectly well not everyone who attends tournaments is actually capable of putting together an error-free list. I don't have to be deliberately trying to make someone screw up on the rules and I'm pretty confident I could have them apologizing to me on their way out the door, so there's nothing black and white about these situations you are so quick to judge.
There's nothing exceptional about me, I know other people could (and would) do this to win some stupid trophy or be able to claim the status of best plastic toy soldier dice roller of the year. All you've come up with is a way to take a good-enough system and make it worse.
techsoldaten wrote: Well, fortunately for the community, tournaments do not appeal to me.
Then why are you commenting on tournaments? What does your lack of concern for the rules in your casual games have to do with how situations should be handled in a tournament?
If you're telling me that's cheating, I want to know how you police that.
By pointing out the obvious on-camera statement saying "hits on 3s" followed by immediately calling a judge when the other player rolls it that way. That's very clearly a case of knowing the rule and trying to make your opponent break it, which is cheating.
At what point do I stop being responsible for my opponent not knowing the rules for their army?
When you stop trying to cheat by knowing the rule and encouraging your opponent to break it so you can DQ them. Saying "hits on 3s?" when you know that's wrong is cheating. Not noticing when your opponent says "5+ to hit" when it should be a 4+ is not cheating.
Am I supposed to keep from speaking for fear I might, unintentionally, mislead a player who is not sufficiently versed in the rules?
Yes, that's exactly what you should do. If your opponent does not know the rules then you should call a judge. If they are so ignorant about their own rules that someone has to hold their hand through the entire game then they should be politely removed from the event and encouraged to try again someday if/when they learn the rules better.
I do not agree with the idea that is cheating
Then you are wrong. You know that the rule is BS 4+, and you are deliberately stating that it is 3+ in an attempt to persuade your opponent to play it wrong. That is blatant cheating, and I have no idea how you could believe otherwise.
I think you understand perfectly well not everyone who attends tournaments is actually capable of putting together an error-free list.
No, I believe no such thing. Everyone is capable of putting together an error-free list. The problem is that some people don't give a about following the rules, whether through deliberate cheating or simply not bothering to try, and DQing them is the correct response.
techsoldaten wrote: Well, fortunately for the community, tournaments do not appeal to me.
Then why are you commenting on tournaments? What does your lack of concern for the rules in your casual games have to do with how situations should be handled in a tournament?
I play by the rules. Suggesting I cheat in games is low, even if I know how to.
I know a lot of TOs and competitive players and have sympathy for them. The hyperbole and distortions in this thread are annoying and counter productive.
If you're telling me that's cheating, I want to know how you police that.
By pointing out the obvious on-camera statement saying "hits on 3s" followed by immediately calling a judge when the other player rolls it that way. That's very clearly a case of knowing the rule and trying to make your opponent break it, which is cheating.
If it's so easy to spot, tell me how this guy gets this woman to say what she says:
Primark G wrote: I have a question about plasma pistols in general. Say for a Space Marine character you use a holstered pistol - that would be okay right?
Opinion from someone with Zero Tournament experience. This is fine ifevery holstered pistol on a Space Marine in your army is a plasma pistol. Otherwise, no dice.
techsoldaten wrote: Well, fortunately for the community, tournaments do not appeal to me.
Then why are you commenting on tournaments? What does your lack of concern for the rules in your casual games have to do with how situations should be handled in a tournament?
Wait a fething minute. In previous threads you have defended the right to complain about 40k if you don't play. But now it's not okay to have an opinion on tournaments if you don't go to them?
techsoldaten wrote: Well, fortunately for the community, tournaments do not appeal to me.
Then why are you commenting on tournaments? What does your lack of concern for the rules in your casual games have to do with how situations should be handled in a tournament?
I play by the rules. Suggesting I cheat in games is low, even if I know how to.
I know a lot of TOs and competitive players and have sympathy for them. The hyperbole and distortions in this thread are annoying and counter productive.
If you're telling me that's cheating, I want to know how you police that.
By pointing out the obvious on-camera statement saying "hits on 3s" followed by immediately calling a judge when the other player rolls it that way. That's very clearly a case of knowing the rule and trying to make your opponent break it, which is cheating.
If it's so easy to spot, tell me how this guy gets this woman to say what she says:
I have a question about plasma pistols in general. Say for a Space Marine character you use a holstered pistol - that would be okay right?
Opinion from someone with Zero Tournament experience. This is fine ifevery holstered pistol on a Space Marine in your army is a plasma pistol. Otherwise, no dice.
I don’t use a lot of specialist pistols and sometimes I might convert a model to have one gauntlet do something different. So I overall agree with your assessment and if I had any narstee pistols in a holster I’d inform my opponent before the game began.
Crimson Devil wrote: Wait a fething minute. In previous threads you have defended the right to complain about 40k if you don't play. But now it's not okay to have an opinion on tournaments if you don't go to them?
It depends on the reason for not doing the thing. The person I'm quoting doesn't play in tournaments because they dislike the entire concept of a tournament. So why should their opinion that tournaments don't do the things they like have any value? On the other hand, if someone else didn't play in tournaments because the local TO is a TFG, or didn't play in 40k tournaments but did play WM/H tournaments, etc, then their opinion might be relevant. Same thing with 40k in general. Don't play 40k (much) because you don't like the current state of the game, but want it to be better so you can play? Sure, have an opinion. Don't play 40k because you hate the concept of miniatures games and would never play it no matter what GW does? Why should anyone listen to you?
Primark G wrote: I have a question about plasma pistols in general. Say for a Space Marine character you use a holstered pistol - that would be okay right?
Well consider the fact that Cl Iron Hand Straken has a plasma pistol on his wargear list and on his model it is holstered.
Holsters are fine in my book, the bigger issue is when the model is holding an item that they shouldn't be.
Peregrine, I've been following this thread with some interest, and I have a couple of questions - do you consider there to be any difference, philosophically, between unintentional rule-breaking and deliberate cheating, and do you think that (leaving aside how you tell the difference) they should receive the same punishment?
If you're telling me that's cheating, I want to know how you police that.
By pointing out the obvious on-camera statement saying "hits on 3s" followed by immediately calling a judge when the other player rolls it that way. That's very clearly a case of knowing the rule and trying to make your opponent break it, which is cheating.
At what point do I stop being responsible for my opponent not knowing the rules for their army?
When you stop trying to cheat by knowing the rule and encouraging your opponent to break it so you can DQ them. Saying "hits on 3s?" when you know that's wrong is cheating. Not noticing when your opponent says "5+ to hit" when it should be a 4+ is not cheating.
Hypothetical situation: You're judging a tournament. Player A comes to you in the middle of round 3. They tell you that their round 1 player, who was using Space Wolves, used the wrong BS for a unit of Blood Claws.
When you ask about it, they show you a video their friend - who's putting together a video about the tournament for YouTube - took of the moment.
It shows Player B declaring some shooting by saying "Blood Claws into that last Nurgling base." There's no question of range, and Player A says "I'm toughness 2, so that's 3's then 2's, right?" Player B, who was flicking through their Stratagems, gives a quick nod and rolls, scoring 3's as hits. The whole thing takes maybe 5 seconds.
Player A explains that after the game, he was chatting with another player, who mentioned Blood Claws are only BS 4+. When you speak to Player B, he seems surprised, and when you show him the video he apologises and says he was momentarily distracted thinking about what to do in the Charge phase. He also mentions it was late in the round and there was a little bit of time pressure.
Nothing in this scenario is unrealistic, and it could be that it was an honest mistake, it could be that Player B was cheating, or it could be that Player A noticed that Played B was distracted and pulled a swift mind-trick that worked out.
What is the appropriate response from the judge here?
My point here is that sometimes things aren't as clear-cut as people often claim in this sort of discussion, and advocating an extreme zero-tolerance policy is likely to result in people getting angry over false positives, people angle-shooting to cause their opponents to be penalised, or both.
Unfortunately wasn't able to check in on the thread today for personal reasons, but wanted to provide updates on a couple things (as this has mostly devolved into a discussion of how to handle tournament penalties):
I saw somebody asked about the "mixed regiment benefits" issue on a prior page while skimming through. This is absolutely untrue, and we're not even sure where it came from, as we never even heard that rumor on-site mixed in with the other absolutely untrue stuff. This allegation materialized out of thin air in the BoLS article, as far as we can tell.
I'd also like to thank Aelyn for the writeup above regarding how "rules mistakes" look very different than "cheating" when you put them into the context of how the game actually works. People are becoming very cutthroat over mistakes lately; I actually wrote an article for Nanavati's website (no idea if it still exists now that he changed sites) shortly after the London drama to attempt to explain how these things look from a judging standpoint, but your hypothetical example does just as good of a job in a few sentences as I did in a dozen paragraphs.
This, in my opinion, is the main disconnect between the actual tournament community and the online community that has sprung up around it--and is also a fair explanation of why the online community is so gung-ho over "zero tolerance" policies. They don't see how badly this would affect everyone in the community, because they don't see how frequently these sorts of mistakes occur.
We've arrived at a situation where a meaningful number of people are willing to believe that 3 out of 5 of the top teams at ATCknowingly brought illegal lists. As in, five people got together, cooked up lists, decided "I bet we can get away with this under strict scrutiny, and will almost certainly lose the tournament if caught" and decided an extra piece of <10 point wargear was worth it.
That seems outrageous to me, but again, people are currently willing to believe it. I don't know if that's just the usual lack of empathy on the internet speaking, a general dislike of tournament players right now, or people just being so absolutely confident that list building is "simple" and therefore mistakes will never be made.
I'm not attempting to be entirely dismissive; I'm just asking Peregrine (and the group of people who share his opinions) to explain that viewpoint further--you genuinely see no wiggle room at all when it comes to illegal lists, every case was intentional, and every player should be banned? If so, you should see the first drafts of lists that get submitted for tournaments like these (as I've often been in the position to do) where it feels like 10% of the field gets rejected and re-written.
I'd like to restate that I'm absolutely in favor of harsh penalties for illegal lists (as is the norm almost universally right now), I just think you're going a step too far (and taking it to a personal place) by assuming this was intentional in all cases. The risk/reward on even attempting to do so just doesn't add up.
Aelyn wrote: Peregrine, I've been following this thread with some interest, and I have a couple of questions - do you consider there to be any difference, philosophically, between unintentional rule-breaking and deliberate cheating, and do you think that (leaving aside how you tell the difference) they should receive the same punishment?
Of course they should receive different punishments. But I would introduce a third category: rule breaking that occurs because a player doesn't care about trying to follow the rules.
What is the appropriate response from the judge here?
No immediate response, but add both players to the watch list. It is impossible to separate out what the cause of the violation was: player A making incorrect statements about the rules and creating an illegal game state, or player B deliberately taking advantage of an opponent letting them get away with cheating. But in this case player A deserves the greater share of responsibility for the violation because they explicitly stated what they would like the roll to be, while player B simply went along with player A's incorrect statement about the rules. Player A's rules knowledge is in doubt, but they already suffered a self-inflicted punishment for making the foolish mistake of declaring rules statements without knowing the rules they're talking about so there isn't much point in punishing them more.
My point here is that sometimes things aren't as clear-cut as people often claim in this sort of discussion, and advocating an extreme zero-tolerance policy is likely to result in people getting angry over false positives, people angle-shooting to cause their opponents to be penalised, or both.
Of course it should be noted that the cases where I've advocated a zero tolerance, immediate DQ and removal from the event policy are cases where the situation is black and white. If you bring an illegal list you are 100% unambiguously at fault. There is nothing unclear in, to use the example that happened at this event, the 0-3 limit on copies of a single datasheet. The list was clearly illegal, with no possible argument that it wasn't. And there is nothing preventing them from putting in the effort to get it right. The player either cheated deliberately or didn't give a about following the rules, and in either case they should be removed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DJ3 wrote: "simple" and therefore mistakes will never be made.I'm not attempting to be entirely dismissive; I'm just asking Peregrine (and the group of people who share his opinions) to explain that viewpoint further--you genuinely see no wiggle room at all when it comes to illegal lists, every case was intentional, and every player should be banned?
That's exactly what I'm saying. If your list is illegal in any way you are DQed and removed from the event property. Go cry in your hotel room over all the travel money you just wasted. There is no wiggle room at all, and intent does not matter. Either:
1) The player cheated deliberately, bringing an illegal list and knowing that even if someone looked carefully enough to spot the violation the penalty wasn't that severe.
or
2) The player made a deliberate choice to not give a about following the rules and didn't bother to check their list sufficiently to avoid bringing an illegal list.
So that's either cheating or complete disregard for the rules, and neither is acceptable.
If so, you should see the first drafts of lists that get submitted for tournaments like these (as I've often been in the position to do) where it feels like 10% of the field gets rejected and re-written.
I'm not sure what your point here is. Bad behavior being common doesn't make it acceptable. In fact, this should be a mark of shame on the community and everyone should be lobbying for stricter punishments to get that 10% to stop cheating and/or not caring about the rules.
I agree that it can sometimes be difficult to determine the difference between intentional and unintentional, it is a very very wonky line and will always rely on a decision made by a 3rd party human being. (at an event anyway)
The more I’ve been reading this thread, the more I think I’ve either been completely, massively lucky in the events and games I’ve taken part in, here in the UK, or, that there is a massively different cultural take on tournaments here compared to in the US – especially in the more competitive events.
I’ve been to several big events here in the UK now, and, from my experience if there is an issue, it gets picked up and dealt with. If you try to cheat, it gets dealt with either during the game, or after. I genuinely think the “social contract” side of things has a greater respect here. I AM NOT saying this is true for every event in the US vs the UK, but, at events classed as majors. The only instances I’ve seen of issues in the UK have been at 1 GW heat (and let’s face it, currently it feels like GW don’t have a clue what they are doing competitive event wise right now), and then at the London GT which I think was just generally handled badly.
Every other 50-80-man event I’ve been do has been enjoyable and highly competitive, but, I don’t think I’ve seen anyone DQd from the events, or, attempting anything that would require them to be DQd. Has there been instances of poor sportsmanship? Yes, but, I’ve yet to see an instance of blatant cheating. Generally, if there is any doubt, the question gets asked, and people ask the players around them for clarification. Are there instances of cheating? Probably, likely. But, I think most are given the benefit of the doubt and it gets stopped after being called out.
As i’ve said many times already. There is no excuse for an illegal list or not knowing what you have personally put into the list you’ve built.
Though, I’m also getting the impression that I am a different kind of player to the vast majority. In that I put in a level of effort that far too many people don’t bother with. If I see a list that doesn’t contain any plasma pistols for example, and then, suddenly I’m getting shot by one, then, I’m going to notice that and call it out. We are, usually, at most, talking about 25 units tops. It doesn’t take long to check a physical list, mid game, given to you before the game begins.
Primarch G – I generally think that holstered pistols depends on the model. If it is on a model that also has additional war gear that is modelled instead, then, as long as the model is easily identifiable as the one carrying the pistol, then it’d be fine. If you put a unit of 5 identical marines down and said 1 has a plasma pistol, I’d ask you, “which one?” and then ask that you mark it somehow to ensure it doesn’t get accidently mixed up later on. I wouldn’t suggest that you’d intentionally do this, but, it just makes it easier for everyone involved. However, I’d argue that the vast majority of models that can take specialist pistols do so at the expense of their standard war gear. So, having a bolt pistol and chainsword modelled instead of a plasma pistol becomes more of an issue of WYSIWYG rather than “you literally can’t model everything this guy has, unfortunately”.
I'm not attempting to be entirely dismissive; I'm just asking Peregrine (and the group of people who share his opinions) to explain that viewpoint further--you genuinely see no wiggle room at all when it comes to illegal lists, every case was intentional, and every player should be banned? If so, you should see the first drafts of lists that get submitted for tournaments like these (as I've often been in the position to do) where it feels like 10% of the field gets rejected and re-written.
Ok, so, an illegal list, is an illegal list, intentional or not. I think that this needs to be said, and accepted by everyone before moving on.
Failure to submit a legal list by the player, is, the players fault. End of. No ifs, or buts.
Failure to spot an illegal list that has been submitted for a tournament is the TOs fault. Again, end of. No ifs, or buts.
Failure to recognise an illegal list in a game that somehow slipped through the above steps, is the opponents fault. End of.
Now, the players have plenty of options available to them when building their lists, to ensure they have a correct and legal list.
The TOs also have options available to them when checking lists.
The opponents don’t always have options available to them, BUT, with the way things are currently being done with crowd sourcing/early upload to BCP, then, it is becoming more frequent that the opponents have the tools as well.
As you can see, the initial buck stops with the player submitting the illegal list, and there are 2 “fail safes” in place to try and pickup any illegal lists – accidental or otherwise.
If there is a continued trend in illegal lists slipping through the safety net, then, steps 2 and 3 need to be looked at and addressed to see where and how they are failing.
In instances where an illegal list is picked up by the system, then, it goes back to step 1 and the responsibility goes back to the player, who, would now have a reduced time frame to fix their list and would be subject to further scrutiny at point of list submission and potentially subject to penalties (that have to mean something) prior to game 1 beginning, if they failed to address the issue.
In regards to the ATC, I have some questions.
How many players were involved?
How many “staff” did the ATC have?
What was the time frame between final list submission and event day?
Again--discussion of penalties is fine, but the point I'm making is that intent should be irrelevant.
For the last few pages, people seemed to be riding the "yeah! screw you, tournament players!" train right to "illegal lists are always intentional attempts at cheating"-town. You appear to be backing away from that stance a bit now, but it's worth noting the huge difference that makes. The penalties should be unchanged, but attempting to turn mistakes into deliberate cheating does nothing but exacerbate the toxic environment that's been developing lately.
Kdash wrote: In regards to the ATC, I have some questions.
How many players were involved?
How many “staff” did the ATC have?
What was the time frame between final list submission and event day?
ATC had ~76 teams, ~380 players.
I would guess their actual "staff" count (specific to the 40k tournament, they have other events) is around 10, at least on-site. Maybe double that if they have volunteers helping out before the event that aren't on-site, but that's a pretty common number for even a major tournament.
Lists were due 2 weeks before the event, and released ~10 days before the event, if I recall correctly.
Again, two teams that would likely fit your definition of "celebrity" had written list mistakes. Nearly 400 people had two weeks to catch these, and they were not identified until the second day of the tournament.
I think there's a bit of armchair quarterbacking going on regarding how "easy" it is to catch list mistakes when you're talking about that volume of lists, and the huge number of rules in 40k.
On lists it is not always possible for the TO to check all the lists and I wouldn't expect them to. The only realistic way forward is for players to submit lists in advance and they be published so the community can police the system - if you're in the tournament or concerned generally about the way in which the community grows then it should be relatively easy for people to review a couple of lists now and again. If the ones checked can be flagged then the TO only needs to concern themselves about those that haven't been looked at. For instance, I would be easily able to check a Nids or Crons list, but no way can I quickly check all the weapons upgrades in a Tau list - some one experienced in Tau needs to do that.
All models should be WYSIWYG and all proxies/conversions need to be approved by the TO in advance, no exceptions. Turn up at a tourney with a proxy the TO hasn't seen - it's off the table. A list of conversions approved should be easily accessible so players can check in first game and we don't have the problem of issues being raised after games have been completed.
This should all be non-negotiable.
The in-game stuff is a little more subjective but if we get the basics right in that players turn up with a legal list and legal models then we are some way towards a better tournament environment.
On DQ, I don't see why we can't let players continue to play games albeit that they won't score points or be eligible for any prizes, it is a hobby after all. Any complaints on future games though after that should result in them being tossed though. TOs also do need to share details on players who have received warnings iro in-game behavior. I know some won't like it, but it stops players just taking their bad play to another area once they've exhausted local tournaments and forces them to improve their behaviour or stop playing. We need to move away from rumour and hearsay to actual reporting/recording of incidents.
I agree with Kdash about the different cultural approach to tournaments. The kind of things I see from tournaments in the US are completely alien to me here in the UK. Having said that, my main tournament game is now X-Wing and you don't see similar behaviour at those tournaments regardless of where they take place so perhaps there is something to blame in the game itself too?
As far as penalties for things like illegal lists go, I still think a game loss is appropriate. I can think of 2 roughly analogous situations in other games/sports that are much more competitive than 40k. In MtG, as has already been mentioned, an incorrect deck list is a game loss. In golf, having too many clubs in your bag results in a hole loss or 2-shot penalty, increasing to a maximum of 2-hole loss or 4-shot penalty. I'll point out again that I believe we need some baseline penalties to work with but TOs should be given discretion to apply harsher penalties if they see fit. But if those two games, which take competition much more seriously than 40k, have decided these scenarios don't warrant immediate DQ I assume there's a reason for that and I assume it's related to calibrating the harshness of the penalty to the nature of the infringement. For people who are trying to win the tournament that automatic loss is likely to put them out of contention. For the more casual player, making a mistake at least allows them to continue playing, which I think is a better outcome than an immediate ban as far as growing the tournament scene is concerned.
Finally, I said I'd look over my old lists for accuracy, as DJ3 contended I might be surprised to find I wasn't as correct as I thought. Having looked through 13 old WH lists (that was the GW game I was most involved with at tournament level) I found 0 errors. I stopped checking after 13. None of the X-Wing lists I checked were incorrect either.
ruminator wrote: On DQ, I don't see why we can't let players continue to play games albeit that they won't score points or be eligible for any prizes, it is a hobby after all.
Because then the penalty is minimal unless you're one of the top players. If you aren't expecting to be in the top few spots and be eligible for prizes anyway then it doesn't matter what your record says, you play your games and have the same experience. Getting booted out of the event is a more significant punishment and provides more incentive to avoid the error in the first place.
Kdash wrote: In regards to the ATC, I have some questions.
How many players were involved?
How many “staff” did the ATC have?
What was the time frame between final list submission and event day?
ATC had ~76 teams, ~380 players.
I would guess their actual "staff" count (specific to the 40k tournament, they have other events) is around 10, at least on-site. Maybe double that if they have volunteers helping out before the event that aren't on-site, but that's a pretty common number for even a major tournament.
Lists were due 2 weeks before the event, and released ~10 days before the event, if I recall correctly.
Again, two teams that would likely fit your definition of "celebrity" had written list mistakes. Nearly 400 people had two weeks to catch these, and they were not identified until the second day of the tournament.
I think there's a bit of armchair quarterbacking going on regarding how "easy" it is to catch list mistakes when you're talking about that volume of lists, and the huge number of rules in 40k.
Please don’t take this as aimed at anyone. This is simply me breaking it down logically and containing my own views and expectations based on experience.
So, looking at it practically, with a 10-person staff… Each person had to check 38 lists each within 14 days.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a fair amount of lists… But…
I accept that catching mistakes requires you to be looking for them, and know what to look for, but, if I can check 66 lists over the course of 2-3 days and feedback to the TO the issues I’ve picked up on, then, those invested in running the event don’t really have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to not checking lists properly.
If I was going to run an event, with a team of staff around me, then, I would make sure something is in place to ensure all the lists were checked by at least 1 member of “staff”, in addition to using other options like crowd sourcing the list checking.
It wouldn’t matter if the event was for 20 people, or for 300 people. 14 days is a LOT of time, especially spread over 10 people (plus volunteers). I accept that work and life will further restrict this on a person by person basis, but it definitely can’t be used as an excuse not to check.
It takes 1-5 minutes to upload a written list into battlescribe. It takes 20 seconds to check whether the detachments are legal. It takes 10 seconds to double check CP values. It takes 10 seconds to check whether the rule of 3 is being followed. It takes 10 seconds to check each detachment has a “chapter”. It takes 10 seconds to check for a warlord (if required). It takes 20 seconds to double check relics (again, if required). Let’s say each list takes a total of 10 minutes to check. This works out at 6 hours and 20 minutes of list checking per person. Which, overall is essentially less than half an hour a day of checking.
Catching list mistakes is easy. Any arguments otherwise, simply hints at a lack of understanding of what to check for and how. If something doesn’t look right at first glance, then, chances are you are probably right.
Please don’t take this personally, but, based on those staff numbers and time frame alone, if the TO and staff were not able to ensure that all the lists were adequately checked, then, they were either not running the event properly or they simply over reached themselves with the number of participants.
I don’t think I’ve referenced “celebrity” players in my last few posts when talking about the general situation on illegal lists. Illegal lists and the inability to correctly address them is aimed at everyone. But, in regards to the “celebrity” players, they need to ensure they step it up. They are the face of many US ITC events/shows/online presence, they are the people that a lot of other people copy, follow and look up to. They, whether they like it or not, set an example for other people.
If you want to run an event to a time frame, you need to be prepared, and understand, what you need to do and when you need to get it done by.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you want to talk about “fair and just” punishments for an illegal list, this is how I would break it down (if I was going to go out and publish event guidelines).
Over pointed list.
If the list was found to be over the set event point limit, the following would happen.
1. All previous games played with the list would result in automatic losses, with the offender scoring 0 points and their opponent scoring max points.
2. The TO/Judges would remove models/units from the offenders list until it is in line with the event points limit.
a. They would remove points in the following manner.
b. Identify the detachment providing the largest amount of CP.
c. Remove models from the detachment in the following order –
i. Troops
ii. Elites
iii. Fast Attack
iv. HQ v. Heavy Support
vi. War Gear
vii. Lord of War
d. If the detachment then becomes “illegal”, it is changed to the most relevant detachment with a lower CP value. (I.E. A Brigade would drop to a Battalion).
e. If the detachment becomes “illegal” and cannot become another detachment, it immediately becomes an “Unauthorised Patrol Detachment” and will contribute 0 Command Points to the player for the rest of the event.
3. In addition, the player would suffer further points penalties based on the amount of points over the limit the list was.
4. For every 50 points over the list (0-50, 51-100 etc) the TO/Judge would remove, at a minimum, an additional 100 points of models/units. These would be removed in the same way as in point 2.c. (yes, would suck to be a pure Knight player going over the limit!)
5. The player would be issued with an event/sportsmanship warning.
6. Finally, the player would be added to an ITC/ETC/Event register to monitor for repeated occurrences, which would be made available to TOs should they request it.
7. ITC/ETC/Event would then reserve the right to issue bans and warnings based on their judgement. (Which would be another central, agreed, list.)
Essentially, this allows the tournament to progress without too many issues (such as organising byes or having previous results impact on the final standings), whilst substantially affecting the offending player.
Ugh – can’t get Dakka to format the list with spaces or tabs etc :(
techsoldaten wrote: Well, fortunately for the community, tournaments do not appeal to me.
Then why are you commenting on tournaments? What does your lack of concern for the rules in your casual games have to do with how situations should be handled in a tournament?
Wait a fething minute. In previous threads you have defended the right to complain about 40k if you don't play. But now it's not okay to have an opinion on tournaments if you don't go to them?
Peregrine is right to call me out on this.
Tournaments don't appeal to me because I don't enjoy playing take all comers lists. Building to defend against Flyrant spam and mandatory Guard detachments doesn't do it for me, I would rather be tailoring my army for each opponent.
But there's also the 'drama' that comes up, people go overboard with the accusations towards other players and TOs. Putting up with that requires a certain kind of patience I do not always have, listening to people who just met talk trash about each other isn't how I want to spend a weekend. It's hard to walk away when someone is passionately upset about some perceived wrong, but it's painful when I hear the other side of the story and realize I wasted a couple hours listening to someone blow a very trivial thing way out of proportion.
I am not the only person who feels this way. Maybe I don't go to tournaments anymore, but I talk with others with the same complaint and that makes it very relevant to this discussion.
The first tournament I attended was in the 90s, the last one was during 6th edition around the time the Eldar Codex was released. This drama has always been there, people have always been clamoring for harsher punishments, and the people that win have always been taking a lot of heat from the people who didn't win (and, to be fair, probably could not have.) Those times we rise above the pettiness to focus on other aspects of the event are great, but I can't think of a time I went to one and didn't come away thinking at least a few people were obsessed with taking down anyone who did better than them.
If it were me, I would put cheating in the backseat for a while and focus on the bickering. It feels like someone is creating a shitposting thread after every tournament and it's getting more and more personal. TOs should have a better way of communicating with players that puts the focus on community and less on winning. Maybe one way to do this is by giving attention to all participants throughout the tournament to make them feel important. Maybe sponsors are part of the solution and want to offer other sorts of value for attending in the form of swag and workshops. Maybe players want to adhere to a code that emphasizes assuming the best about your fellow players and recognizing TOs for the hard, unpaid work that goes into pulling everything together.
Maybe another solution is to identify the people stirring up garbage like this thread and strongly encourage them to explore better ways of entertaining themselves than the tournament scene. I realize it's hard to track people across different events and social media platforms, but compare that to the actual harm being done to what they are trying to build. My perspective is TOs are very patient people who give a lot of themselves to build tournaments for the enjoyment of others and deserve a lot better than being kicked in the face after all that work. If there was something deserving of a ban, it's the attacks on the hard work of organizers, not technicalities over lists, alligators and excess plasma pistols.
At some point, I would like to go back to a tournament. I looked at the Gencon packet yesterday and I thought about it for maybe 5 minutes. They have a zero tolerance policy on cheating and I'm pretty sure I could run roughshod over that just to prove a point. Something I've been saying throughout this thread is the stuff people are complaining about as cheating is trivial compared to what I've seen. I'm better than average at spotting attempts to gain advantage by breaking the rules and have treated it as an opportunity to learn something about slight of hand, psychology, odds, confidence, distraction, fudging game mechanics, etc. for decades. Under a strict zero-tolerance policy for cheating, I'm pretty confident I could get at least a few opponents to DQ themselves without doing anything obvious that points to me.
But that is completely insane and not worth my time.
I do not like the persecutorial tone I see in the rules packets for tournaments these days, it feels like we're systematizing gossip and rumor in a way where sophisticated cheating could flourish. It really doesn't matter how harsh the policy is, people are going to complain that TOs are conspiring with players and winners are cheating no matter what. Because that's another way to fill the time when you lack the skills to succeed. The fact I see this going on means other people do too. I'm certain, within a few years, the recognized best plastic toy soldier dice roller is going to be someone who attended a couple Tony Robbins seminars and is building a history of winning against opponents who were DQed for failing to follow the rules.
Is that what we're really trying to do? Who actually enjoys all this drama? Are tournament rules supposed to favor players that are good at getting their opponents to screw up? Are tournaments getting better because of all the complaints online?
Oh, so now I'm responsible for the accuracy of my opponent's understanding of the rules? If I make a mistake and it causes someone to break the rules, now I go on a blacklist?
There is a tremendous difference between not knowing your opponent's rules and deliberately making a false statement about the rules to bait your opponent into playing something incorrectly while you film it, and then promptly calling a judge to impose a penalty. In that situation you clearly know the correct rule (as you are calling a judge as soon as your opponent breaks it), and you are making false statements about the game state and/or rules to persuade your opponent to play incorrectly. IOW, you are cheating. Let's not pretend that everyone is too stupid to recognize this and apply the correct penalty to you instead of your opponent.
Well, fortunately for the community, tournaments do not appeal to me. But planting a number in an opponent's head is not hard. There's a British comedian, Derren Brown, who's made a career of doing something similar.
As a thought experiment, try this sometime during a game. When someone is getting ready to roll for a unit but before they throw any dice, ask someone, "what do those, hit on 3s?" More often than not, that person is at least going to do a double take and agree with you before correcting to the right value. If you're any good at it, that opponent simply accepts that number and measures the outcome of the dice roll accordingly.
First of all, he's not really a comedian, he's a...whatever the hell he's decided to call himself nowadays. He usually describes himself as an illusionist/mentalist/showman. The reason he's famous and rich is because he's incredibly good at combining persuasion/mentalism with illusion and magic. It's not something the average tournament goer will be proficient in. I'd wager it's not something any tournament player would be able to pull off (unless Derren Brown is secretly a gamer). I'm willing to bet you can't get a tournament player to go along with your suggestion that their Space Marines hit on 4+, not 3+, through your amazing power of suggestion. To think you can is delusional.
techsoldaten wrote: But I can think of a dozen other ways to push a player toward DQing themselves and believe, given an incentive via a zero-tolerance policy, players will gravitate towards this kind of skullduggery. That's why people pay money for NLP programs, it works and it's not very hard.
I'd be interested in hearing those dozen methods because I think you're talking rubbish. Stop and think about what you're saying and how ridiculous it sounds. You're talking about using pseudo-hypnotism to get people to cheat in order to have them disqualified. Even if that was possible (which it isn't) that's Batman villain levels of convoluted and crazy. All this to win a game at a 40k tournament. I think the level of risk you're talking about here is sufficiently low to be dismissed out of hand.
I actually agree with you that an immediate DQ for breaking the rules is too harsh in a lot of cases but this line of "reasoning" is really not helping your case.
Well, I am sure all of us have faced the WAAC player that has gone to epic levels to win.
Mind games and justifying their behavior that if the other player "does not know their rules" so deserve what they get.
The good old loud confident voice "quoting" rules that do not exist.
Tournaments bring us the odd "best of the best" of these folk, so "comic book villain" behavior is really not all that surprising.
They also get real upset when placed with a competitive gamer who knows their rules cold.
Then they are looking for even the smallest chink in the armor to "prove" the other player is every bit the liar and cheat they are.
Incredibly hard to safeguard a tournament from folk like this: they live in the grey-zone and like to try to prove why the rules do not apply to them but should for others.
Anyway, the issue of saying intentionally incorrect hit rolls is pretty silly, especially with 8th edition getting the BS skill to represent what it means like a BS of 3 is actually a 3+ to hit... my poor since 2nd edition brain can even remember this stuff.
Tournaments is all about taking the rules to the max, it is always a great exercise to see if the rules are "broken".
Sometimes these events seem to be run like "Survivor" where all is fair for the $1 million... er, a few dollars of prizes.
So for a member of Team happy to come on here and say the person in question had NOTHING to do with the issues, when all along he was the cause of 2, if not ALL 3 of the problems, is just lies.
Yeah, so that account of what happened is a bit damning and it sheds a bit of light on the ATC account that was a bit vague on details about the model conversion issue and why it ended up being the last reason they were asked to leave. If Team Happy didn't get the models approved and then claimed they did, it's a double wammy of not getting them approved per the rules and then lying about the fact.
And as cool as I think those Rough Rider models look they are about half as tall as rough rider models actually are. The old GW proper models are probably around twice as tall and the FWDKoK Deathrider models are taller than the original GW ones. Base size looks correct to what has come with rough rider models before but as far as that is concerned GW/FW has provide several different sizes and shapes over the years so that is more up in the air.
The whole plasma pistol incident seems rather indicative of the reason people from that team often place first or in the top three at tournaments. Moments like the one described where a model lives unexpectedly and just needs one or two more shots to be dealt with are often the moments games get decided. If they cheat at those moments it easily explains their success.
DJ3 wrote: Again--discussion of penalties is fine, but the point I'm making is that intent should be irrelevant.
For the last few pages, people seemed to be riding the "yeah! screw you, tournament players!" train right to "illegal lists are always intentional attempts at cheating"-town. You appear to be backing away from that stance a bit now, but it's worth noting the huge difference that makes. The penalties should be unchanged, but attempting to turn mistakes into deliberate cheating does nothing but exacerbate the toxic environment that's been developing lately.
Using wargear unpaid for in a game is cheating. Intent is irrelevant as it cannot be determined. Quality Control apologized to the community. Rob Baer apologized to the community. After each case of cheating, in game bullying, and rude behavior there has NEVER been an apology from anyone on your team. The community has had enough, shape up or get out.
Since its was buried, I'd like to you response to your history as individuals and team members(those below are eyewitness accounts):
History:
2016 - Adepticon, missing pistol on Character, Lone Wolf issue,
2016 - ATC - Illegible lists for ATC, When confronted told our captain to f**k off and that he was going to stab him in the face.
2016 - ATC - The opponent screamed at you, "CHEATER" and threw a water bottle into the stands.
2018 - LVO - Unsportsmanlike in game actions against another player on video.
2018 - LVO - Round 1 slow play documented against another top player
2018 - ATC - What this thread is about.
So now we have a bit more information. Assuming the Long War account of events is true, that paints things in a different light and also explains how the issue of a mob mentality might have come about. We've had DJ3 claim that the TO decision that one more issue would see the team kicked out was communicated to the other teams by the TO and we have another team captain and the TO themselves claiming that wasn't communicated.
This is where reputation comes into it. Team Happy seem to have a particularly bad reputation and that means they don't get the benefit of the doubt in situations like this. The FLG podcast about the ATC included an anecdote about one of the hosts playing a Team Happy member at the LVO (Aaron, the same player who had the plasma pistol issue). As soon as the pairing was announced the host requested a judge to watch his game. When asked why by the judge he told him who he had been drawn against and the judge agreed, apparently fully understanding why a judge might be needed. That's pretty damning if true and probably tells us everything we need to know.
If a significant number of people in the room were keen to see another team kicked out I can think of only three reasons.
1. They were jealous of the team's success and figured they could improve their own chances of winning by removing a rival
2. They believed, erroneously, that the team were cheating, possibly based on the reputation of its members.
3. They believed, correctly, that the team were cheating, possibly based on the reputation of its members.
If the answer is either 2 or 3 (even partially) then the team members have a reputation problem which, given the number of teams involved in this "mob", would seem to be based on more than just hearsay. Perhaps Team Happy should address that problem as a matter of urgency.
meleti wrote: “I borrowed this army therefore I’m using wargear I didn’t pay for” isn’t a very good excuse. In fact, there isn’t a single good excuse for using an illegal list like that. What you should do is apologize, accept the penalty whatever it is, and try your hardest to not end up with a list issue like that again
I'd have to agree with that. Thats pretty basic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
meleti wrote: “I borrowed this army therefore I’m using wargear I didn’t pay for” isn’t a very good excuse. In fact, there isn’t a single good excuse for using an illegal list like that. What you should do is apologize, accept the penalty whatever it is, and try your hardest to not end up with a list issue like that again
I'd have to agree with that. Thats pretty basic. You have to bring legal legal gear to whatever competition/sport you are playing.
Oh, so now I'm responsible for the accuracy of my opponent's understanding of the rules? If I make a mistake and it causes someone to break the rules, now I go on a blacklist?
There is a tremendous difference between not knowing your opponent's rules and deliberately making a false statement about the rules to bait your opponent into playing something incorrectly while you film it, and then promptly calling a judge to impose a penalty. In that situation you clearly know the correct rule (as you are calling a judge as soon as your opponent breaks it), and you are making false statements about the game state and/or rules to persuade your opponent to play incorrectly. IOW, you are cheating. Let's not pretend that everyone is too stupid to recognize this and apply the correct penalty to you instead of your opponent.
Well, fortunately for the community, tournaments do not appeal to me. But planting a number in an opponent's head is not hard. There's a British comedian, Derren Brown, who's made a career of doing something similar.
As a thought experiment, try this sometime during a game. When someone is getting ready to roll for a unit but before they throw any dice, ask someone, "what do those, hit on 3s?" More often than not, that person is at least going to do a double take and agree with you before correcting to the right value. If you're any good at it, that opponent simply accepts that number and measures the outcome of the dice roll accordingly.
First of all, he's not really a comedian, he's a...whatever the hell he's decided to call himself nowadays. He usually describes himself as an illusionist/mentalist/showman. The reason he's famous and rich is because he's incredibly good at combining persuasion/mentalism with illusion and magic. It's not something the average tournament goer will be proficient in. I'd wager it's not something any tournament player would be able to pull off (unless Derren Brown is secretly a gamer). I'm willing to bet you can't get a tournament player to go along with your suggestion that their Space Marines hit on 4+, not 3+, through your amazing power of suggestion. To think you can is delusional.
Thank you for correcting me. I'm not as familiar with Darren Brown as an entertainer as I am with him as an NLP practitioner. You are absolutely right to say his technique is very advanced, few people in the world are on his level. So maybe I need to qualify that comment a bit to eliminate confusion.
I don't think anyone is going to watch a Derren Brown video and suddenly start goading other players into breaking the rules, and I'm not trying to make any extraordinary claims about my own powers of suggestion. The one thing I described in this thread is suggesting a value during a dice roll. You may wish to try that yourself, I've found interrupting someone's train of thought works the way I described more often than not. And there are circumstances where it works better than others, tournament settings being one of them.
Something I don't want to do is stigmatize NLP in this thread. Peregrine has already said he considers this cheating and that might be a common reaction. I've never seen a rule that prohibits talking to your opponent, and am curious how that would be considered cheating, but that's not the point.
NLP is not new for me, I've had some training in it for facilitation and mediation. It helps me when talking to groups, there are techniques I use to get people to understand where their interests lie and to reduce conflict between stakeholders. The way people behave is somewhat predictable, and there's ways to understand who you are talking to and the best way to interact with them.
Various personalities in the wargaming community use similar techniques, I notice what they're doing from time to time. Not always sure if it's being done consciously or if people are modelling their behavior on that of others, but it would be inaccurate to say the community is free from people possessing talent in this area. When I hear phrases like "Shootsting Phase," "Guns O'Clock," "That's Mathematics," etc, my ears perk up because I'm hearing a meta-language. There's a lot of ways to move with someone once you get them to buy into your way of describing the events occurring on the table. And some of the personalities in the wargaming community are very good at it, not Derren Brown good, but better than people I've seen in other settings.
Instead of assembling a list of call-outs, here's a picture of Miniwargamer Dave at a Tony Robbins seminar:
Watch some of his Banter Batreps. See if you pick up on the meta language he's using and the way opponents buy into it. Watch for those times in videos where an "adjustment" happens, where progress in the game is altered because someone didn't get the rules right. If you go back from that point, you will often hear a suggestion about a value that proved to be incorrect. While I'm certain what's happening is often just an honest mistake, I'm not always sure where the mistake is coming from - not reading the rules or a function of the interaction between the players.
There's nothing malevolent about this, Dave's an entertainer and he's trying to project confidence during a performance. Some of it has to do with his personality. And I really respect the talent he brings to his videos, they are always fun to watch. But there are times it feels like I'm watching a seminar on behavioral conditioning through verbal and physical cues. I see the differences in his interaction with different personality types and sometimes wish I could see the interaction that happened before the game. I've shared clips of his videos - along with those produced by others - with people who are not wargamers as an example of what you can do with language. He's very good at what he does and there are a lot of other people who treat him as a model (didn't he start the whole shootsting phase thing?)
Is that cheating? No, there are no rules being broken. If someone wants to put the effort in to better understand human psychology and use it to become a better player, there's nothing wrong with that. It's a technique, not very different from learning a new way to paint models. And it can be learned by most people, it takes practice to make suggestion work with different situations and personalities.
Would someone try to use psychological techniques at a zero-tolerance tournament to get someone DQed? I can't speak for the ethics of everyone who attends tournaments but I have noticed there are some people who's sense of ethics / enjoyment takes a back seat to winning. Maybe people should just consider the answer to that for themselves. I do think, if you're watching for it, the way certain people act during battle reports, tournament videos, etc. demonstrates some very interesting behavior that could used in a lot of advantageous ways.
techsoldaten wrote: But I can think of a dozen other ways to push a player toward DQing themselves and believe, given an incentive via a zero-tolerance policy, players will gravitate towards this kind of skullduggery. That's why people pay money for NLP programs, it works and it's not very hard.
I'd be interested in hearing those dozen methods because I think you're talking rubbish. Stop and think about what you're saying and how ridiculous it sounds. You're talking about using pseudo-hypnotism to get people to cheat in order to have them disqualified. Even if that was possible (which it isn't) that's Batman villain levels of convoluted and crazy. All this to win a game at a 40k tournament. I think the level of risk you're talking about here is sufficiently low to be dismissed out of hand.
I actually agree with you that an immediate DQ for breaking the rules is too harsh in a lot of cases but this line of "reasoning" is really not helping your case.
That's an interesting question. Not sure that's the sort of thing I can actually write down as a list, but I can share a situation I caught myself in during a game recently and explain what I think is going on.
During my opponent's turn, I burped and said I had a personal pizza for lunch. I told him I didn't really like it, it was good but something's wrong with how it comes out. 4 pieces doesn't feel right, you know how a real pizza is cut into 8 slices? Yeah, 4 is definitely not the right number. And how hard would it be to cut a smaller circle into 8 slices? 8 is the proper number.
My opponent was playing Eldar and rolled for Conceal. I asked him what the warp charge value is and he said 8. I told him to look it up.
I don't really know how I'm perceived when I come to a table, but I do think people pick up on my confidence and try to mirror what I am doing. I usually bring a skew list that includes Abaddon and a lot of lascannons that makes people nervous at the start of a game. So conversation is frequent, there's a lot of talk about what's going to happen, and there's usually a lot of chuckling during deployment since I play a very unorthodox game. I tend to make some jokes while talking about the majesty of the Black Legion, which is just me being charming. There are also distractions that happen as part of playing at a FLGS which break people's concentration, especially early-game when there's a lot of models on the board.
Maybe I'm being pessimistic about opponents or overly confident about my ability to influence others, but my personal experience has been that these conditions are favorable to exerting influence. Screwing with people isn't something I particularly enjoy, I'm more a problem solver and risk gets me excited. So I do make a conscious effort to tailor my language in a way that keeps me from telling anyone how to play against me. But there's always those moments that come up where we're talking about what happens next in the game. I have noticed - more often than not - if I offer a direction, it gets followed. Sometimes it's the obvious choice, sometimes it's the high-risk maneuver that can turn a game.
What I think happens is called an interruption, something I do acts as a stimulus to throw off another's train of thought. It's not necessarily deliberate, it's just that my "confidence" or the way I'm telling a story might seem better than my opponent's confusion, so they go with that. It doesn't matter if it's a good idea, or if it's a correct interpretation of the rules, or even if it's legal - what seems to matter most is that I seem confident about it while they are trying to decide what to do. Also, I don't need to actually be talking, it could be a facial expression or a change in posture or reaching for a bottle of water or something else. I realize timing and setting has something to do with it, and it's not something that always works. But I can do a lot with it when it does.
Take from that what you will. I apologize for giving you the impression of a Batman-level villain mind control scenario. I'm really just trying to talk about the ordinary, mundane circumstances of playing a tabletop game most people find themselves in. A lot of behavior is predictable and can be influenced. My observations are mostly based on personal experience, but I do think the techniques I'm discussing could be used to abuse any policy that leads to DQ based on a strict interpretation of the rules. I also think it's likely there are some people who would gravitate in that direction. Who knows whether or not it would work across a series of tournaments.
At the same time, I'm concerned about people like Peregrine, who consider this cheating even though there's no rule about talking with your opponent. I'm aware of other people using NLP techniques in the community and don't want to cause some kind of moral panic over their conduct. In the grand scheme of things, NLP is a good thing.
Kirasu wrote: All to get that sweet tens of dollars in prizes that 40k tournaments are known for. I just don't get it, spending a ton of money on models, on travel, time off work in many cases.. all to cheat on a game when 40k has never been very competitive in all honesty (dubious rules, slow playing, arbitrary stuff like painting scores).
This is how I feel about it. I've been to LVO twice now, and outside of having a lot of fun with my friends, and in Vegas, the gaming part of the trip was actually pretty mediocre. Now it is true that I'm not a very competitive person in general, and it would seem that this is true for this game too. But I just don't understand it. From what I've seen over the past 4-5 big events, it looks like a massive unfun nightmare of a time to be anywhere near the top 100 players.
My personal opinion is that a combination of problems make these situations even worse, namely the ridiculously large point pools for armies, the lack of decent pairing support, and the stupidly large number of people allowed to enter the tournament all cause problems. Then, you throw the cheating or manipulation issues into the mix it just gets worse and worse. This is just my opinion, but I really think events need to limit the number of players, and the points or things like the above mentioned issues are just going to get worse, cheating included.
Kirasu wrote: All to get that sweet tens of dollars in prizes that 40k tournaments are known for. I just don't get it, spending a ton of money on models, on travel, time off work in many cases.. all to cheat on a game when 40k has never been very competitive in all honesty (dubious rules, slow playing, arbitrary stuff like painting scores).
That's kinda the point of turning a casual toy-thing into "serious competitive sport" (doubly so if most of the time you're only "competing" against people there to have fun and roll dice more often than not and when the playing field isn't fair to begin with, as 40K isn't balanced or intended to be for this kind of exercise).
It's the thing people do who wouldn't in a million years be able to actually compete in anything actually competitive. And thus it hurts those types of egos all the more if they're then not actually dominating this smallest of all imaginable ponds.
Slipspace wrote: So now we have a bit more information. Assuming the Long War account of events is true, that paints things in a different light and also explains how the issue of a mob mentality might have come about. We've had DJ3 claim that the TO decision that one more issue would see the team kicked out was communicated to the other teams by the TO and we have another team captain and the TO themselves claiming that wasn't communicated.
This is something that gets me: the response from the ATC said that Team Happy came up with the idea that, should one more issue arise, they would voluntarily leave the tournament. One more issue ended up arising (the model conversion issue). Yet the response from Team Happy didn't address that at all, and I feel like if that agreement had not been in place, they would have called out ATC for telling lies. Instead, it really feels to me like a lot of rationalization of the bad stuff while ignoring everything else and blaming a convenient target: the "mob."
So did this not happen? Is Team Happy conveniently forgetting about it? Is TH going back on their agreement? Something smells off.
Kirasu wrote: All to get that sweet tens of dollars in prizes that 40k tournaments are known for. I just don't get it, spending a ton of money on models, on travel, time off work in many cases.. all to cheat on a game when 40k has never been very competitive in all honesty (dubious rules, slow playing, arbitrary stuff like painting scores).
This is how I feel about it. I've been to LVO twice now, and outside of having a lot of fun with my friends, and in Vegas, the gaming part of the trip was actually pretty mediocre. Now it is true that I'm not a very competitive person in general, and it would seem that this is true for this game too. But I just don't understand it. From what I've seen over the past 4-5 big events, it looks like a massive unfun nightmare of a time to be anywhere near the top 100 players.
My personal opinion is that a combination of problems make these situations even worse, namely the ridiculously large point pools for armies, the lack of decent pairing support, and the stupidly large number of people allowed to enter the tournament all cause problems. Then, you throw the cheating or manipulation issues into the mix it just gets worse and worse. This is just my opinion, but I really think events need to limit the number of players, and the points or things like the above mentioned issues are just going to get worse, cheating included.
Yea the size of the events is getting insane. I should clarify, the venue as a whole growing and growing is nothing but a net positive, but that doesn't mean things shouldn't be trying to improve and the particular tournaments at the events seem to be getting to the point where you would think they would just host multiple smaller sized tournaments on separate days, and then the winners of each of those days can play for all the marbles. I get the excitement and appeal of being one player in sea of competitors, but logistically it just seems silly, your never going to play all 500 players, just 5-8 depending on how you progress. Doing it that way would mean the event space needed could be smaller, the staff wouldn't be stretched so thin and the tables and terrain surely would be better too. It's also easier on player, I only need to sign on for a single day tournament unless I end up winning my event, means more time to see other things hang out etc.
This, in my opinion, is the main disconnect between the actual tournament community and the online community that has sprung up around it--and is also a fair explanation of why the online community is so gung-ho over "zero tolerance" policies. They don't see how badly this would affect everyone in the community, because they don't see how frequently these sorts of mistakes occur.
I don't think anyone in this thread is advocating zero tolerance for every little mistake.
We've arrived at a situation where a meaningful number of people are willing to believe that 3 out of 5 of the top teams at ATC knowingly brought illegal lists. As in, five people got together, cooked up lists, decided "I bet we can get away with this under strict scrutiny, and will almost certainly lose the tournament if caught" and decided an extra piece of <10 point war gear was worth it.
Knowingly? No. Intentionally yes. You either intentionally brought an illegal list or you intentionally did not put in enough effort to insure that you didn't, and I don't want to hear how hard it is to write a legal list, that is just bull. Second, your player did not have an illegal list, he used a piece of war gear he did not have at all, and that my friend is straight up cheating.
That seems outrageous to me, but again, people are currently willing to believe it. I don't know if that's just the usual lack of empathy on the internet speaking, a general dislike of tournament players right now, or people just being so absolutely confident that list building is "simple" and therefore mistakes will never be made.
I have a significant amount of empathy, for the people getting screwed and having a bad experience at the event, not for the people causing the issues. You can decide which category your team falls into but the lack of any apology makes me think you will pick the wrong one.
I'm not attempting to be entirely dismissive; I'm just asking Peregrine (and the group of people who share his opinions) to explain that viewpoint further--you genuinely see no wiggle room at all when it comes to illegal lists, every case was intentional, and every player should be banned?
I don't think that an illegal list should, in and of itself, be a ban able offence. what ever needs to be removed to make the list legal should be removed and the person should be removed from being able to place and receive any prize support.
P.S. continually using the argument that you should have gotten away with it because other teams did is not a good look.
Kirasu wrote: All to get that sweet tens of dollars in prizes that 40k tournaments are known for. I just don't get it, spending a ton of money on models, on travel, time off work in many cases.. all to cheat on a game when 40k has never been very competitive in all honesty (dubious rules, slow playing, arbitrary stuff like painting scores).
This is how I feel about it. I've been to LVO twice now, and outside of having a lot of fun with my friends, and in Vegas, the gaming part of the trip was actually pretty mediocre. Now it is true that I'm not a very competitive person in general, and it would seem that this is true for this game too. But I just don't understand it. From what I've seen over the past 4-5 big events, it looks like a massive unfun nightmare of a time to be anywhere near the top 100 players.
My personal opinion is that a combination of problems make these situations even worse, namely the ridiculously large point pools for armies, the lack of decent pairing support, and the stupidly large number of people allowed to enter the tournament all cause problems. Then, you throw the cheating or manipulation issues into the mix it just gets worse and worse. This is just my opinion, but I really think events need to limit the number of players, and the points or things like the above mentioned issues are just going to get worse, cheating included.
Yea the size of the events is getting insane. I should clarify, the venue as a whole growing and growing is nothing but a net positive, but that doesn't mean things shouldn't be trying to improve and the particular tournaments at the events seem to be getting to the point where you would think they would just host multiple smaller sized tournaments on separate days, and then the winners of each of those days can play for all the marbles. I get the excitement and appeal of being one player in sea of competitors, but logistically it just seems silly, your never going to play all 500 players, just 5-8 depending on how you progress. Doing it that way would mean the event space needed could be smaller, the staff wouldn't be stretched so thin and the tables and terrain surely would be better too. It's also easier on player, I only need to sign on for a single day tournament unless I end up winning my event, means more time to see other things hang out etc.
On a positive note, I am hoping that Specialist games can help with this problem.
If the big events have lots of AoS/40K events running over a 3-4 day period, people can pick and choose.
Look what we have:
Shadespire
Killteam
40K 40K: Apoc 30K
AoS Titanicus
The GT doesn't need 500+ players. Team tournaments, knight jousts, etc. Lots of ways to cut down entry and still have the same number of people at the event!
After listening to the long war podcast it's even more evident that this was straight up cheating. One of the reasons I'm willing to say this is that the long war guys have a good reputation and the reason why is how they started their podcast. One of the members had an illegal list in the AOS event.... He didn't make a post blaming this or that and making every excuse under the sun. Nope, he apologized DQed himself and is putting a self-imposed suspension onto himself. The members of Team Happy should take note that this is how you handle a mistake. Instead, members of this team have made these "mistakes" over and over without fully accepting responsibility. You add this lack of accountability with the number of times it has occurred and I think anyone willing to "take your word" on what happened is being a fool. The members of team happy have done such damage to their reputations that if they want to continue in the competitive scene they should just admit to the cheating and make sure for years to come they are model opponents at every event they attend.
Primark G wrote: That could have easily been a publicity stunt. Spikey Bits has quite a shady reputation.
While I generally agree with you, it still shows a bit of character. Knowing that the lists will get out on the interwebz eventually, and if there are problems with them they will be found and reported, it's better to admit it and make an apology and do something to try to mitigate. In this case returning the trophy was, I think, appropriate. The self-ban is definitely more of a statement, but that's his to make if he wants.
Primark G wrote: That could have easily been a publicity stunt. Spikey Bits has quite a shady reputation.
Played Wobbly Modelers at ATC. Great opponents, no shenanigans of any kind. Believe what you want, but I've been witness to flat out disreputable behavior by members of Team Happy.
Primark G wrote: That could have easily been a publicity stunt. Spikey Bits has quite a shady reputation.
"publicity stunt" or not that's how you handle it. I'm going to take the word of someone that owns up to a mistake before those that blame everyone under the sun for what they did wrong. This has also now become a pattern for the members of team happy.
Primark G wrote: That could have easily been a publicity stunt. Spikey Bits has quite a shady reputation.
Holy crap Primark. I normally think pretty highly of you, but let's examine this scenario.
[1 Week before ATC, in the evil lair of Spikeybits]
Rob Baer: I think Team Happy will play a couple illegal lists and almost win the ATC
Spikey Bits Employee: That's suprsiingly specific. How do we stop them? The cabal will never stand for a Team Happy victory.
Rob Baer: I have a plan. I join the AoS tournament. I place first. Then I reveal that my list is 10 points over instead of 10 points under and ban myself.
Spikey Bits: Brillant! It'll almost have an effect on the conversation afterwards. Won't that mean you write fewer post-trournament writeups?
Rob Baer: Yep. It'll cost us both some money I suspect.
Spikey Bits: But It'll hurt Team Happy?
Rob Baer: It'll make their supporters....uncomfortable...
Primark G wrote: That could have easily been a publicity stunt. Spikey Bits has quite a shady reputation.
Holy crap Primark. I normally think pretty highly of you, but let's examine this scenario.
[1 Week before ATC, in the evil lair of Spikeybits]
Rob Baer: I think Team Happy will play a couple illegal lists and almost win the ATC
Spikey Bits Employee: That's suprsiingly specific. How do we stop them? The cabal will never stand for a Team Happy victory.
Rob Baer: I have a plan. I join the AoS tournament. I place first. Then I reveal that my list is 10 points over instead of 10 points under and ban myself.
Spikey Bits: Brillant! It'll almost have an effect on the conversation afterwards. Won't that mean you write fewer post-trournament writeups?
Rob Baer: Yep. It'll cost us both some money I suspect.
Spikey Bits: But It'll hurt Team Happy?
Rob Baer: It'll make their supporters....uncomfortable...
Primark G wrote: That could have easily been a publicity stunt. Spikey Bits has quite a shady reputation.
Holy crap Primark. I normally think pretty highly of you, but let's examine this scenario.
[1 Week before ATC, in the evil lair of Spikeybits]
Rob Baer: I think Team Happy will play a couple illegal lists and almost win the ATC
Spikey Bits Employee: That's suprsiingly specific. How do we stop them? The cabal will never stand for a Team Happy victory.
Rob Baer: I have a plan. I join the AoS tournament. I place first. Then I reveal that my list is 10 points over instead of 10 points under and ban myself.
Spikey Bits: Brillant! It'll almost have an effect on the conversation afterwards. Won't that mean you write fewer post-trournament writeups?
Rob Baer: Yep. It'll cost us both some money I suspect.
Spikey Bits: But It'll hurt Team Happy?
Rob Baer: It'll make their supporters....uncomfortable...
[Evil Laughter in Lizard People]
Counterpoint - Rob Baer was the one who publicized and to a degree legitimized Florida Man's ludicrous law suit against GW. He displayed no credibility in his coverage of the subject and effectively was rooting for a crazy person because he was (and likely still is) upset that GW has never reached out to him for any play testing or signing him up as an official reviewer. Rob Baer isn't above a good ole fashioned publicity stunt to say the least.
Primark G wrote: That could have easily been a publicity stunt. Spikey Bits has quite a shady reputation.
Holy crap Primark. I normally think pretty highly of you, but let's examine this scenario.
[1 Week before ATC, in the evil lair of Spikeybits]
Rob Baer: I think Team Happy will play a couple illegal lists and almost win the ATC
Spikey Bits Employee: That's suprsiingly specific. How do we stop them? The cabal will never stand for a Team Happy victory.
Rob Baer: I have a plan. I join the AoS tournament. I place first. Then I reveal that my list is 10 points over instead of 10 points under and ban myself.
Spikey Bits: Brillant! It'll almost have an effect on the conversation afterwards. Won't that mean you write fewer post-trournament writeups?
Rob Baer: Yep. It'll cost us both some money I suspect.
Spikey Bits: But It'll hurt Team Happy?
Rob Baer: It'll make their supporters....uncomfortable...
[Evil Laughter in Lizard People]
Counterpoint - Rob Baer was the one who publicized and to a degree legitimized Florida Man's ludicrous law suit against GW. He displayed no credibility in his coverage of the subject and effectively was rooting for a crazy person because he was (and likely still is) upset that GW has never reached out to him for any play testing or signing him up as an official reviewer. Rob Baer isn't above a good ole fashioned publicity stunt to say the least.
His business relies on his popularity. Ofcourse he isn't above a PR stunt.
That doesnt change the fact that it was the right move to forfeit his price upon discovering the error.
Ordana wrote: His business relies on his popularity. Ofcourse he isn't above a PR stunt.
That doesnt change the fact that it was the right move to forfeit his price upon discovering the error.
Yeah but the self flagellation of 'self imposed tournament ban' is fanfare at its finest.
This, in my opinion, is the main disconnect between the actual tournament community and the online community that has sprung up around it--and is also a fair explanation of why the online community is so gung-ho over "zero tolerance" policies. They don't see how badly this would affect everyone in the community, because they don't see how frequently these sorts of mistakes occur.
Being tolerant of these "mistakes" is what allows them to perpetuate.
If zero tolerance is what it takes for people to take some personal accountability for their "mistakes", then that's what it takes.
Don't make illegal lists. Anyone playing this game has no excuse not to be able to add to 2000 or to 3.
Don't make up new wargear. It's not in your list, why would you use it?
Don't make up new rules. If you don't know, check. If you do know, stop cheating.
"Cheating is easy, so it should be ignored when I do it" is probably the most terrible position you could have taken here.
Ordana wrote: His business relies on his popularity. Ofcourse he isn't above a PR stunt.
That doesnt change the fact that it was the right move to forfeit his price upon discovering the error.
Yeah but the self flagellation of 'self imposed tournament ban' is fanfare at its finest.
The dude feels bad and embarrassed. It makes sense he wants to own up to it and make it right. You could hear the emotion in his voice when he talked about it in the podcast.
He also probably doesn't want to feel or sound like a hypocrite for calling for penalties but then being guilty of breaking rules himself.
Ordana wrote: His business relies on his popularity. Ofcourse he isn't above a PR stunt.
That doesnt change the fact that it was the right move to forfeit his price upon discovering the error.
Yeah but the self flagellation of 'self imposed tournament ban' is fanfare at its finest.
The dude feels bad and embarrassed. It makes sense he wants to own up to it and make it right. You could hear the emotion in his voice when he talked about it in the podcast.
It's also a hard thing to talk about wanting harder penalties for cheaters, but be like "except me, that was an honest mistake." Is it a bit sensationalist? Maybe. But showing that he's willing to take the penalties he's suggesting (afaik, I haven't followed that closely) is pretty much something he'd have to do at this point or look like a hypocrite.
Like I said, there's other things I don't like about Spkey Bits, but this particular thing isn't one of those.
techsoldaten wrote: At the same time, I'm concerned about people like Peregrine, who consider this cheating even though there's no rule about talking with your opponent.
There is no rule about talking with your opponent. There is a rule about making false statements about the rules and/or game state. Talk all you want about your favorite pizza choices, or how much you're going to kill those pathetic space marines next turn or whatever. But if you say "3+ to hit" to manipulate your opponent when it's really 4+ to hit then that is cheating, just like if your opponent asks you how many wounds your model has remaining and you answer "4" when the answer is actually 3. I am amazed that we have to have this conversation.
Primark G wrote: That could have easily been a publicity stunt. Spikey Bits has quite a shady reputation.
Holy crap Primark. I normally think pretty highly of you, but let's examine this scenario.
[1 Week before ATC, in the evil lair of Spikeybits]
Rob Baer: I think Team Happy will play a couple illegal lists and almost win the ATC
Spikey Bits Employee: That's suprsiingly specific. How do we stop them? The cabal will never stand for a Team Happy victory.
Rob Baer: I have a plan. I join the AoS tournament. I place first. Then I reveal that my list is 10 points over instead of 10 points under and ban myself.
Spikey Bits: Brillant! It'll almost have an effect on the conversation afterwards. Won't that mean you write fewer post-trournament writeups?
Rob Baer: Yep. It'll cost us both some money I suspect.
Spikey Bits: But It'll hurt Team Happy?
Rob Baer: It'll make their supporters....uncomfortable...
[Evil Laughter in Lizard People]
HA ha, I read this & picture Golem talking to his reflection in the water.
Primark G wrote: That could have easily been a publicity stunt. Spikey Bits has quite a shady reputation.
Holy crap Primark. I normally think pretty highly of you, but let's examine this scenario.
[1 Week before ATC, in the evil lair of Spikeybits]
Rob Baer: I think Team Happy will play a couple illegal lists and almost win the ATC
Spikey Bits Employee: That's suprsiingly specific. How do we stop them? The cabal will never stand for a Team Happy victory.
Rob Baer: I have a plan. I join the AoS tournament. I place first. Then I reveal that my list is 10 points over instead of 10 points under and ban myself.
Spikey Bits: Brillant! It'll almost have an effect on the conversation afterwards. Won't that mean you write fewer post-trournament writeups?
Rob Baer: Yep. It'll cost us both some money I suspect.
Spikey Bits: But It'll hurt Team Happy?
Rob Baer: It'll make their supporters....uncomfortable...
[Evil Laughter in Lizard People]
Sorry to let you down - it is just me being pragmatic. I just don't trust that guy... especially the way he laughs (sounds so fake to me).
DJ3 wrote: Unfortunately wasn't able to check in on the thread today for personal reasons, but wanted to provide updates on a couple things (as this has mostly devolved into a discussion of how to handle tournament penalties):
I saw somebody asked about the "mixed regiment benefits" issue on a prior page while skimming through. This is absolutely untrue, and we're not even sure where it came from, as we never even heard that rumor on-site mixed in with the other absolutely untrue stuff. This allegation materialized out of thin air in the BoLS article, as far as we can tell.
...
As the person who asked the question I feel a need to clarify. My reading of the BoLS article did not indicate it was your team with the regiment issue. I thought it was another team, having said that I was hoping that some light could be put on that issue as I am curious what (if anything) happened. I know I have made mistakes a few times (adding 6" to a pistol)
quickfuze wrote: Aaaaaaand you missed his point and proved it all in one tirade. Good job.
1. A group of people was approaching teams, asking them to boycott the entire event if we were not removed. This is absolute fact.
Transparency means naming said group of people, not hiding who yo are calling your accusers.
.... sidenote: anyone not knowing what their list has going into a tournament is either a idiot, novice, or cheat, take your pick on the plasma pistol player. Same with illegal list. Anyone competing at this level just has Zero Excuses.
quickfuze wrote: Aaaaaaand you missed his point and proved it all in one tirade. Good job.
1. A group of people was approaching teams, asking them to boycott the entire event if we were not removed. This is absolute fact.
Given that your team appears to be composed of poor sports who were actually caught cheating, that seems totally reasonable. I hope that you lot are permanently banned from future events
quickfuze wrote: Aaaaaaand you missed his point and proved it all in one tirade. Good job.
1. A group of people was approaching teams, asking them to boycott the entire event if we were not removed. This is absolute fact.
Given that your team appears to be composed of poor sports who were actually caught cheating, that seems totally reasonable. I hope that you lot are permanently banned from future events
Yeah, the more this issue is discussed by more people who attended the event, the less sympathy I feel towards Team Happy and their conduct.
.... sidenote: anyone not knowing what their list has going into a tournament is either a idiot, novice, or cheat, take your pick on the plasma pistol player. Same with illegal list. Anyone competing at this level just has Zero Excuses.
The way the LongWar video explained it, with context, it sounds like cheating to me.
Justin said why would anyone intend to cheat knowing the consequences. But in the heat of the moment, when the game is on the line, the true motivation of a person is tested. Aaron may have thought he could get away with it as normally who would check a list to see if a seraphim superior bought a plasma pistol when the model itself is carrying it. He did it the game before against a big name team, why would this second round be any different.
Interestingly I would like to know if he had been using the plasma pistol all game or selectively. That could indicate intent more.
While I respect Spikey Bitz decision to hand back the trophy and ban himself, I don’t entirely believe it was done for the right reasons. I might be wrong in my opinion, but, it is just the gut feeling i'm getting from the situation as a whole and previous experience.
With the current situation, his illegal list would have come to light eventually. As such, he has bit the bullet and tried to get ahead of the potential storm.
With everything that has gone on at the ATC, and with him supposedly being linked to some of the people involved in the initial “mob” AND the fact that he/people he is linked, to publicised this to being with, it does have the feeling of a massively publicity stunt.
It is right that all this is coming out. But, I firmly reserve the right to put peoples motives into question.
I’m not going to go into the statement by the Long War guys, as the only experience i’ve had with them has been click bait youtube videos and the odd occasional bit of sensationalism. BUT, as a result, I’ve not had that much interaction with their full content, so, I could be wrong overall.
It's just as unacceptable and rule breaking if it was an accident.
Whether you fall backwards into a goalie or push him deliberately, it's still 2 minutes in the box.
Well then why are we having this discussion. They were penalised for all infractions (game loss, sportsmanship warning, self inflicted DQ). They didn't get away with anything.
I couldn't care less about rob baer but whether its a stunt or not if he holds himself to his self imposed suspension through to the end he will have earned a lot of respect from me. The clickbait and ad spam are why I stopped caring about spikeybits even pulled my funding their patron after some shadiness from rob baer but going out in front of this and imposing the exact punishment that a portion of us feel is right and should be applied more under the right circumstances is absolutely the right move to me.
Juices video comes off incredibly sincere and if you watch any of the content the main focus is improving the hobby, building a better community and hobby/community standards. I think anyone who has been a part of their audience knows that while rob may be the weakest part of that team personality wise this "stunt" is exactly in line with their morals as a group and what they stand for.
As public figures and very well known within the community this is exactly what I would hope to see not team happy's "this is how its done" without even a single apology on the matter. What little respect dj3 earned by coming on this thread has been worn away by his lack of accepting any responsibility, blaming a dang conspiracy and the many holes in his story between selective answering, witness accounts and even the difference between the two posted statements here.
He asked us to make our own opinions on what's presented and I think his entire team would benefit the community by taking a breather from the circuit and coming back prepared to build up the community and not just abuse it for their own ego's sake
Most everyone knows cheating is rampant at the top tables and has been for decades. It's the TO's that bury their head in the sand that have exacerbated the problem until its come to a head now. I'm thankful for the mob sometimes. Sometimes it can bypass the bs and political correctness and the soy boys unwilling to confront a problem head on.
Props to the TO's there for handling it, finally. Makes me want to come back to the ATC's. One of the finest tourneys around.
Grippando is the single worst 40k game I've ever played. Aelong is in the top 10 worst. The worst types of jerks are the ones who try to be friendly, all the while pulling out all the tricks to win.
Its guys like them that sucked the joy from 40k for me. I've taken a refreshing break from competitive 40k for a couple years. I miss much of it, the comradery and fun, but I sure dont miss spending tons of money only to run into a character such as those that have no concern for you across the table. I could tell anecdotal stories of some of the top players being terrible people in game, but I'm quite certain I dont have to. All those I have spoken to about it, and it's been many, agree there is a large portion of our community that are more desperate to soothe egos than form friendships.
You dont have to cheat to do well at 40k, or even win...
Personally I am very interested to see who the consistent top tier players are in a year or two after (hopefully) the cheating is reigned in enough for the legit good players to surface instead of the players who are just better at cheating, which seems to be a significant portion of the top tier currently.
For those doubting Rob Baer, just fyi, he also pulled himself out of the local AoS escalation league (about 10 players). He did this because it has a culminating tourny at the end. The community at large would probably never have known had he kept playing etc. So I think you're mistaken to claim PR stunt.
quickfuze wrote: For those doubting Rob Baer, just fyi, he also pulled himself out of the local AoS escalation league (about 10 players). He did this because it has a culminating tourny at the end. The community at large would probably never have known had he kept playing etc. So I think you're mistaken to claim PR stunt.
At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words. Regardless of how he truly feels (something we can never know) he's doing the right thing. Team Happy, on the other hand, has shown that they do not truly accept responsibility and instead, they somehow feel cheated. I know that people that honestly make those mistakes and regret it do everything to make it right. They do things like DQing themselves, self-imposed suspensions, ect. People that don't really feel bad make excuses and blame others.
Maybe team "Happy" will keep this in mind next time they go tournamenting and become very vigilant in their list building and double check their lists and stop doing shady things at tournaments, then they won't feel so cheated.
vonjankmon wrote: Personally I am very interested to see who the consistent top tier players are in a year or two after (hopefully) the cheating is reigned in enough for the legit good players to surface instead of the players who are just better at cheating, which seems to be a significant portion of the top tier currently.
It will be the same players. The cheaty players have not won consistently in any singles events in the first place.
This, in my opinion, is the main disconnect between the actual tournament community and the online community that has sprung up around it--and is also a fair explanation of why the online community is so gung-ho over "zero tolerance" policies. They don't see how badly this would affect everyone in the community, because they don't see how frequently these sorts of mistakes occur.
Actually I think the community of players NEVER having to come in contact with the likes of the Team Happy members ever again would be a great thing for the community. You can clamor to your attempts at innocence all day long, but there is also a toxicity in most of the team members personalities that really have no place in this hobby; something that goes far beyond just the events at ATC, LVO, etc.
vonjankmon wrote: Personally I am very interested to see who the consistent top tier players are in a year or two after (hopefully) the cheating is reigned in enough for the legit good players to surface instead of the players who are just better at cheating, which seems to be a significant portion of the top tier currently.
It will be the same players. The cheaty players have not won consistently in any singles events in the first place.
vonjankmon wrote: Personally I am very interested to see who the consistent top tier players are in a year or two after (hopefully) the cheating is reigned in enough for the legit good players to surface instead of the players who are just better at cheating, which seems to be a significant portion of the top tier currently.
It will be the same players. The cheaty players have not won consistently in any singles events in the first place.
vonjankmon wrote: Personally I am very interested to see who the consistent top tier players are in a year or two after (hopefully) the cheating is reigned in enough for the legit good players to surface instead of the players who are just better at cheating, which seems to be a significant portion of the top tier currently.
It will be the same players. The cheaty players have not won consistently in any singles events in the first place.
Didn't Tony Kopach win NOVA one year with a list that was 3 points over? Also, vonjankmon didn't specify people winning singles events, he specified "top tier players". Looks to me like a few of the players who are generally accepted as being top tier have a fairly shady reputation - though by no means all of them.
I'm reminded of a baltimore GT in the early 2000s.
We got in friday evening and the open play area had a table with about 40 people crowded around it cheering.
There was a fellow throwing 2d6 and asking people around him to call out a number, and everytime he threw the dice the 2d6 equalled that number.
He was also back then considered a "top tier tournament player".
In a game where people bring their own dice, stretchy tape ran rampant, and guys know how to throw the dice in ways that they can guarantee their rolls nearly every time, I came to the conclusion after chasing the tournament dragon for ten years that most of the top tier players that I knew also knew how to influence rules arguments and were fairly adept at always rolling what they needed when the chips were down.
It will be the same players. The cheaty players have not won consistently in any singles events in the first place.
So, not only do you know who the "cheaty" players are, you know them well enough to say if they do or do not win events consistently, which by the why means they do win events, and organizers still allow them to enter events and ruin the experience for other people. You are only confirming what people in this thread already knew, but it's nice to hear it from the horses mouth.
Actually by and large no. It's also important to note that most of the reactions along those lines sound so naive to the reality of what a major tournament is, who it's for, and what it feels like that I'm not especially inspired to reply. Those certain tournaments are just about TOs idolizing or enabling cheaters are, well, wrong.
I guess I should have been a bit more clear. I did not mean to imply that *all* of the top tier players, or even most are cheaters. However I think it is fair to say that the members of Team Happy would all be considered top tier for the number of repeated times they have both as a team and individually placed in the top 5 at major events. It is also important to note how often cheating and/or questionable actions have been associated with those players. My personal experience in the tournament scene 7-8 years ago before my daughter was born and I stopped playing competitively for the most part also reinforces my feeling that at least some top tier players are considered that due to shady actions and/or outright cheating.
I think the recent events and the (IMO) very healthy response from tournament organizers will lead to some change in the players that are generally considered to be top tier by their performances at major events. Even just from there being more judges and a more active roll from them without any consideration to cheating as their presence may cut down on what I refer to as "aggressive" opponents who while not cheating walk the edge of bullying very often in my experience in a conscious or subconscious attempt to put their opponent off their game.
Even the addition of chess clocks will have an interesting (and I think positive) effect on the tournament scene as there has definitely been an over arching meta around only playing 3-4 rounds in a tournament game. I knew players 15+ years (god I am getting old...) that based their armies and play around that fact and I imagine things have not changed since.
Then why did you make a statement that implies you do know who the cheaty players are and how often they win?
It's also important to note that most of the reactions along those lines sound so naive to the reality of what a major tournament is, who it's for, and what it feels like that I'm not especially inspired to reply. Those certain tournaments are just about TOs idolizing or enabling cheaters are, well, wrong.
When did I state any of this? I go to tournaments to have a good time. Bottom line, life makes it hard to get games in without carving out a weekend to do it,but the fact of the matter is there are a lot of people like Team Happy at these events,and people are sick of nothing being done about it. ATC excluded. I pay just as much to go as Team Happy and to have my experience ruined because organizers don't want to put their foot down is bull. If these events are truly just about socializing,and having a good time like you post all the time, I have a challenge you. Next nova score individual games only, do not track overall, pair players randomly, and randomly raffle of prize support throughout the event. If Nova is really just about getting together with friends this would be perfect for everyone right?
Then why did you make a statement that implies you do know who the cheaty players are and how often they win?
It's also important to note that most of the reactions along those lines sound so naive to the reality of what a major tournament is, who it's for, and what it feels like that I'm not especially inspired to reply. Those certain tournaments are just about TOs idolizing or enabling cheaters are, well, wrong.
When did I state any of this? I go to tournaments to have a good time. Bottom line, life makes it hard to get games in without carving out a weekend to do it,but the fact of the matter is there are a lot of people like Team Happy at these events,and people are sick of nothing being done about it. ATC excluded. I pay just as much to go as Team Happy and to have my experience ruined because organizers don't want to put their foot down is bull. If these events are truly just about socializing,and having a good time like you post all the time, I have a challenge you. Next nova score individual games only, do not track overall, pair players randomly, and randomly raffle of prize support throughout the event. If Nova is really just about getting together with friends this would be perfect for everyone right?
I wasn't saying no to that.
And at NOVA that's precisely how most of the 40k events work. And we do raffle off hundreds of prizes randomly every single day, several times a day. We also present an invitational (to which known problems were not invited) for the most hardcore, a GT format built for every player type, etc. So yeah, it is perfect for everyone.
vonjankmon wrote: Personally I am very interested to see who the consistent top tier players are in a year or two after (hopefully) the cheating is reigned in enough for the legit good players to surface instead of the players who are just better at cheating, which seems to be a significant portion of the top tier currently.
It will be the same players. The cheaty players have not won consistently in any singles events in the first place.
Considering your own event happens soon this may just be one of the poorest statements you could make. Your role isn't to tell people who the winners will be before your event has occurred, this is the reason why folks scoff at the insider relationships some players have with TO's. It only looks worse considered NOVA has a less then desirable track record when it comes to cheating caught on stream and illegal lists. I mean folks just have to look at last years thread where you said this: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/180/714710.page#9590155
The worst thing about tournaments are the condescending/presumptive trolls who don't go to tournaments.
Actually your comments have been more condescending then most. In fact most of this debate was cause by your initial response which basically amounted to "You didn't attend? so off with your concerns..." which is a poor way to handle something like this. Myself and others have not blown this into any sort of major issue beyond stating it should at the very least be taken seriously and looked into. It's cheap and easy to just call us all the same mob though.
Players should know their own rules and despite that mistakes sill still happen but for me the most insane thing is him not having any of the needed rules to play with him. Hand wave that all you want, that is and has been a requirement of even the most laid back RTT since the games been out. You know something is off when a player actually asks a judge off table for a source he is supposed to have.
They have been. People pay far too much attention to the top table, and far too much attention to people making honest mistakes in events where their primary reason for being there is *not* "winning the tournament." I'm looking down my nose a bit because peanut gallery snipers who carp for multiple pages of thread on minor rules gaffes by the smallest % of players (the "top" guys) at massive events are a persistent problem in the hobby which often keeps interested passers-by from trying out what amounts to a giant gaming party for charity all weekend long. I *definitely* do not think all that highly of those who make too big a deal of what happens on the top tables. IDK what else to tell you. It is DEFINITELY hand wavey on my part; this issue is so comparatively irrelevant that I'm not exactly pleased with how much conversational space it's taken up. "I'm gonna do this thing." You're doing it wrong. "Oh, ok, I'll stop."
That's you resorting to the very same straw-man of creating some fake mob to pin all the blame to, whats more hilarious is the fact that you are applauding DJ3, the same guy now in hot water at another tournament.
Curtis is defending his real life friends. He'd be a gak person if he abandoned them over a game.
I think the point I would generally make to you is that when you claim insider relationships or unfair advantages, I stop listening. It's conspiratorial at best and stupid on the average. I have as close a friendship with regular last place finishers as first, and building relationships is a huge part of why NOVA exists. I met my wife through a regular winless buddy I met by his attendance at NOVA.
And it's not a strawman to say the top tables don't matter very much. They don't. The legitimacy of the event isn't based upon who wins bracket 1. The GT represents 250 of 2500 attendees, most of whom themselves aren't affected by whoever the top players are. And NOVA really doesn't have a long history of cheating and illegal lists getting by. Alan's was permanently altered and penalized the moment his error was caught, for example. No fuss, no frills.
Ultimately the toxicity in this community comes from two small sources - douches who can't win without cheating, gotcha calls, clock hogging, etc, and yet who only affect a tiny handful of games, and gakky internet warriors who demand blood over their actions while ignoring and detracting from the experience of the vast, vast majority just looking to enjoy some fun games while building friendships and raising money for charity.
And if you think we as TOs ignore the douches and choose to do nothing, well, as per above we already know conspiratorial naivete is a running trend. We're just not as interested in publicizing them as much as the internet wishes.
MVBrandt wrote: Curtis is defending his real life friends. He'd be a gak person if he abandoned them over a game.
I think the point I would generally make to you is that when you claim insider relationships or unfair advantages, I stop listening. It's conspiratorial at best and stupid on the average. I have as close a friendship with regular last place finishers as first, and building relationships is a huge part of why NOVA exists. I met my wife through a regular winless buddy I met by his attendance at NOVA.
And it's not a strawman to say the top tables don't matter very much. They don't. The legitimacy of the event isn't based upon who wins bracket 1. The GT represents 250 of 2500 attendees, most of whom themselves aren't affected by whoever the top players are. And NOVA really doesn't have a long history of cheating and illegal lists getting by. Alan's was permanently altered and penalized the moment his error was caught, for example. No fuss, no frills.
Ultimately the toxicity in this community comes from two small sources - douches who can't win without cheating, gotcha calls, clock hogging, etc, and yet who only affect a tiny handful of games, and gakky internet warriors who demand blood over their actions while ignoring and detracting from the experience of the vast, vast majority just looking to enjoy some fun games while building friendships and raising money for charity.
And if you think we as TOs ignore the douches and choose to do nothing, well, as per above we already know conspiratorial naivete is a running trend. We're just not as interested in publicizing them as much as the internet wishes.
I'd like to point out that the actions of Team Happy affected more then "a handful of games". The delays that they caused while the TO's were forced to deal with the issue affected 380 people, and the games they were meant to play.
I'm not speaking for ATC or team happy. I only entered this convo because someone made the very tired, decade old claim that if we got rid of the cheaters there'd be different people winning events. Which is by and large highly inaccurate. Same as those who say if we only fixed "x" balance issue we'd have different people winning events. It's not my place to weigh in on how ATC was handled, and certain members of Happy are getting reamed hard enough without an independent TO who wasn't there piling on.
MVBrandt wrote: when you claim insider relationships or unfair advantages, I stop listening
Maybe you SHOULD listen.
My first ever Adepticon, i played Aaron Aelong game 1. We were having a great game when they came over the loudspeakers and said "Last turn, do not start another round".
I asked him if this was indeed our last turn. he looked at the board, and said "Yes".
He finished his turn, and when I started to move models he said "we said this was last turn". He Had FORGOTTEN he went first. So I played my last turn.
I moved my raiders out onto objectives and won the game.
Suddenly, he DEMANDED we play another turn. I said no.
He got his FRIEND (on the same freaking team) who was reffing to come over and force us to play another turn (After they said NO MORE TURNS remember). I asked to move my models back because I would not just put them out in the open if we were playing more.
His FRIEND and TEAMMATE the REF, told me no.
I lost the game (obviously) but for you to say there are no unfair advantages for Jerks like this, you are 100% wrong. Just because you have not been a victim of it does not mean it does not exist.
MVBrandt wrote: Curtis is defending his real life friends. He'd be a gak person if he abandoned them over a game.
If his friends are gak people (and from all reports they ALL are), then he should simply STFU, lest he further confirm himself to be a gak person (which he has).
Defending cheaters caught in the act of cheating is a gak hill to die on.
Oh hey look. Still blaming their disqualification on not themselves.
I was there. They were out in the parking lot, feeding orphans when the other teams got together to try to get them kicked out.
Quiet. You're not supposed to let out the news of the cabal that all of us Team Captains had going on. We'll all be wearing T-shirts next year. "I'm responsible for Team Happy getting kicked out, not their cheating, or ignoring of the rules."
And it's not a strawman to say the top tables don't matter very much.
That's not the straw man I pointed out and you know it. The straw man is painting all criticism as a some BS mob from a creature feature from the silver screen so it can be demonized and gak can carry on as usual. You really don't have a leg to stand on here considering you have done it yourself repeatedly in the thread I linked for all to read, I encourage them to as well. That was the same thread where you claimed any one that doesn't pay to attend can go off.
And it's not a strawman to say the top tables don't matter very much.
That's not the straw man I pointed out and you know it. The straw man is painting all criticism as a some BS mob from a creature feature from the silver screen so it can be demonized and gak can carry on as usual. You really don't have a leg to stand on here considering you have done it yourself repeatedly in the thread I linked for all to read, I encourage them to as well. That was the same thread where you claimed any one that doesn't pay to attend can go off.
The problem is the gak doesn't carry on as usual. That's the problem and naivete in the observation. And I really don't care about your judgement - that's the fundamental point. When people loudly proclaim something happens that isn't, and when we are successfully achieving our mission to raise hundreds of thousands for charity, I could care less about what a misled conspiracy theorist thinks about an event he wouldn't attend to begin with.
And I don't particularly care how other events are run, to the person with the AdeptiCon Aleong example. I thought that was clear from my prior comments about ATC.
And it's not a strawman to say the top tables don't matter very much.
That's not the straw man I pointed out and you know it. The straw man is painting all criticism as a some BS mob from a creature feature from the silver screen so it can be demonized and gak can carry on as usual. You really don't have a leg to stand on here considering you have done it yourself repeatedly in the thread I linked for all to read, I encourage them to as well. That was the same thread where you claimed any one that doesn't pay to attend can go off.
The problem is the gak doesn't carry on as usual. That's the problem and naivete in the observation. And I really don't care about your judgement - that's the fundamental point. When people loudly proclaim something happens that isn't, and when we are successfully achieving our mission to raise hundreds of thousands for charity, I could care less about what a misled conspiracy theorist thinks about an event he wouldn't attend to begin with.
And I don't particularly care how other events are run, to the person with the AdeptiCon Aleong example. I thought that was clear from my prior comments about ATC.
If the problem isn't real and not becoming more prolific, then why is there a sudden push for a standardized code of conduct and sanctions? This is you waving your hand again, and when called out on it you start muddying the conversation with ad hominems over and over until the message is lost or the thread gets locked.
For a busy guy with a carefree attitude toward other events who sees no issues worth addressing, you sure are getting emotional over someone else event btw.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and for the record I shared a link to last years NOVA thread because the SAME, made up, toxic mob of trolls defense was used by DJ3 and yourself in response to cheating that happened on one of your top tables caught on stream. Followed by the same, if your not attending shut up, and then the inevitable we raised money for charity therefore who cares about tournament standards and conduct because that isn't our goal. Charity is great, it also doesn't mean you don't have a duty to run a tighter tournament where cheaters are knocked out, even if the mistake is unintentional.
Do we know it's actually him, and not a troll causing trouble? (not sure why that didn't post originally...)
"We want to establish taht we did nothing wrong and if we did it's the fault of the ITC for not having proper rules to stop us"
Kinda sounds like Tony.
Yeah it seems authentic as it sounds exactly like their official apology "we made mistakes but x,y and z are just as responsible". The timing of it is bad as well because ITC has already announced an official code of conduct because of this event so now it looks like them trying to get ahead of the news.... while simultaneously being behind.
MVBrandt wrote: I only entered this convo because someone made the very tired, decade old claim that if we got rid of the cheaters there'd be different people winning events.
That's a rather bold statement to make, given the fact that the cheating team won the past three years of the event in question. Ban the cheaters and there would have to be different people winning.
Do we know it's actually him, and not a troll causing trouble? (not sure why that didn't post originally...)
"We want to establish taht we did nothing wrong and if we did it's the fault of the ITC for not having proper rules to stop us"
Kinda sounds like Tony.
Yeah it seems authentic as it sounds exactly like their official apology "we made mistakes but x,y and z are just as responsible". The timing of it is bad as well because ITC has already announced an official code of conduct because of this event so now it looks like them trying to get ahead of the news.... while simultaneously being behind.
I think they are part of the ITC TO group and are hoping to claim some of the glory of the content's creation.
MVBrandt wrote: I only entered this convo because someone made the very tired, decade old claim that if we got rid of the cheaters there'd be different people winning events.
That's a rather bold statement to make, given the fact that the cheating team won the past three years of the event in question. Ban the cheaters and there would have to be different people winning.
Yup, even this year if they had never been banned using free plasma guns and "rough riders" half the size of normal ones they would have likely won again. Obviously, not only cheaters win major evens but after this and the London GT so close to each other, it is clear that cheaters are winning many of these events. Just look at some of team happys conduct even at the LVO this year. This is also just what has been caught, I can't even imagine what they got away with at events like LVO before they hit the top tables.
Do we know it's actually him, and not a troll causing trouble? (not sure why that didn't post originally...)
"We want to establish taht we did nothing wrong and if we did it's the fault of the ITC for not having proper rules to stop us"
Kinda sounds like Tony.
Yeah it seems authentic as it sounds exactly like their official apology "we made mistakes but x,y and z are just as responsible". The timing of it is bad as well because ITC has already announced an official code of conduct because of this event so now it looks like them trying to get ahead of the news.... while simultaneously being behind.
I think they are part of the ITC TO group and are hoping to claim some of the glory of the content's creation.
I hope the ITC doesn't let them be a part of it... Just for appearance alone the smartest move for the ITC would be to start to distance themselves from this group and remove them from any official leadership roles
MVBrandt wrote: The problem is the gak doesn't carry on as usual. That's the problem and naivete in the observation. And I really don't care about your judgement - that's the fundamental point. When people loudly proclaim something happens that isn't, and when we are successfully achieving our mission to raise hundreds of thousands for charity, I could care less about what a misled conspiracy theorist thinks about an event he wouldn't attend to begin with.
And I don't particularly care how other events are run, to the person with the AdeptiCon Aleong example. I thought that was clear from my prior comments about ATC.
I’ve been to NOVA, Adepticon, and LVO. A lot of the other people criticizing the way tournaments are being run are regular tournament attendees, and even the non-tournament attendees often identify their reasons for not attending being directly related to negative experiences in the past. So to characterize the criticism in the way you have is unfair and says more about your ability as a TO and community organizer to take inputs. All people want is an event that is billed as competitive to have some sort of repercussions for cheating; the outrage comes when it becomes clear that there is little to no interest in doing so for a variety of reasons.
Furthermore, raising money for charity isn’t the objective of many other tournaments, so even if that gives you some sort of moral high ground it doesn’t give all events and TOs a free pass.
ANY one player or attendee that pays an entry fee is a stake holder in the results/events. It might be charity giving away money (good for you btw) but its not buying in.
NOVA SHOULD care. Its disturbing that you don't and says a lot about you.
Prizes, placement, and payout. This everyone gets a ribbon mentally is for school children. For those that honestly don't care and show up to party and lose, good for them. But don't put everybody in ine basket
Otherwise, just start a gofundme.
You get the handwave this time. Im so over this cheating and subsequent dismissive responses. Whose stealing now? I thought the cheaters were stealing prices. Turns out its not the wolves that slaughter the lambs, its the shepherd that left the lambs unattended.
MVBrandt wrote: when you claim insider relationships or unfair advantages, I stop listening
Maybe you SHOULD listen.
My first ever Adepticon, i played Aaron Aelong game 1. We were having a great game when they came over the loudspeakers and said "Last turn, do not start another round".
I asked him if this was indeed our last turn. he looked at the board, and said "Yes".
He finished his turn, and when I started to move models he said "we said this was last turn". He Had FORGOTTEN he went first. So I played my last turn.
I moved my raiders out onto objectives and won the game.
Suddenly, he DEMANDED we play another turn. I said no.
He got his FRIEND (on the same freaking team) who was reffing to come over and force us to play another turn (After they said NO MORE TURNS remember). I asked to move my models back because I would not just put them out in the open if we were playing more.
His FRIEND and TEAMMATE the REF, told me no.
I lost the game (obviously) but for you to say there are no unfair advantages for Jerks like this, you are 100% wrong. Just because you have not been a victim of it does not mean it does not exist.
MVBrandt wrote: when you claim insider relationships or unfair advantages, I stop listening
Maybe you SHOULD listen.
My first ever Adepticon, i played Aaron Aelong game 1. We were having a great game when they came over the loudspeakers and said "Last turn, do not start another round".
I asked him if this was indeed our last turn. he looked at the board, and said "Yes".
He finished his turn, and when I started to move models he said "we said this was last turn". He Had FORGOTTEN he went first. So I played my last turn.
I moved my raiders out onto objectives and won the game.
Suddenly, he DEMANDED we play another turn. I said no.
He got his FRIEND (on the same freaking team) who was reffing to come over and force us to play another turn (After they said NO MORE TURNS remember). I asked to move my models back because I would not just put them out in the open if we were playing more.
His FRIEND and TEAMMATE the REF, told me no.
I lost the game (obviously) but for you to say there are no unfair advantages for Jerks like this, you are 100% wrong. Just because you have not been a victim of it does not mean it does not exist.
I have to ask - why should we believe you?
At this point why wouldn't you? It matches other stories I've heard that now match multiple events that have happened in just this past year. People stop getting the benefit of the doubt after multiple offenses.
Sounds like several tournament games I've been in...
I think some folks are insulated from a lot of the cheating because of various reasons, like ignorance, gullibility, or being icons of the community who the cheaters dare not go full out against. The rest of us need to be as wise as the serpents or fall victim. It's the same as in any competitive setting, whether football, poker, magic, etc, except the 40k community has shown hardly any wherewithal to curb the phenomenon in decades. The bad apples are more prevalent than the naive ones realize. It skews their perspective.
It's unfortunate, but I'm ever hopeful.
I look at cheaters like this. "He who is not faithful in a small thing, will not be faithful in a large thing"
40k is a small thing. Rolling dice and a chance to win some plastic is a small thing.
You cheat for that, Lord knows what you'd do to me. Zero chance of me wanting to associate with you.
Primark G wrote: I would never take the word of an obviously bitter loser.
I imagine you dont believe anything Hillary says then...
Primark G wrote: I would never take the word of an obviously bitter loser.
Or maybe he's a person who was wronged, and is justifiably upset over being blatantly screwed over? But I guess in your view, everybody who's upset when they're unfairly screwed over is "an obviously bitter loser"? Good job on excusing terrible behavior by taking shots at the people upset over the fact that they were treated unfairly.
What's nice is that this thread makes it clear which players are cheaters and can be Ignored. It's basically a rolling gak test to find scumbag cheaters.
Sounds like one tournament game I've been in. Of well over 100. I've caught people making mistakes, sure. I've had people be stingy or loose in their favor, switch the understanding of the game from open to by the book midway, and people misrepresent or misremember rules. I've made mistakes too.
Tarring and feathering anyone who makes a mistake is not a healthy way to go about it. Cheaters with a history and clear willingness to continue their behaviour over a game of toy soliders need to be shown the door, no doubt. But I can't tell you how many times I have overheard "he f-ing cheated in X minute way, otherwise I would have won." It's nearly as prevalent and useless as blaming dice. And believing, and arguing over and over that cheating is prevalent and accepted only hurts the community.
One thing is for sure, there is a lot more attention paid to the top tables now especially with Twitch streams being everywhere. "Accidental" or intentional, it's going to get more and more difficult to do this kind of gak and get away with it.
I would like to point out you are smearing another poster while being anonymous.
Just because we're on Dakka doesn't mean people don't know who we are, especially if we go to tournaments or have incredibly obvious signature blocks or usernames.
And if you think we as TOs ignore the douches and choose to do nothing, well, as per above we already know conspiratorial naivete is a running trend. We're just not as interested in publicizing them as much as the internet wishes.
"Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." (paraphrased, the original was a little more wordy)
Failure to do that will offend the sense of natural justice. The sense of injustice is not the fault of the mass of the players, it is the failure of those who do not apply that principle of natural justice. The sense of injustice and the anger that goes with it that then persists is just a consequence of that failure, an entirely predictable consequence.
If you have been "quietly having a word" as a means to resolve cheating and sportsmanship issues then you have unwittingly become part of the problem. I am sorry to be so blunt but you really do need to understand the drawbacks of that approach and how it can create festering problems.
For me this all boils down to how it has affected my community. Most recently a couple of TOs have completely ruined my gaming experience through the same kind of gak team happy has been accused of or worse.
End all be all is if you are in a position to represent our community, be that an online personality, top table player or organizer/enforcer you have a higher responsibility to be upstanding and go out of your way from allowing these "mistakes" to happen. You owe it to the entire community for allowing you to be where you are in the community to promote and attract new players. Garbage like top players repeatedly making mistakes that are likely cheating, or TOs who sell overpriced armies to new players (local issue) or stores allowing complete a-holes to run events and ostracize players who travel 2+ hours multiple times a month to support a store because the community was previously worth it.
It sounds like a rant but there is a serious problem in the community with toxic personalities in positions of influence. I was ecstatic to get back into this game when 8th dropped. I finally got to join my first league and because one high level tournament player (ironically I believe he is friends with one of the team happy members) pulled some super shady gak and lost his first points in the league against me the TO his close friend went out of his way to lie about the game and scare other players from playing me which full tilt made it impossible for me to get my last games in the league in. That gak is not ok, a high level player who previously judged and taught me this edition "forgetting" rules on and off in a single match to their benefit is absolute garbage. The freaking apologists in this thread trying to excuse this toxic behavior and flat out telling people to get over it its always been around is the reason 40k suffers as a community. Its that toxicity that makes it hard for people like me with disabilities to find a play group, its why there are so few female gamers and its why the alleged "casual" tournaments are filled with unpainted waac armies with a-holes who only want their meager prizes at the cost of advancing our community to the game we all want it to be.
And if you think we as TOs ignore the douches and choose to do nothing, well, as per above we already know conspiratorial naivete is a running trend. We're just not as interested in publicizing them as much as the internet wishes.
"Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." (paraphrased, the original was a little more wordy)
Failure to do that will offend the sense of natural justice. The sense of injustice is not the fault of the mass of the players, it is the failure of those who do not apply that principle of natural justice. The sense of injustice and the anger that goes with it that then persists is just a consequence of that failure, an entirely predictable consequence.
If you have been "quietly having a word" as a means to resolve cheating and sportsmanship issues then you have unwittingly become part of the problem. I am sorry to be so blunt but you really do need to understand the drawbacks of that approach and how it can create festering problems.
What kills me about this, is he's complaining about the "naive conspirators" driving business from his event, and his response to that is to take to a public forum, and insult the people who he's trying to bring in. Not at all trying to listen to what they are saying, or explaining what is, or could, be done about it. Nope, just "you all have no clue what you're talking about. You're just angry man children running a cabal trying to take money away from charity."
Life events forced me to cancel my planned participation of NOVA this year, but I'm glad now. I'll never try to attend again as well.
Seeing how the team deals with the player base, I see why their refund policy is so draconian. They must have to deal with a ton of them.
And if you think we as TOs ignore the douches and choose to do nothing, well, as per above we already know conspiratorial naivete is a running trend. We're just not as interested in publicizing them as much as the internet wishes.
"Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." (paraphrased, the original was a little more wordy)
Failure to do that will offend the sense of natural justice. The sense of injustice is not the fault of the mass of the players, it is the failure of those who do not apply that principle of natural justice. The sense of injustice and the anger that goes with it that then persists is just a consequence of that failure, an entirely predictable consequence.
If you have been "quietly having a word" as a means to resolve cheating and sportsmanship issues then you have unwittingly become part of the problem. I am sorry to be so blunt but you really do need to understand the drawbacks of that approach and how it can create festering problems.
What kills me about this, is he's complaining about the "naive conspirators" driving business from his event, and his response to that is to take to a public forum, and insult the people who he's trying to bring in. Not at all trying to listen to what they are saying, or explaining what is, or could, be done about it. Nope, just "you all have no clue what you're talking about. You're just angry man children running a cabal trying to take money away from charity."
Life events forced me to cancel my planned participation of NOVA this year, but I'm glad now. I'll never try to attend again as well.
Seeing how the team deals with the player base, I see why their refund policy is so draconian. They must have to deal with a ton of them.
I'm actually not trying to bring in people who believe the actions of the few define and/or should define the behavior of the many. Problematic players are a routine discussion point and action basis for most of the major TOs. Changing the entirety of successful, fun events based upon their actions is a nonstarter. Thinking their actions reflect a meaningful % of tournament attendees is, indeed, either naive or just willfully angry.
And I don't feel as if business is being driven from the event, if you want to call it business. I feel more as if there are plenty of players who *don't* attend events or haven't that are driven from the broader concept of going to them by the amount that people overblow the actions of said few into a common occurrence across the width and breadth of an event. There are MANY local-level players who hear things like "Tournaments are full of cheating WAAC jerks who the TOs lovingly support and enable" simply choose not to try out an AdeptiCon or LVO or NOVA, and in so choosing may miss out on all kinds of fun (most of which isn't even found in the games themselves, so much as the awesome time held around them). NOVA sold out faster than ever this year, the con's at its biggest yet, it'll once again be a place where we put friendship and social connection above all else. BUT how many people are missing out on the fun b/c of people making a bigger deal out of the "top cheating guys" than the rest? Certainly more than are put off by simply banning, dq'ing, or otherwise penalizing cheaters when you catch them and doubling down on the penalty by not giving them airtime about it.
There's a large difference between ignoring cheaters and demonizing the entirety of tournaments due to them. The moral outrage about events has little place explicitly b/c the vast majority of those who comprise and thus make up the experience at any one event are so damn fine as human beings, from the undefeated to the winless, that it does them (and those who hear the exaggerations and thus skip on their chance to meet them) a disservice how much of a deal we make about it. I'll eternally be frustrated by our inability as people in general to weigh the good and the bad to their equivalently fair degree. And if your decision to attend the NOVA Open as a convention in the future is entirely based around the fact I won't jump the public outrage train and think it's naive to brand tournaments as rife with horrible people and thus in need of vast changes in how the community bands together to ban human beings ... well, alright. And the charity bit isn't a shield. The 40KGT represents 10% of our attendance (which is consequential, but not the sole focus of the con), and 90+% of those attending it have fantastic games and great times. It is invariable we'll get one or two problem folks each year, and will continue to adjudicate them as best we can (such as by denying them future invitations, banning them, giving them losses, removing units from their armies, etc. - all of which we've done in the past), but I'm probably never going to sustain outrage over a team of guys who got disqualified over the larger purpose and focus of why the con exists (Which is NOT to heavily regulate EVERYONE in order to vainly try and prevent 3-5 guys from being dicks). Stopping cheats and donkey-caves matters, and should always matter. Making your entire policy and behavioral practice oriented purely around that tiny % isn't the way to handle your events and cons as a whole, however.
I'll reiterate it, however - if you think people like Reece, myself, Shane, and other major con organizers are involved in some sort of "be nice to our elite buddies" effort/conspiracy to ignore cheaters and enable them by empowering them over the little guys ... you're either naive or badly misinformed.
@MVBrandt I have a sincere question, are any of the members of team happy attending the NOVA Open or worse yet the personal invite only event? Because if they are, and especially the Invitational, you surely can see why people might raise an eyebrow or two when space is limited and there are folks on a wait list watching known cheaters walk into another event.
Your claims about every local scene are also hysterical. Your not even supporting that claim with anecdotal evidence at this point. Your as usual claiming folks with any opinion opposed to your own are either liars or haters from some ginned up mob. So hateful that they somehow dissuade up and comers from big events with lies. What a farce. In reality, play in enough events (I've played 40k since 96) and eventually you do run into the cheaters or A-holes, and once you do and you realize nothing is even attempted to remedy it in any meaningful way, it definitely will dissuade somebody from spending thousands of dollars and using valuable time off from family if there is another chance at having your experience soiled. Forgiveness goes a long way, but that requires some good faith from those with the power to prevent the cheats. Your attitude from day one has been to wave away the concerns of the community while the temple behind you has smoke coming from it, only this time folks can even see the flames and you still vomit the same garbage talking points and hostilities. Your not even polite.
MVBrandt wrote: I'm actually not trying to bring in people who believe the actions of the few define and/or should define the behavior of the many. Problematic players are a routine discussion point and action basis for most of the major TOs. Changing the entirety of successful, fun events based upon their actions is a nonstarter. Thinking their actions reflect a meaningful % of tournament attendees is, indeed, either naive or just willfully angry.
I think you're misunderstanding the objections of players like myself. We DON'T think that the behavior reflects most, or even a large portion of tournament attendees. Just a few.
MVBrandt wrote: BUT how many people are missing out on the fun b/c of people making a bigger deal out of the "top cheating guys" than the rest? Certainly more than are put off by simply banning, dq'ing, or otherwise penalizing cheaters when you catch them and doubling down on the penalty by not giving them airtime about it.
I would offer that fewer people would be put off by letting the community know that " banning, dq'ing, or otherwise penalizing cheaters" is something that actually happens. You're basically making my point for me though, you're just wrong that not publicizing it (especially when everyone's already seen the offense on tape) is somehow a harsher punishment or more effective.
MVBrandt wrote: The moral outrage about events has little place explicitly b/c the vast majority of those who comprise and thus make up the experience at any one event are so damn fine as human beings, from the undefeated to the winless, that it does them (and those who hear the exaggerations and thus skip on their chance to meet them) a disservice how much of a deal we make about it. I'll eternally be frustrated by our inability as people in general to weigh the good and the bad to their equivalently fair degree.
Again, very few are saying tournaments are bad, and should never be attended. We're saying the few bad apples need to be removed from the barrel.
MVBrandt wrote: I'll reiterate it, however - if you think people like Reece, myself, Shane, and other major con organizers are involved in some sort of "be nice to our elite buddies" effort/conspiracy to ignore cheaters and enable them by empowering them over the little guys ... you're either naive or badly misinformed.
Actions speak louder than words. There has been cheating or at least "shady play" at the top tables of LVO, Adepticon, ATC, the London GT, and yes, even NOVA. And in the most recent example, it's been by individuals who have a recent history of it...an incident to which the primary response from Reece was "Tony's actually a great guy" and from you was "move along, nothing to see here". Celebrity 40K players often apear alongside TOs in podcasts and blogs, or even on teams with them in tournaments. So, I don't think you can fault people for at best being a little bit cynical.
There's a large difference between ignoring cheaters and demonizing the entirety of tournaments due to them.
BTW this demonstrates how willfully blind your being. Nobody in this thread has demonized any events. In fact, until your appearance people were supporting ATC's TO and congratulating them on being the first major event to show some balls. Apparently that was your queue to feel insecure for, SOME reason. I wonder why?
Red Corsair wrote: @MVBrandt I have a sincere question, are any of the members of team happy attending the NOVA Open or worse yet the personal invite only event? Because if they are, and especially the Invitational, you surely can see why people might raise an eyebrow or two when space is limited and there are folks on a wait list watching known cheaters walk into another event.
Curtis is invited. The others were not. Invitations were also in this and previous years denied to cheaters from previous years. So unless you've heard Curtis is a cheater ...
Red Corsair wrote: @MVBrandt I have a sincere question, are any of the members of team happy attending the NOVA Open or worse yet the personal invite only event? Because if they are, and especially the Invitational, you surely can see why people might raise an eyebrow or two when space is limited and there are folks on a wait list watching known cheaters walk into another event.
Curtis is invited. The others were not. Invitations were also in this and previous years denied to cheaters from previous years. So unless you've heard Curtis is a cheater ...
The Long War had an interesting podcast where they call out Team Happy for their BS, and supposedly they actually played them so it's not just hearsay, it's actually "This guy lied about XYZ"
MVBrandt wrote: I'll reiterate it, however - if you think people like Reece, myself, Shane, and other major con organizers are involved in some sort of "be nice to our elite buddies" effort/conspiracy to ignore cheaters and enable them by empowering them over the little guys ... you're either naive or badly misinformed.
Actions speak louder than words. There has been cheating or at least "shady play" at the top tables of LVO, Adepticon, ATC, the London GT, and yes, even NOVA. And in the most recent example, it's been by individuals who have a recent history of it...an incident to which the primary response from Reece was "Tony's actually a great guy" and from you was "move along, nothing to see here". Celebrity 40K players often apear alongside TOs in podcasts and blogs, or even on teams with them in tournaments. So, I don't think you can fault people for at best being a little bit cynical.
This. I do not personally think there is any conspiracy, but the simple fact that TOs such as the above claim it's not prevalent at the same time these cheating players have continued to attend (and win) many of the events we are talking about can only be interpreted so many ways. Either they are ignorant of the cheating, they are turning a blind eye to it, or they don't care (which is basically tacit approval). So far the majority of claims we have seen are that they don't think it's as prevalent as others would suggest which goes contrary to the actual results of said events. No offense to MVBrandt or any other TO, but your refusal to deal with it adequately to date seems to imply that you are letting your friendships with these players override your duty as a TO to enforce fair and honest play. Now that the issue is out in the open thanks to online video streaming and other evidence it is imperative you stop defending them and restore the reputations of your events. Do that and your events will benefit significantly both from a player standpoint where they know the games will be enjoyable and fair and as a TO where you have fewer administrative headaches such as these to deal with. Fail to do that and eventually players will have had enough. It's one thing to hear about the issue via hearsay. It's another to have it documented and proven. The former can be excused away. The latter is what kills events no matter how popular they may be.
Red Corsair wrote: @MVBrandt I have a sincere question, are any of the members of team happy attending the NOVA Open or worse yet the personal invite only event? Because if they are, and especially the Invitational, you surely can see why people might raise an eyebrow or two when space is limited and there are folks on a wait list watching known cheaters walk into another event.
Curtis is invited. The others were not. Invitations were also in this and previous years denied to cheaters from previous years. So unless you've heard Curtis is a cheater ...
Let's call this specifically banned cheater, "Handle Bar Mustache", HBM (he'd shaved it off long since). I don't name him outright because he is trying to become an attorney IRL, so outting him might be a bad idea, slander/lawsuit-wise, but one can figure it out. Ask me in person at BAO next weekend. I will point him out.
At Game Empire Pasadena, he was banned 4 years ago for goofery at RTTs, back in, IIRC, 5e. I have played him a couple times over the years and he doesn't try things with me because I scolded him the first time he tried and he played straight with me the few times since (like one game every 2 or 3 years).
Scroll down to Uncle Fred's story for the casino dice on a Blast Template.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
A different anecdote, same guy:
When GE Pasadena started the annual Hammer of Wrath GT, the TO allowed him to come back for that (they're not buddies). HBM was at Top Table, but was going to lose if the game ended on turn 5 (a recurring theme, I know). He tried a shenanigan to go another Turn and the TO nixed that (something about his wife rolling the dice, and it it landed in the corner ... a story better told in person). The game ended and HBM lost. The TO informed him that he'd crossed the line (my words) and he was banned, there is a little more to it, but again, catch me at a tourney.
I think it's 2 years now, GEP has had a new TO (2 years! time flies!). HBM came back and played in a couple RTTs that spring (had a game with me, in which he played straight). But the complaints from others started again, goofy LOS calls, forgetting this, etc.
I had tried to talk to this guy for about 2 years, to get him to change, to acknowledge his WAAC behavior. I failed.
So, I spoke to many attendees & the TO to make sure he was banned, and ultimately, the new TO (no longer new) banned him again. While I try to take some credit for this, it was ultimately the TO's call.
I have word of mouth that he's been banned from an Irvine venue's RTTs and one or two others in Southern Calif.
Another player was banned for slow play at many of GEP's RTTs, further back ... 3 years perhaps (6e and 7e), by the original TO. He'd been warned many times. The TO came up with the mechanic of "if a game didn't complete Turn 4, it would be a loss for both."
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Along the second part of this thread, what to do when an illegal list shows up. I will share this personal anecdote:
At last year's BAO, I ran a Yannarii list, without Yvraine or the other two. I'd missed the FAQ released the previous Monday; it'd stated that one of the 3 Ynnari HQs had to be in the list. I had been running the list without any of Y, Y or V HQs for months. My 3rd round opponent caught it, post game. Sunday, he went to the judges with it. I didn't hear their conversation. During my round 4 game, Pablo came up and let me know that I could continue playing my list as Eldar, without Soul Burst. My win over that opponent was reversed. I accepted it, and my present opponent, wanted to continue our game with good cheer. As I recall, my most fun game at BAO 2017.
According to some posts in this thread, what I'd done would worthy of being banned.
As I had lost my first two games, this mistake wasn't going to make the news on the 'Net. However, what if I'd been on Round 5, with 4 wins? What next?
Disqualification? For certain.
Banning? I don't have a reputation as a douche or WAAC player and there is not a trail of Red Flags at events I have played in. The HappyTeam crew has bad reps, Handle Bar Mustache had a bad rep since he won 'Ard Boyz ... 2013?
I probably have a rep as a sub-standard tactician and an Easy Win (drunk, Team BeerHammer, AmIRight?) and far too noisy for a little guy. Feel free to chime on what you know of me.
So, would or should that Ynnari mistake get me canned from FrontlineGaming's next couple events? All ITC events run by Indie TOs? If so, am I entitled to a refund for SoCal Open and LVO? Keep in mind, that at SoCal Open 2017, one list made it to the top table, over 12 points. He was DQ'd during the game, for the whole event. Brandon Grant goes on to Win It All.
I was there. My buddy was crushed that he'd messed up. He doesn't have a rep of bad games behind him. In fact, he's got many Best Sportsman awards (2 from Broadside Bash, I think, and many from GEP RTTs). But, retroactively, would the carpet Banning have been applied in this case?
While we can put down some hard rules of consequences for infractions, there are circumstances individual to each case. I am a 20 yr classroom teacher. I am investigator, wrangler, judge and all that goes with resolving conflicts of 5 to 15 year old kids. I resolve multiple conflicts, daily. I'm telling ya, Rubber Stamp Justice or Right and Wrong punishments just don't pan out in real life instances.
I do encourage a uniform set of expectations for ITC events, with something like, "In fractions can result in, game loss, DQ for the event, and up banning for an indeterminate amount of time.
Remember, I'm for banning HandleBarM from playing 40k ever again. I spent several years trying to get him to see the error of his ways. A lot of people feel similarly about him.
Last, background on me:
I'm Casey of Team BeerHammer. The skinny guy. Well, there is no team;it's just me.
At pretty much every GT I attend, I lose my first game and spend most of the other 4 to 5 games in the kiddie pool. I might come away with 2 wins. I have fun. I've attended every LVO, most BAOs, a couple BroadsideBashes and a few other GTs. I'm a regular at Game Empire Pasadena's RTT and Hammer of Wrath GT.
Perhaps some of you, would post an anecdote of when you'd brought an illegal list, or misused the Greater Good (London GT) or such. Was your infraction worthy of a 12 month ban?
Wayniac wrote: The Long War had an interesting podcast where they call out Team Happy for their BS, and supposedly they actually played them so it's not just hearsay, it's actually "This guy lied about XYZ"
If you listen to both the long war and this weeks FLG podcast it also is in line with what the long war guys said. Frankie was unknowingly cheated the first round and Team Happy only got caught by juice in round 2 because he happened to check his list. The FLG guys, while they brought it up, didn't really dive into it (i can understand why they are staying out of it, the last thing they want to do is publicly badmouth something that happened at someone's event and all of a sudden come under fire) But at least they are releasing the ITC code of conduct so they are taking action.
Perhaps some of you, would post an anecdote of when you'd brought an illegal list, or misused the Greater Good (London GT) or such. Was your infraction worthy of a 12 month ban?
You're conflating disqualification for banning. Has anyone suggested that people caught making a mistake once be permanently banned from all tournaments? For myself, I've said that people with repeated transgressions should be banned for a year or two from all events. There's a difference between one mistake and a pattern of behavior, which you yourself attest to about certain people. So again, before making a claim like that, can you quote the person who stated that a single infraction should result in a 12-month ban, or anything more besides being disqualified from that one event?
Perhaps some of you, would post an anecdote of when you'd brought an illegal list, or misused the Greater Good (London GT) or such. Was your infraction worthy of a 12 month ban?
You're conflating disqualification for banning. Has anyone suggested that people caught making a mistake once be permanently banned from all tournaments? For myself, I've said that people with repeated transgressions should be banned for a year or two from all events. There's a difference between one mistake and a pattern of behavior, which you yourself attest to about certain people. So again, before making a claim like that, can you quote the person who stated that a single infraction should result in a 12-month ban, or anything more besides being disqualified from that one event?
I'm not combing the two. If you have an illegal list, then you get immediately DQ'd for that game (which happened to me). My question was, 'do we take it further?' For a player going 0-3 no one is going to really care. At a top table (or Top 8, Top 4 or otherwise Last Round playoff) it is going to matter a lot. And this is for a one-off time. Let's say Fran is our illegal list wielder; she's unknown to everyone. Okay, one time DQ for that event. Thanks, Fran, for playing and being a good sport about having been DQ'd as you were about to Win-It-All.
But if it is ... Don ... and Don has a bad reputation. For most of a year, he's had a controversial GT win, multiple complaints at RTTs, and so forth. He commits the same illegal list gaf that Fran does, same result: DQ for that event.
In neither case do I think any of us will disagree that Fran and Don have their points zero'd for the whole thing. To restate without a double negative, will all agree Fran and Don get a 0-6 record with no points. This is not a point of contention. Banning is. Sorry that it wasn't clearer, but that's what's needing to be hashed out.
So, what happens to Don? Does he get a 12 month ban from that event? Let's call it the Barking Bolter GT (called it first, bitches! ). Sure, a TO could pull that trigger, but what if between Fran and Don is KellyAnne (hey, some politics for your day! ) who has only 2 or 3 instances where people have griped about her playing, list infractions. What if K.A. does it? A ban from Barking Bolter RTTs for 6 months?
I am not sure how to answer these.
By now, Saturday, July 21st, we know that Reece & the TOs (he cited the number of 200 or so) are in discussion on this;
establishing a "system of guidelines for player conduct and judge responses". They'll prolly establish a set of ... do this many No-Nos and then you could get banned for X time.
I don't get to be in on that discussion.
Oh, to clarify:
My last question in the previous post was not intended to be a "OH yeah?!?! What about you clowns? Wanna throw stones in *your* glass houses?"
Nothing like that; it was more of a "If you had been there, if you have been the player in a DQ type situation, how'd that pan out? Did it seem fair?" Place yourself in the shoes of the one on the judging block < --- gotta be a better term than that. And hearing/reading about it here helps think about how things worked out in Actual Events.
Brothererekose wrote: I don't name him outright because he is trying to become an attorney IRL, so outting him might be a bad idea, slander/lawsuit-wise, but one can figure it out.
In the US, "The Truth" is an absolute defense against libel.
In California, we-have anti-SLAPP laws on the books.
As a lawyer, he should know both of those precedents.
If he wants to sue you, then you should be happy to make even more noise about it to maximize the Streisand Effect.
Yeah whats up with these people making models out of paper and toilet rolls for there proxys, i mean seriously i dont understand how even the most relaxed tourny judges would accept that sort of stuff. If i were a judge i would make it you have to have painted models to table top standard, and every individual model has to be atleast 70% GW/FW.
Stormatious wrote: Yeah whats up with these people making models out of paper and toilet rolls for there proxys, i mean seriously i dont understand how even the most relaxed tourny judges would accept that sort of stuff. If i were a judge i would make it you have to have painted models to table top standard, and every individual model has to be atleast 70% GW/FW.
Lol. Demanding people use (x% of) original models was something people were bashing GW for as a symptom of peak-Kirby-ness, while applauding people who got more creative than that. Funny how things change.
Stormatious wrote: Yeah whats up with these people making models out of paper and toilet rolls for there proxys, i mean seriously i dont understand how even the most relaxed tourny judges would accept that sort of stuff. If i were a judge i would make it you have to have painted models to table top standard, and every individual model has to be atleast 70% GW/FW.
Lol. Demanding people use (x% of) original models was something people were bashing GW for as a symptom of peak-Kirby-ness, while applauding people who got more creative than that. Funny how things change.
And that is why there should be a "Get TO confirmation first" policy. ATC had one, it just wasn't enforced very well unfortunately.
Stormatious wrote: Yeah whats up with these people making models out of paper and toilet rolls for there proxys, i mean seriously i dont understand how even the most relaxed tourny judges would accept that sort of stuff. If i were a judge i would make it you have to have painted models to table top standard, and every individual model has to be atleast 70% GW/FW.
And that is the standard.
Is the paper and toilet roll thing an exaggeration? I didn't watch the ork battle video so maybe I missed what you were pointing out.
At SoCal 2017, when it was stated on several FrontlineGaming videos, unpainted models would get pulled. And they were. The guy's name is Alex (he whooped me at LVO a couple years ago) and he lost a tank or 3. And then went on to be at least 4 wins. I think. He took it in stride and still did well.
At my local scene, the TO has a regulation that unpainted models can play, but they make you ineligible for prize support, and that actually kicked in at last weekend's RTT. The highest points guy got kudos and "Well done!", but 2nd highest points got the top prize (store credit).
There's also the Rule of Cool. If your conversion is awesome, judges let it stand. That's a case by case thing.
Are you refrring to the rouhg riders on alligators? *shrug* They looked like ass, but were clearly people riding animals. 3 color minimum. Bases? "Modeling for advantage" isn't what is used to be, not with templates being gone, so, if I were judging their acceptability, I would have green lighted them (based on the pictures posted in the thread).
Is the paper and toilet roll thing an exaggeration? I didn't watch the ork battle video so maybe I missed what you were pointing out.
The "ork battle video" is a half-decade old Miniwargaming video about a bet/attempt/record-pitch to make the biggest possible Apocalypse game (5th Edition?). It's some 600.000K points per side, and one of the (reasonably painted) Ork Gargants has some paper tubes as part of it's arms.
It's certainly not a tournament and explicitly a thing where people came together to park as many Titans and Gargants and scratchbuilts and whatnot on a football-field-sized play area just to have the claim of having played a game of 40K with over a million points on the table.
Is the paper and toilet roll thing an exaggeration? I didn't watch the ork battle video so maybe I missed what you were pointing out.
The "ork battle video" is a half-decade old Miniwargaming video about a bet/attempt/record-pitch to make the biggest possible Apocalypse game (5th Edition?). It's some 600.000K points per side, and one of the (reasonably painted) Ork Gargants has some paper tubes as part of it's arms.
It's certainly not a tournament and explicitly a thing where people came together to park as many Titans and Gargants and scratchbuilts and whatnot on a football-field-sized play area just to have the claim of having played a game of 40K with over a million points on the table.
Actions speak louder than words. There has been cheating or at least "shady play" at the top tables of LVO, Adepticon, ATC, the London GT, and yes, even NOVA. And in the most recent example, it's been by individuals who have a recent history of it...an incident to which the primary response from Reece was "Tony's actually a great guy" and from you was "move along, nothing to see here". Celebrity 40K players often apear alongside TOs in podcasts and blogs, or even on teams with them in tournaments. So, I don't think you can fault people for at best being a little bit cynical.
Just imagine what would happen if after a unjust penality win, the winning team members would show up at the same podcasts as the refs running that match, and the refs would say that team X is full of good guys. FIFA is a mob, and gak still would happen.
What I don't get is why this is still a discussion. I mean, this is preposterous. The 40k Community as a whole has had how long to figure this sort of gak out?
It's sad to say that plenty of gamers I know will not come back to GW games for this sort of behavior.
Why is it tolerated? Look, these dudes -are not going to change-. End of story. Let them play at home and stop calling them "top talent" gamers. They're cheating crooks, end of story.
A top tier gamer does not mis-write an army list. A top tier gamer doesn't use plastic toys glued to bases that are not even remotely close in appearance or theme.
A top tier gamer does not play like a fething donkey-cave that refuses to acknowledge intent, like Tony did at the ITC.
A top tier gamer plays the game to the best of their ability, and plays it in accordance with the rules and intent to challenge themselves.
The entire community needs to dismiss these guys, the repeat offenders, and outright ban them.
In addition, a simpler way of handling this is to have unit cards that have -all- relative info for each unit in the game - no closed info.
njtrader wrote: What I don't get is why this is still a discussion. I mean, this is preposterous. The 40k Community as a whole has had how long to figure this sort of gak out?
It's sad to say that plenty of gamers I know will not come back to GW games for this sort of behavior.
Why is it tolerated? Look, these dudes -are not going to change-. End of story. Let them play at home and stop calling them "top talent" gamers. They're cheating crooks, end of story.
A top tier gamer does not mis-write an army list. A top tier gamer doesn't use plastic toys glued to bases that are not even remotely close in appearance or theme.
A top tier gamer does not play like a fething donkey-cave that refuses to acknowledge intent, like Tony did at the ITC.
A top tier gamer plays the game to the best of their ability, and plays it in accordance with the rules and intent to challenge themselves.
The entire community needs to dismiss these guys, the repeat offenders, and outright ban them.
This. It is appalling that this is still an issue. At least hopefully the new Standards of Conduct is a step in the right direction, though as I mentioned earlier, unless the TOs can set aside their friendships with these clowns long enough to do what is right for all their events then I am skeptical anything will change. They are consistent and repeat offenders who need to be permanently removed from the pool, end of story. No more excuses that they are somehow "good guys" or whatever. Their actions clearly prove otherwise at least in game. I don't give a rat's behind about what they are like personally. If they are going to cheat in these events then they don't deserve to attend.
This whole plasma pistol thing has been bothering me for a while. I definitely understand how somebody can make a simple mistake during list building, but this Plasma Pistol thing reeks of cheating. First, I listened to the Long War vid where it came up initially and a few things have really been nagging at me. It was not revealed that he had a Plasma Pistol UNTIL THE EXACT MOMENT he needed it to polish off a key enemy model. Adding the exact wargear you need, to the squad in the exact position needed to use it... that is really suspicious, and I would be extremely hesitant to denote something like that as an honest mistake. But everyone in Team Happy has been arguing until they were blue in the face that this was a simple mistake that could have happened to anyone. This would have been a non issue if he had paid for the plasma pistol with points and almost forgot he had it (a far more likely situation). The Long War podcast was spot on though, most people do not find the 7 points per squad to upgrade to plasma pistols except in niche cases, and usually on gunslingers with 2x Plasma Pistols). Even in the event that his list happened to be 7 points short and he had just forgot to write down the upgrade... it still runs the huge risk of him using a floating plasma pistol that magically appears on whoever needs to use it at a pivotal moment, which is still cheating.
This is why in a tournament your war gear needs to be clearly modeled. For the sake of both players. My Raptor Aspiring Champion has both of his plasma pistols drawn. You can tell from across the board that he is packing 2 plasma pistols and there are no questions as to what he has or doesn't have.
That said, the Rough Riders thing is a bit more niche. The conversions looked neat, and I am more willing to encourage people to bring neat conversions to their games. It adds spice and character to the events. That said, NOT getting them approved by the TO in an event that requires TO pre-approval for conversions, was a faux pas and should have resulted in sanctions (likely the removal of the unit). If you have cool conversions, and you go to an event that requires approval to use conversions, you absolutely need to make sure you get your ducks in a row before you show up! I also agree that for team happy on a last chance agreement. This breach of procedure was sufficient for the ban from the venue.
akaean wrote: This whole plasma pistol thing has been bothering me for a while. I definitely understand how somebody can make a simple mistake during list building, but this Plasma Pistol thing reeks of cheating. First, I listened to the Long War vid where it came up initially and a few things have really been nagging at me. It was not revealed that he had a Plasma Pistol UNTIL THE EXACT MOMENT he needed it to polish off a key enemy model. Adding the exact wargear you need, to the squad in the exact position needed to use it... that is really suspicious, and I would be extremely hesitant to denote something like that as an honest mistake. But everyone in Team Happy has been arguing until they were blue in the face that this was a simple mistake that could have happened to anyone. This would have been a non issue if he had paid for the plasma pistol with points and almost forgot he had it (a far more likely situation). The Long War podcast was spot on though, most people do not find the 7 points per squad to upgrade to plasma pistols except in niche cases, and usually on gunslingers with 2x Plasma Pistols). Even in the event that his list happened to be 7 points short and he had just forgot to write down the upgrade... it still runs the huge risk of him using a floating plasma pistol that magically appears on whoever needs to use it at a pivotal moment, which is still cheating.
Yeah, realistically, you're more likely to forget that you have a piece of wargear than you are to imagine that you have a piece of wargear that's not actually in your army. I once forgot a five-man Vanguard Veteran Squad had storm shields, and they got wiped out from shots that they could've survived if they'd been rolling a 3+ save, instead. And they all had storm shields modeled on them. But because I was looking at them from behind, I didn't see the storm shields, and so it completely slipped my mind they had them. Something like that I could see happening. But suddenly "remembering" that your squad has a plasma pistol when it doesn't actually have one? I don't buy it. That's not a mistake, but outright dishonesty and blatant cheating.
njtrader wrote: What I don't get is why this is still a discussion. I mean, this is preposterous. The 40k Community as a whole has had how long to figure this sort of gak out?
Right. So what are you going to do about it, besides gripe and complain here? And that's a plural, "What are you all going to do about it?"
Sitting by the pickle barrel and complaining doesn't effect change. Go to the events and volunteer to judge. 2 weeks in advance, meet with the other TOs and players if possible, and come up with your local Conduct Guidelines. Or wait for the ITC's guidelines, but be sure to implement them.
I did something. I helped get an awful player out of my local game store. If my other info is correct, that first domino tumbled him out of Comic Quest in Irvine, too. Maybe I'm claiming too much credit there. I'd like to hear from any players that play there for more info.
njtrader wrote: It's sad to say that plenty of gamers I know will not come back to GW games for this sort of behavior.
Where's your scene? Do the Happy Team guys play in your area?
That these incidences of cheating/shady behavior are driving players away is denied by faster ticket sell-out times for LVO, BAO and SoCal Open each year. LVO 2019 (40k Championship) totaled in 2 days. The additional set of 120 tickets went in 4.5 hours (I was hovering over the keyboard at 1 minute before they went on sale. Got my ticket! ).
njtrader wrote: Why is it tolerated? Look, these dudes -are not going to change-. End of story. Let them play at home and stop calling them "top talent" gamers. They're cheating crooks, end of story.
A top tier gamer does not mis-write an army list. A top tier gamer doesn't use plastic toys glued to bases that are not even remotely close in appearance or theme.
A top tier gamer does not play like a fething donkey-cave that refuses to acknowledge intent, like Tony did at the ITC.
A top tier gamer plays the game to the best of their ability, and plays it in accordance with the rules and intent to challenge themselves.
The entire community needs to dismiss these guys, the repeat offenders, and outright ban them.
I agree. You're preaching to the choir. Only, I've left the choir loft and actually got it done. Months ago.
But it wasn't just me. Several players were behind banning the guy too.
My point here:
Do the same at your venues! If there's a tool, tell him that he shapes up or ships out. Get the other players to support you.
The ITC big event scene is something I will have considerably less influence on, but I will be speaking to the event organizers to see how I can help. Like next weekend, at BAO.
This. It is appalling that this is still an issue. At least hopefully the new Standards of Conduct is a step in the right direction, though as I mentioned earlier, unless the TOs can set aside their friendships with these clowns long enough to do what is right for all their events then I am skeptical anything will change. They are consistent and repeat offenders who need to be permanently removed from the pool, end of story. No more excuses that they are somehow "good guys" or whatever. Their actions clearly prove otherwise at least in game. I don't give a rat's behind about what they are like personally. If they are going to cheat in these events then they don't deserve to attend.
That's what kills me. GW has streamlined the rules and oddities still come up but the game is relatively polished. These sorts of cheating issues "I refuse to adhere with the judge's assertion" - out. Out. You're out. It's just absurd. These guys are the same guys every time every place.
Kick them the hell out - no more leniency. It speaks poorly of the community in general.
As for the commentary about "what have you done about it" - I am not your typical TO. (not directed at you, silas.)
When someone is caught cheating - I announce it to the entire room. Not for drama. But so -everyone- knows going forward what to look for.
Don't like it? Simple. Don't cheat. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
auticus wrote: I'm sure we'll be hearing about these guys again in the very near future.
QFT. With some other big cons coming up soon, I think the eyes will really be on not only those players (who will likely still be gak-heads) but also on the TOs to see how they handle it. This, I think, will be more telling than whether the same old TFG players are still TFG.
njtrader wrote: That's what kills me. GW has streamlined the rules and oddities still come up but the game is relatively polished. These sorts of cheating issues "I refuse to adhere with the judge's assertion" - out. Out. You're out. It's just absurd. These guys are the same guys every time every place.
Kick them the hell out - no more leniency. It speaks poorly of the community in general.
As for the commentary about "what have you done about it" - I am not your typical TO. (not directed at you, silas.)
When someone is caught cheating - I announce it to the entire room. Not for drama. But so -everyone- knows going forward what to look for.
Don't like it? Simple. Don't cheat. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
You do? srsly, I love this. Please tell me where you run your events. Cite some examples? It's Real Life examples that will give gravity of consequences so Chester-the-Cheater has more motivation to clean up his act.
By putting yourself forward, e.g. "We here at the Barking Bolter RTTs have banned 2 people for Life, and have issued 3 two month bans. We're serious about having Clean Games and events."
No joke.
Honestly, if you don't like the cheating, SPEAK UP!
Publicly tell the TO that you expect cheaters to be permanently banned, or you'll find another place to play. Simple as that. Put the spotlight on the TO and force them to choose between their cheating "friends" and the honest players at large. If the choose to support cheaters, name and shame the TO.
If it's at a store, publicly tell the owner what their store is doing, and how it affects the store's perception in the community.
It's really not that hard.
If a store gets a rep for supporting cheaters, it's a good reason to push for a boycott, which is probably easily enough to drive it out of business in a few months.
Make cheating an existential threat to TOs and stores, and it'll stop.
"Sorry, you can't use those here" at sign in for bringing models which clearly violate event rules. It's unfortunate that the army wasn't banned up front, but it never should have been allowed.
I am disappointed that people admit to breaking clear and explicit rules and complain that it is unfair that they don't get to keep playing. Follow the rules and you won't get DQed.
Dude... where do I start?
As a TO for local events (8-24 people) I believe that as humans, we make mistakes sometimes. Because of that, I believe if a player is agreeable and will accept minor penalties for mistakes, that they are fine as long as the issue does not continue. The SCORCHEDEARTHBANANYONEWHOMAKESAMISTAKERAAAARGH!!! attitude does absolutely nothing to foster healthy relationships between players at events, between players and TOs, between players and judges, or really anyone involved.
Furthermore, as long as conversions are cool, make sense from a visual standpoint (ex. motorcycle rough riders), and are similar in size, they are totally cool in my book, and would have no problem with them at any event I ran, attended, or any game I played.
Yes, cheating at 40k events is a problem, but most people are simply... human, not maliciously cheating. People who continually cheat/bend rules/are toxic in attitude do deserve bans. If you actively defy a judge, that's a DQ. If you attack the opponent, judge, or TO verbally or physically, that's a DQ. Having 5 pts over on a list and accepting the penalty given? A warning and a loss are totally fine.
2 cents from a TO
"Sorry, you can't use those here" at sign in for bringing models which clearly violate event rules. It's unfortunate that the army wasn't banned up front, but it never should have been allowed.
I am disappointed that people admit to breaking clear and explicit rules and complain that it is unfair that they don't get to keep playing. Follow the rules and you won't get DQed.
Dude... where do I start?
As a TO for local events (8-24 people) I believe that as humans, we make mistakes sometimes. Because of that, I believe if a player is agreeable and will accept minor penalties for mistakes, that they are fine as long as the issue does not continue. The SCORCHEDEARTHBANANYONEWHOMAKESAMISTAKERAAAARGH!!! attitude does absolutely nothing to foster healthy relationships between players at events, between players and TOs, between players and judges, or really anyone involved.
Furthermore, as long as conversions are cool, make sense from a visual standpoint (ex. motorcycle rough riders), and are similar in size, they are totally cool in my book, and would have no problem with them at any event I ran, attended, or any game I played.
Yes, cheating at 40k events is a problem, but most people are simply... human, not maliciously cheating. People who continually cheat/bend rules/are toxic in attitude do deserve bans. If you actively defy a judge, that's a DQ. If you attack the opponent, judge, or TO verbally or physically, that's a DQ. Having 5 pts over on a list and accepting the penalty given? A warning and a loss are totally fine.
2 cents from a TO
If you can’t write a legal 40k list, do you deserve prizes from a tournament?
First offense: scores zeroed out, ineligible for prize support, allowed to play at bottom tables “for fun” for rest of event, scoring zero regardless of game result. A lot of people come to events just to play a bunch and have no real designs on placing anyway. If you did have that intent, you should’ve wrote a legal list.
Second offense in a row or third lifetime offense: asked to leave event and not attend the next one.
I don’t understand why people want to defend illegal lists. If you’re going to an event, pull out your calculator and check each list entry for accuracy. It’s like a 5 to 10 minute task. In two decades of magic/40k, I’ve never brought an illegal deck/list to an event or even to a casual game. Just a quick doublecheck is all it takes.
Except we have people like geoff robinson, use illegal lists like at the 2015 BAO, win prizes/ect and get the "oh its just a mistake so its ok" and get off scott free to keep said prizes.
Not everyone is in the cool kids click, the rules are not enforced based on "you break rule X you get the standard punishment" its
"well, if we like you, its ok, but if not, well then we punish you not only in the tournament, but to the fullest extent possible even if that extends to real life social punishments."
Yes, cheating at 40k events is a problem, but most people are simply... human, not maliciously cheating.
Which is why I don't understand why tournaments aren't implementing sportsmanship scores? If the majority of "cheating" wasn't malicious intent, sportsmanship scores with a significant impact on the final result (as well as possibly painting/army presentation scores) provide a natural incentive for people to play to their best, not freak under stress, be courteous with dice rolls (and have armies that provide a visually positive experience for their opponent and the tournament at large). Or if they do, the "penalty" is organically built into the system.
Yet, the argument ITC & co always make against this, is that they can be "gamed" or abused by the "problem players", which would imply that the majority of problematic players are indeed malicious cheats, not "simply humans".
AUGmaniac wrote: As a TO for local events (8-24 people) I believe that as humans, we make mistakes sometimes.
"I don't give a about following the rules therefore I'm not going to check my list before the event" is not a mistake, it's deliberate disregard for the rules. DQ bye.
Because of that, I believe if a player is agreeable and will accept minor penalties for mistakes, that they are fine as long as the issue does not continue.
And you know what encourages mistakes to continue? Knowing that the penalty is minor and that people like you will rush to defend the cheater and insist that punishments be light.
The SCORCHEDEARTHBANANYONEWHOMAKESAMISTAKERAAAARGH!!! attitude does absolutely nothing to foster healthy relationships between players at events, between players and TOs, between players and judges, or really anyone involved.
Of course it does. It fosters healthy relationships by ensuring that the remaining players are following the rules, and allowing everyone to be confident that if they are the victim of cheating the TO will take the cheating seriously and DQ the offender instead of dismissing it as "just a mistake".
Furthermore, as long as conversions are cool, make sense from a visual standpoint (ex. motorcycle rough riders), and are similar in size, they are totally cool in my book, and would have no problem with them at any event I ran, attended, or any game I played.
That is fine for you to have that policy. It's a fine policy, and I'm not going to dispute it. But the ATC had a different policy explicitly stated in their event rules, and by participating in an event you agree to follow their conversion rules even if a particular illegal conversion would have been permitted in a different event. The models in question indisputably violated the ATC rules on conversions and were not legal. Period.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brothererekose wrote: He doesn't attended tourneys, so his opinions shoudn't matter.
This is a lie. Please do not lie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
niv-mizzet wrote: First offense: scores zeroed out, ineligible for prize support, allowed to play at bottom tables “for fun” for rest of event, scoring zero regardless of game result.
This is actually a really bad idea. Putting a player at the bottom tables for cheating very often means a player with the skills and list strength to be at the top tables is now facing much weaker opponents who are at the bottom tables because they can't win enough to be higher. The inevitable result of that is the legitimate bottom-table players getting massacred by someone they have little hope of competing against. IOW, the cheater gets to have fun at the expense of the honest bottom-table players, punishing the wrong person for the crime. DQ them and remove them from the event entirely, their fun is not relevant anymore.
Yes, cheating at 40k events is a problem, but most people are simply... human, not maliciously cheating.
Which is why I don't understand why tournaments aren't implementing sportsmanship scores? If the majority of "cheating" wasn't malicious intent, sportsmanship scores with a significant impact on the final result (as well as possibly painting/army presentation scores) provide a natural incentive for people to play to their best, not freak under stress, be courteous with dice rolls (and have armies that provide a visually positive experience for their opponent and the tournament at large). Or if they do, the "penalty" is organically built into the system.
Yet, the argument ITC & co always make against this, is that they can be "gamed" or abused by the "problem players", which would imply that the majority of problematic players are indeed malicious cheats, not "simply humans".
That’s not my quote sir. Please edit to correct.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @peregrine
They don’t have to accept playing him. They can just take the free win if they want or request to play the ringer army instead. They can even take a handicap since the game means nothing score wise.
If it was a sportsman’s legitimate mistake they should have no problem with that. Or they can decide to drop themselves if they don’t want to play for “nothing.”
You're missing Peregrine's point. The folk at the bottom of the rankings will probably be enjoying themselves by getting in a few games against people of roughly similar skill levels. Dump this "top-table cheat" in there with them and now four or five people get to spend a gakky couple of hours rolling saves and removing models. "take the free win"? Now you'd better hope they brought a good book, because they're spending a large proportion of the time not playing games. Given that they paid good money to play those games, now they're being hard done by.
Writing a 40k army list is not difficult; it should be the minimum expected requirement for entering. Likewise, if I entered an event and noticed that the rules were not being enforced, I'd not come back (or leave there and then, depending on how bad it was).
njtrader wrote: It's sad to say that plenty of gamers I know will not come back to GW games for this sort of behavior.
Where's your scene? Do the Happy Team guys play in your area?
That these incidences of cheating/shady behavior are driving players away is denied by faster ticket sell-out times for LVO, BAO and SoCal Open each year. LVO 2019 (40k Championship) totaled in 2 days. The additional set of 120 tickets went in 4.5 hours (I was hovering over the keyboard at 1 minute before they went on sale. Got my ticket! ).
These things are not mutually exclusive. Against GW profits doubling in y/e 2017 and doubling again in y/e 2018 it would be a catastrophic performance for tournament organisers for their GW games to not be selling out.
What is clearly true is that with the rising tide lifting all ships so fast many TO do not really need to care about the standards of their events, they will sell out regardless in the current environment due to the popularity of the games. Some TO turn a blind eye to shenanigans, others to how bad their terrain looks, they all still sell loads of tickets.
Meanwhile it can still be entirely true that a lot of people have one bad experience and never come back to tournament play. Some of the more forward looking people in the TO community will need to do something to take this in hand because for sure GW can't keep growing sales - and to an extent refreshing the player community - this fast indefinitely.
My Company Commander (Warlord) has NO weapon modeled on him (He has the cane under his arm & Arm pointing off in the distance). I OFTEN arm him with a Boltgun. How many of you fee I should be penalized for this...
JmOz01 wrote: I have a question for the "Hard Penalties" Crowd
My Company Commander (Warlord) has NO weapon modeled on him (He has the cane under his arm & Arm pointing off in the distance). I OFTEN arm him with a Boltgun. How many of you fee I should be penalized for this...
He is not WYSIWYG, simple. So whatever penalty there is for that (often a points reduction in the final standings).
AndrewGPaul wrote: You're missing Peregrine's point. The folk at the bottom of the rankings will probably be enjoying themselves by getting in a few games against people of roughly similar skill levels. Dump this "top-table cheat" in there with them and now four or five people get to spend a gakky couple of hours rolling saves and removing models. "take the free win"? Now you'd better hope they brought a good book, because they're spending a large proportion of the time not playing games. Given that they paid good money to play those games, now they're being hard done by.
Writing a 40k army list is not difficult; it should be the minimum expected requirement for entering. Likewise, if I entered an event and noticed that the rules were not being enforced, I'd not come back (or leave there and then, depending on how bad it was).
I agree dumping top table cheats onto bottom table players is just a really bad idea. I understand the fact that people make mistakes but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be appropriate punishments. IMO there are 2 ways to handle illegal lists
1. The illegal unit is removed immediately from the tournament. No substitutions can be made and any game you had previously won with that unit is considered a max score loss.
2. Immediate DQ
While the DQ can seem "harsh" I think it's all about how it's presented. Yes, people make mistakes so, on someone that made an honest mistake it's "Hey Bob I know you didn't mean to but your list is illegal just double check before next months, but your list is invalid so you have been DQ". I know personally, this wouldn't bother me as id be so embarrassed I wouldn't want to continue playing that tournament anyway. Now if bob keeps doing it then you step it up to "dude you have to stop bringing illegal lists take x months to figure it out and if it happens again you can't keep playing in these". This type of approach would not only teach people to triple checklists but quickly get rid of anyone using it as a tactic to cheat games. The fastest way to tighten up the rules it to make them very clear and incredibly hard to break without getting caught.
Except we have people like geoff robinson, use illegal lists like at the 2015 BAO, win prizes/ect and get the "oh its just a mistake so its ok" and get off scott free to keep said prizes.
Not everyone is in the cool kids click, the rules are not enforced based on "you break rule X you get the standard punishment" its
"well, if we like you, its ok, but if not, well then we punish you not only in the tournament, but to the fullest extent possible even if that extends to real life social punishments."
Who was punished for doing the same thing as Geoff Robinson?
njtrader wrote: A top tier gamer does not mis-write an army list.
Except we have people like geoff robinson, use illegal lists like at the 2015 BAO, win prizes/ect and get the "oh its just a mistake so its ok" and get off scott free to keep said prizes.
Not everyone is in the cool kids click, the rules are not enforced based on "you break rule X you get the standard punishment" its
"well, if we like you, its ok, but if not, well then we punish you not only in the tournament, but to the fullest extent possible even if that extends to real life social punishments."
Who was punished for doing the same thing as Geoff Robinson?
Ryan Mead, last year's SoCal Open.
He was over 12 points or so, it wasn't caught until he was on twitch, playing last round, Top Table, versus Brandon Grant. Mead was DQ'd with no prize. He was tied with Mike Fox for Best Paint, and of course, had defeated all previous opponents, including me, his round 1 opponent.
I was there. He's my buddy. He's a popular guy and well liked by all, having won BSB ... 'Bosun' awards (are those best sports or all-round? Paint, scores, and sportsmanship?). Lotsa Best Sports awarded at GE Pasadena, too.
I know one anecdote does not totally refute poster easysauce's assertion, " the rules are not enforced based on "you break rule X you get the standard punishment" its "well, if we like you, its ok, but if not, ", but in that high profile case, the 1st of a big FLG event, in San Diego, arguably the heart of the West Coast's Top Tier player cache, on twitch, appropriate measures were taken. He was over points and when it was caught, he was DQ'd.
Which is why I don't understand why tournaments aren't implementing sportsmanship scores?
While I oppose the concept on principle, I honestly don't believe it would actually help. It's actually pretty rare to find a top table cheater who's obviously hostile towards the opponent. That stuff is easy to catch. It's been my experience that in most cases they're actually very charismatic and likable. Players get charmed and believe that they were somehow in the wrong and that lets people get away with quite a lot before they come across someone with the experience to catch them.
JmOz01 wrote: I have a question for the "Hard Penalties" Crowd
My Company Commander (Warlord) has NO weapon modeled on him (He has the cane under his arm & Arm pointing off in the distance). I OFTEN arm him with a Boltgun. How many of you fee I should be penalized for this...
Not a hard penalty advocate, but anything other than standard wargear needs to be on the model to avoid confusion. Your model shouldn’t be used as anything other than Laspistol and Chainsword.
JmOz01 wrote: I have a question for the "Hard Penalties" Crowd
My Company Commander (Warlord) has NO weapon modeled on him (He has the cane under his arm & Arm pointing off in the distance). I OFTEN arm him with a Boltgun. How many of you fee I should be penalized for this...
He is not WYSIWYG, simple. So whatever penalty there is for that (often a points reduction in the final standings).
It's not that simple nor practical.
Let's look at the succubus. In the new 8e codex, she is now equipped with a glaive (a big pole axe) and an agonizer. The new model comes with agonizer and pole axe, but no pistol bits, even though her data sheet allows for a blast or splinter pistol upgrade. Lelith Hesperax's model has two knives, but her datasheet includes the option of an Impaler, which on other models is a pole hafted, two pronged spear.
JmOz01's guardsmen officer is the same. Modeled to look cool, but is not reflective of its papered capabilities. 40k is full of examples.
Ordana, I think if you tried to run an event with that level of WYSIWYG, you'd have the players nicely tell you it's okay, and then they'd move on.
Do my 4e (BattlefMaccragge) marines have to play without pistols because I never 'fixed' that with the 5e codex? I glued Bright Lances on to my 4 Wave Serpents back in 5e. I didn't bother to remount the Scatter Lasers in 6e (goodness, they were so awesome! ), and I won't bother altering them now.
I show my opponent what's on the army list and they're fine, at local RTTs or GTs. I build my new models as WYSIWYG as possible with the 8e loadouts.
JmOz01 wrote: I have a question for the "Hard Penalties" Crowd
My Company Commander (Warlord) has NO weapon modeled on him (He has the cane under his arm & Arm pointing off in the distance). I OFTEN arm him with a Boltgun. How many of you fee I should be penalized for this...
He's not WYSISWG. If you're going to give a model a points upgrade, then rip off one of those arms and stick a boltgun there. I have the exact same Company Commander you have, right arm pointing forward, left arm holding stick, and a holstered pistol on his side, but I don't give him any upgrades. He's got the base laspistol and chainsword (I assume the stick has the chainsword stats). If I were to decide I want him with other purchasable options, though, then those arms would be coming off and replaced with arms wielding the appropriate weapons. And I'd do that for regular in store gaming and friendly gaming, let alone a tournament. We don't have to see everything, of course. The items which come standard for a model, free of charge, we don't have to see. Whether its pistols, grenades, etc. But if you're paying points to provide an upgrade, then the upgrade should be seen. Your opponent should know just by looking at him that the guy has a boltgun.
JmOz01 wrote: I have a question for the "Hard Penalties" Crowd
My Company Commander (Warlord) has NO weapon modeled on him (He has the cane under his arm & Arm pointing off in the distance). I OFTEN arm him with a Boltgun. How many of you fee I should be penalized for this...
Glue a bolter to his back. Better than finding out you only won because your opponent thought he was only armed with the standard las pistol. I've glued shotguns to the back of mine.
Chief Librarian Meph, ChargerIIC, all, I don't think you're quite grasping the scope of what it takes to be WYSIWYG.
So, maybe I do rip the officer's arm off for a plasma pistol or power sword. What about the banner bearers? That helmet off and exhausted expression is really cool. As a TO, would you penalize me this model's lasgun shots? DQ me if I rolled dice for that 'not there' lasgun? And the other guy is throwing a grenade. No lasgun for him?
Here are my girls: Do I need to rip off the 3 arms of my 3 hekatrixes to up grade to blast pistols, a rare bit at that, already used up on another model? How about my converted pink haired, succubus with the 2 bladed glaive? Do I wrap an agonizer bit around her to show she has it or the blast pistol I might've upgraded for? Again, holster, blast pistol bits are not in abundance. And I have 5 venom, 4 raider, 3 wych and 3 kab warrior kits from which to chose.
And there's Lelith's option of knives or an impaler, but not offered as such by GW right now:
Does my Death Guard painted 4e dork get no pistol? How about his black painted nemesis on his left? And to go WYSIWYG, that'd be 20 to 30 models to glue on a pistol.
(Okay, C.L. Meph, you addressed this. )
If I decide to use the index autarch, and want the banshee mask, do I need to rip his head off for a banshee's head?
Mind you, I'd love it if the models had that kind of modular build (I did go with REMs on Crisis Suits for weapon swaps), but disregarding old models that don't keep up with new edtiions hurts the wallet and the hobby, which is why GW did the great thing with the indexes; giving datasheets for everything (nearly) they've ever released.
Game, after tournament game, I appreciate WYSIWYG, but if it's on paper, then I'm happy. I can check my opponent's list anytime, and it's on me to do so, that goes both ways for each player, his models and mine, within reason.
JmOz01 wrote: I have a question for the "Hard Penalties" Crowd
My Company Commander (Warlord) has NO weapon modeled on him (He has the cane under his arm & Arm pointing off in the distance). I OFTEN arm him with a Boltgun. How many of you fee I should be penalized for this...
Make a holstered gun on the model, or bluetack a boltgun lying or standing next him for WYSIWYG play.
A common WYSIWYG practice in the past was that only options(upgrades) needed to be modeled. So if you take a company commander and he has no weapons represented on the stock model, it is automatically fair and assumed to come with the basic stock equipment on his profile. If you decide to add a plasma pistol, you must then represent that weapon.
Brothererekose wrote: Chief Librarian Meph, ChargerIIC, all, I don't think you're quite grasping the scope of what it takes to be WYSIWYG.
So, maybe I do rip the officer's arm off for a plasma pistol or power sword. What about the banner bearers? That helmet off and exhausted expression is really cool. As a TO, would you penalize me this model's lasgun shots? DQ me if I rolled dice for that 'not there' lasgun? And the other guy is throwing a grenade. No lasgun for him?
Here are my girls: Do I need to rip off the 3 arms of my 3 hekatrixes to up grade to blast pistols, a rare bit at that, already used up on another model? How about my converted pink haired, succubus with the 2 bladed glaive? Do I wrap an agonizer bit around her to show she has it or the blast pistol I might've upgraded for? Again, holster, blast pistol bits are not in abundance. And I have 5 venom, 4 raider, 3 wych and 3 kab warrior kits from which to chose.
And there's Lelith's option of knives or an impaler, but not offered as such by GW right now:
Does my Death Guard painted 4e dork get no pistol? How about his black painted nemesis on his left? And to go WYSIWYG, that'd be 20 to 30 models to glue on a pistol.
(Okay, C.L. Meph, you addressed this. )
If I decide to use the index autarch, and want the banshee mask, do I need to rip his head off for a banshee's head?
Mind you, I'd love it if the models had that kind of modular build (I did go with REMs on Crisis Suits for weapon swaps), but disregarding old models that don't keep up with new edtiions hurts the wallet and the hobby, which is why GW did the great thing with the indexes; giving datasheets for everything (nearly) they've ever released.
Game, after tournament game, I appreciate WYSIWYG, but if it's on paper, then I'm happy. I can check my opponent's list anytime, and it's on me to do so, that goes both ways for each player, his models and mine, within reason.
Holy cow that's a lot of picking and choosing.
No - relics are not normally WYSIWYG. No big surprise there unless you've never attended an event before. It's normal to declare relics at the start of the game as you well know. It's a couple sentences that the other player can easily remember. The three paragraphs of text you include as well is beyond reasonable exception for another player to memorize in the 1 minute before gameplay begins. The Astra Miliatrum command squad sprue includes lasrifles and laspistrols in holsters specifically so you can WYSIWYG. I've outfitted mine with a mix of lasrifles and shotguns and a quick visual check lets the other player know which is which so there's no surprise when officer X fires an assault 2 weapon.
No one wants to be nailed by a clutch plasma pistol or bolter in the middle of match. That's why we have WYSIWYG. That's why you can submit your list (with pics) to a TO before a big event and generally know ahead of time if you are uncertain if you meet WYSIWYG. I've had to do so for BAO in regards to my paint schemes and use of clear terrain bases. It takes around 5 minutes and I'll carry the response with me at the tournament.
Plasma Pistols are a good example because they have a big psychological impact. With supercharging, they can have a much bigger effect that a normal officer pistol and it actively discourages your opponent from lining up 2 wound or damaged multi-wound models anywhere near them. Even if you properly use the item as a laspistol, you are playing this meta-mind game in which you opponent is likely to avoid an officer that they shouldn't be afraid of.
This is a competitive environment and that means fairness has to take precedence. WYSIWYG is a cornerstone of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NecronLord3 wrote: A common WYSIWYG practice in the past was that only options(upgrades) needed to be modeled. So if you take a company commander and he has no weapons represented on the stock model, it is automatically fair and assumed to come with the basic stock equipment on his profile. If you decide to add a plasma pistol, you must then represent that weapon.
I think it's still a practice. Noone is surprised when a company commander has a las pistol. I think some people are just taking WYSIWYG arguments to silly levels in hope of avoiding the actual discussion.
WYSIWYG needs to be there. If a model has upgraded to a non-standard Bolter or whatnot, then model it. Rule of Cool doesn't trump WYSIWYG weapons.
I don't get to say that my vaulting SM with no weapons is actually carrying a Plasma Cannon just because I think he looks cool. If it has a Plasma Cannon, the it needs to be carrying one, simple as that.
There is no way im buying 200 shootas and arms and sawing off the arms on my AOBR boyz if I want to run them as shootas AND magnetizing all 400 arms so they can also be slugga boyz
Billagio wrote: There is no way im buying 200 shootas and arms and sawing off the arms on my AOBR boyz if I want to run them as shootas AND magnetizing all 400 arms so they can also be slugga boyz
Then at a tournament they are slugga boys only. It isn't that hard.
I think it's still a practice. Noone is surprised when a company commander has a las pistol. I think some people are just taking WYSIWYG arguments to silly levels in hope of avoiding the actual discussion.
Yeah, some people are engaging in heavy strawman arguments to defend their positions, which I take as a sign that they know their position is indefensible, so they have to try to take it absurd lengths to make their position reasonable.
Everyone knows that standard gear doesn't have to be WYSIWYG, because it's understood that every model has its core equipment. You don't have to model a bolt pistol, frag grenades, or krak grenades on a Tactical Marine, because we all know that Tactical Marines come with that as standard. You don't have to model a laspistol or a chainsword on a Company Commander because we all know that laspistols and chainswords come standard on Company Commanders. The only time they don't have those weapons are when they're replaced by purchasable options, in which case, yes, those purchasable options should be visible on the model. If you replaced the laspistol with a boltgun or bolt pistol, then we should see the boltgun or bolt pistol on the model in some way. If you replaced the chainsword with a power fist, then we should see the power fist. In a tournament setting that should absolutely be a requirement. And if you don't have the appropriate model, or don't want to redo your existing models, then use them as they are. Simple.
I really wish people were a bit less black and white, really makes it hard to have a constructive conversation.
For WYSIWYG, that is a decision for each tournament. Talk to the TO about it, any conversation you have on here is pointless as each TO is free to word their rules for that how they want. Don't like it? Don't play in that tournament, easy peasy.
One point I *really* want to make for TO's though, especially since I know many of you reading this thread have read some people's responses and likely rolled your eyes so hard you had to see a doctor. (I know I damn near did a few times) While there are a lot of people here advocating for something just barely short of the death penalty for cheaters you really do need to understand that how you run your events will effect your attendance and have an affect greater than your single event that could easily span years.
I'll use one of the gaming groups I hang out with as an example. For the most part this group is a fairly laid back bunch but 2-3 years ago they did occasionally play in tournaments, mostly to just get some games in against people they didn't normally play. That stopped after they had a particularly bad experience at a tournament. One of the players was TFG both being rude and cheating two of the members of the gaming group but he was aggressive and friends with the TO and got away with it. I don't even remember if he won the tournament but during it when the 2 players from that local group questioned a particular rule one got basically shouted down by TFG and the other stood up enough to get the TO to come over but he sided immediately with his friend. I am not even sure he had enough time to mentally consider the question before just saying that "Yeah it works like he (referring to his friend) says." Now because of that bad experience an entire group of 8-10 players do not play in tournaments any longer because of the terrible experience of 2 of it's players. And it's not just tournaments run by that particular TO (no surprise but they don't run events any longer) but any tournament. The tournament scene lost close to 10 players because of one person who was not kicked out of a tournament for being a cheating nob.
And maybe the Maryland/Virginia area is an oddity as far as 40K gaming goes but in my now 20+ years of playing 40K in the area and on and off again playing in tournaments their experience is not unique, at all. I've been the victim of an aggressive cheater and have stood up to them before and credit where it is due when I did stand up the TO was usually very professional and sorted things out. The flip side though is that the community always knew who these players were and I literally cannot think of any time where someone was banned, or hell even removed from a tournament short of yelling and screaming like a maniac and damn near flipping a table. And often times the reason for this was that they were friends with the TO or at least familiar enough with them to where they got away with it.
So yeah, seeing someone on here demand a banning because someone wants to put a bolter on their commander without cutting the models arm off may make you roll your eyes as a TO but I have got to tell you that not everyone pushing for tough repercussions is a nut job, many of them have likely had bad experiences that make them think like that and it is every TO's job to make sure that doesn't happened. Coming on here and telling people that cheating isn't a problem when many of us have seen it often just makes the people who feel victimized angrier, which makes them escalate, which makes you roll your eyes harder and post something that just keeps the cycle going.
Everyone, regardless of where they fall on the issue of punishment for tournament infractions is going to be ultra vigilant now with everything that has gone on in 2018, it may not be fair but TO's are going to be held to a very, very high standard because of it and they need to be ready to handle the fallout.
Billagio wrote: There is no way im buying 200 shootas and arms and sawing off the arms on my AOBR boyz if I want to run them as shootas AND magnetizing all 400 arms so they can also be slugga boyz
Then at a tournament they are slugga boys only. It isn't that hard.
Exactly. If you want to play Shootas, then the models need to be Shootas. If you're fielding Sluggas on the tabletop, they need to be purchased as such.
JohnHwangDD wrote: WYSIWYG needs to be there. If a model has upgraded to a non-standard Bolter or whatnot, then model it. Rule of Cool doesn't trump WYSIWYG weapons.
I don't get to say that my vaulting SM with no weapons is actually carrying a Plasma Cannon just because I think he looks cool. If it has a Plasma Cannon, the it needs to be carrying one, simple as that.
This is a strawman fallacy;. Of course, a heavy wep needs to be modeled. Proxying MLs for LasCans would be pushing tolerance (certainly by the posts in this thread), but if I was a TO, at an RTT, with a newer player, I'd let it slide. But, he better have LasCans at the next event, especially for a long announced GT.
But pistols, blast and plasma, are those ubiquitous little upgrades that often are a last consideration because they help close the last 30 or so points in a list. *And* the bits are more difficult to come by, as far as dark elves go.
I did carve and convert several of the 'special' guns for Trueborn blasters, so when those models hit the table, they decided *don't* have splinter rifles and won't be confused with the kab units.
No - relics are not normally WYSIWYG. No big surprise there unless you've never attended an event before. It's normal to declare relics at the start of the game as you well know. It's a couple sentences that the other player can easily remember. The three paragraphs of text you include as well is beyond reasonable exception for another player to memorize in the 1 minute before gameplay begins.
ChargerIIC,
I am confused with the "three paragraphs of text you include as well" and I didn't mention a relic ... so this response isn't necessarily to me? The 'holy cow' part is.
ChargerIIC wrote: The Astra Miliatrum command squad sprue includes lasrifles and laspistrols in holsters specifically so you can WYSIWYG. I've outfitted mine with a mix of lasrifles and shotguns and a quick visual check lets the other player know which is which so there's no surprise when officer X fires an assault 2 weapon.
No one wants to be nailed by a clutch plasma pistol or bolter in the middle of match. That's why we have WYSIWYG. That's why you can submit your list (with pics) to a TO before a big event and generally know ahead of time if you are uncertain if you meet WYSIWYG. I've had to do so for BAO in regards to my paint schemes and use of clear terrain bases. It takes around 5 minutes and I'll carry the response with me at the tournament.
So, if we get matched up this weekend, will you be okay with the 3 hekatrix sergeants being quipped with blast pistols? All of them, so it won't be , "Wait, which hekatrix has the blast pistol?" And the succubus with the dual blades?
ChargerIIC wrote: Plasma Pistols are a good example because they have a big psychological impact. With supercharging, they can have a much bigger effect that a normal officer pistol and it actively discourages your opponent from lining up 2 wound or damaged multi-wound models anywhere near them. Even if you properly use the item as a laspistol, you are playing this meta-mind game in which you opponent is likely to avoid an officer that they shouldn't be afraid of.
I agree.
Its built in problem, is that it is often used to spend up to the points limit, like an extra Storm Bolter on a rhino.
ChargerIIC wrote: This is a competitive environment and that means fairness has to take precedence. WYSIWYG is a cornerstone of that.
I agree very much so, but I'm trying to stem the Hard Line some posters are advocating, because the model arm/gun 'ripping off' thing can get out of hand.
I have DLs on my raiders. On paper, it says Dinintegrator Cannons. Will that be an issue?
In 5e, when I got them, I put splinter cannons on top of the venoms, as well as the one underneath. Now, on paper, these are naked venoms, so the top gun ought to be a twin splinter rifle, of which, there is no bit. Will that be an issue?
I'm curious, what were the 'clear terrain" issues?
ChargerIIC, PM me with yer name so we can meet and shake hands at BAO.
Nope. If you are in a Tournament, and you want to field a Lascannon then it needs to look like one. If you put MLs on the table, they're MLs. If you buy a Plasma pistol, it's got to be on the model.
Casually, sure, do whatever. But in a Tournament, I should expect full WYSIWYG, and players who chose not to comply should be penalized
I agree, this is definitely an issue unique to tournament play. Using proxies, especially with Wargear is completely fine in a casual game, but as soon as I sign up for a major tournament I would expect I need to be on point with everything.
Lets take a Chaos Lord. I fielded him all through 6th and 7th with a Lightning Claw and a Power Fist. And lets say in 8th edition i want to run him with a Power Fist and the Murder Sword for some extra versatility vs hard to put down characters. I would fully expect that to make him legal for a tournament I would need to tear off his Lightning Claw and model him with a Power Sword instead. Its just the way it is.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Nope. If you are in a Tournament, and you want to field a Lascannon then it needs to look like one. If you put MLs on the table, they're MLs. If you buy a Plasma pistol, it's got to be on the model.
Casually, sure, do whatever. But in a Tournament, I should expect full WYSIWYG, and players who chose not to comply should be penalized
So, what would you do with me and my list?
3 of my DLs are DisIntegrators. I have listed blast pistols on hekatrixes and succubi, but not modeled. Utter blasphemy:
I have been using Swooping Hawks as Scourges!
I guess, JHDD, that you'd show me the door? Or simply take them off the table and I play with out their haywires?
I paid for the GT long ago, drove 300 miles. Hotel for 2 nights. What's the penalty?
Better yet, what's the fix?
I brought an illegal list last year to BAO, got DQ'd for the one game I won. Reece had my list altered to be eldar instead of Ynnari (no change in units or anything, just no more Soul Burst) and I played the last couple games as such, a happy camper. If you'd asked me to leave the venue ... well. I'm not sure how'd I would have reacted, but I can say for certain that the call made was a good one.
See, this hard stance of "Turn them Away" is going to be a hot situation when someone has spent that amount of time travel and money to show up. Think it through, man.
Players should get shown the door for *egregious* conduct and outright cheating (which is where this thread started). Which a modeled, or not modeled piece of equipment comes in too.
However, for years notifying an opponent what and where your army is still honest play, and it's on paper. And it's fine. And has been fine for every GT game I've played, and as best I can recall, every RTT. And this is going on 6 years as a tourney goer.
It's like some people feel that the rules don't apply to them... Your opponent has the right to expect every model to look like what it is. If you can't do that, don't show.
JohnHwangDD wrote: It's like some people feel that the rules don't apply to them... Your opponent has the right to expect every model to look like what it is. If you can't do that, don't show.
Exactly. "I don't like how WYSIWYG looks" does not mean that it is an unreasonable standard. I don't care if you like some other model, if the rule is WYSIWYG then bring a correct one or don't play.
JohnHwangDD wrote: It's like some people feel that the rules don't apply to them... Your opponent has the right to expect every model to look like what it is. If you can't do that, don't show.
I still ask, what would you do if you were the TO?
And just as I am proxying the DisIntCans, and Hawks for Commorragh pidgeons, I would afford my opponent the same latitude.
Did he glue his Castellan Robots with one gun, but has the other since 7e's change to 8e? I'm fine with that.
Does he have 3 Plasma'Cutioners because they were great in 5e, but now suck? And if he wants to play them as Gatling Cannons on all 3, is that okay? I would allow it.
As a TO, yes, at a GT. As long as the opponent was made aware and both were happy.
And, as best as I know, from these years of experience, that is how the California scene plays out. Maybe change is in the wind. Maybe someone will sputter at the hawks and refuse to allow them for scourges. Maybe.
I would bet money that the usual top table guys, Brandon Grant, PaJama pants, Cooper Waddell, etc. wouldn't begrudge it one bit.
"The upgrades I assembled aren't as good at winning" is not an excuse to break the rules. Either change the models, buy new ones with the more powerful choice, or just accept that your list isn't 100% perfectly optimized. This attitude of "breaking WYSIWYG helps me win therefore I'm entitled to do it" is exactly the problem!
JohnHwangDD wrote: As a TO, I'd have you remove ALL non-WYSIWYG models. If you actually play any of them, automatic game loss. If more than once, DQ.
Just so you're certain, that would be:
1 succubus
3 raiders
3 hekatrixes
10 to 15 'scourges' (I painted 5 black, purple dry-brush and yellow to orange to red 'heat lances')
2 venoms (twin splinter rifles on paper, splint cannons in plastic)
Of course, the smarter, more positive play would be:
a. lose the blast pistols on paper
b. use those points to upgrade DisInCans to DLs c. pay the points to have the venoms have dual Splint Cans
d. and maybe still remove the Hawks.
I don't think your harsher action would go over well at most events, with most players. Though we disagree, thanks JHDD, for the civil discourse, srsly.
"I traveled far and payed money, please let me break the rules that are clearly mentioned in your rules packet".
How about you read the rules instead and make sure you follow them.
Penalty depends on the tournament/TO.
Over here you would likely suffer a 20 point penalty to your final score (which is a maximum victory score for a game) for a WYSIWYG violation.
Illegal army list is full loss for every game you played with it.
No worries. Back when I was playing seriously, I went through the effort to obtain and model the "correct" (i.e. WYSIWYG) bitz for my models. As a result, I have an glut of Heavy and Special Weapons models (this was pre-magnetization). If I could do that, I'd expect my opponent to do no less.
As you note, the better "fix" is to simply play what you have. It might not be "optimal" list, but it'll be complete. That's what a lot of players do, so it's not a big deal.
OTOH, if I'm playing competitively, angling for top tables and prizes at a larger Tournament, then, absolutely, I would bring and expect WYSIWYG models.
How the heck can you talk about spending money to travel to this big tournament and spend money on a hotel but not spend money to model your units correctly? That's some insane logic right there and I really can not understand why those kinds of people don't feel the rules should apply.
This nonsense about turning players away from the tourney scene by actually enforcing rules is ludicrous. You probably didn't want those players and the insane anecdote about the TO budding with the cheater and scaring off ten tourney players is exactly why there needs to be a hard set limit accepted by the community at large. If I knew that almost universally they had draconian anti-cheating rules that were strictly enforced and I ran into a store that supported cheaters I would make it known and I would go somewhere else to expect fair play. Fostering honest play does not take away from the hobby and asking people to not proxy at an actual competitive tournament that people are paying just as much or more than you to be at means everyone should expect the same courtesy and treatment and that the organization should do everything in their power to discourage cheating.
If you want to play with not wysiwyg awesome that's totally fine and acceptable. Don't pay to go to a tournament with that same mindset because those aren't the same damn thing.
I always tell people that WYSIWYG applies to the weapons a model is armed with and is the basic standard most players expect on the model. Yes you can note it on your army list for reference; but players should be able to see the unit type and unit weapons at a glance on the table without difficulty.
Upgrades/seals/etc.... are not required as often they are tiny details that are easily overlooked and can be confused (eg many marine models have seals on them without a magical seal bonus in their stats at all).
If you want to compete I'd say make sure your army is WYSIWYG and if you take any conversions confirm them before the event to see if they are legal (ergo confirm this BEFORE spending lots of money attending). If you can't confirm before then consider:
1) Taking WYSIWYG models as well as the converted so that you can swap over if the TO rules against your models (confirm this before you start play or if impossible call over a judge at the deployment phase).
2) Taking two army lists so that you can swap over (if this is allowed) at the start of the tournament to a list which contains only legal WYSIWYG units (ergo you are, again, taking extra models).
3) Bite the bullet and make a fully WYSIWYG legal army and just take that for safety's sake.
How the heck can you talk about spending money to travel to this big tournament and spend money on a hotel but not spend money to model your units correctly? That's some insane logic right there and I really can not understand why those kinds of people don't feel the rules should apply.
Preach!
3 of my DLs are DisIntegrators. I have listed blast pistols on hekatrixes and succubi, but not modeled. Utter blasphemy:
I have been using Swooping Hawks as Scourges!
100% not ok in a tournament setting. this game is hard enough especially when you are on the clock. I should not have to try to remember what your models actually have and I should not have to waste my time looking through your list to figure it out. I am not sure where you play but I have never been in a tournament that would allow this.
Ordana wrote: "I traveled far and payed money, please let me break the rules that are clearly mentioned in your rules packet".
That's silly, as well as a strawman fallacy.
My point is for an event that draws players from long distances, you should not implement a draconian "See the door? Don't let it hit you on the way out." for WYSIWYG violations. Allow the player to adjust their list to fit the models, like I just posted above.
Ordana wrote: How about you read the rules instead and make sure you follow them.
I have been doing that. For years. And for years, the proxies I've cited these last few posts have flown just fine. Maybe it's just the California meta is more relaxed than from where you guys are posting.
Ordana wrote: Penalty depends on the tournament/TO.
Over here you would likely suffer a 20 point penalty to your final score (which is a maximum victory score for a game) for a WYSIWYG violation.
Good to know, but is this for a dishonest, unpaid for plasma pistol or one that the player was up-front about every time? Points legally paid?
Ordana wrote: Illegal army list is full loss for every game you played with it.
I totally agree, and no one would contest that. Nor did I, when it happened to me last year. I missed the GWFAQ that came out the Monday before a BAO and I had a Win switched to a Loss.
Why should tournament rules be bent and twisted to cater to you in particular? If a tournament expects people to play WYSIWYG, then play WYSIWYG or don't go. Simple as that. And it's not asking a whole lot that you do so, given that it's being asked of every single other tournament player, the vast majority of whom would stick to those rules.
So rather than thinking only of yourself, why not think of all your potential opponents? They spent a ton of money on hotel rooms, plane tickets, and as others pointed out above, they also spent a bunch of money making sure that their army is WYSIWYG. So why not respect their efforts by putting in the same level of effort? Why not respect their game time by making sure that your army is WYSIWYG, rather than having to take the time before every game to point out all the different ways that your army isn't WYSIWYG, and making them memorize that on top of all the other things they're trying to keep in mind (Not to mention potentially penalizing them when they forget that one of your units is armed a certain way, only to be punished for forgetting that later on when they're taken by surprise by that unit)?
WYSISYG is a sensible rule for a tournament scene. Either hue to that rule or don't go to tournaments which enforce it. The alternative to that is the lack of WYSIWYG rules, in which case you're going to end up with every game getting prefaced by players telling their opponent how each unit is armed with something that isn't visibly shown on the model, and expecting them to memorize which units do what. That's a waste of time, a needless overcomplication, and unfair to those players who put in the effort to make it easy for their opponents by making sure that their army was WYSIWYG.
Well I think most of you would hate my local area tournament scene. We tend to just want to throw dice and don't find a couple pieces with the wrong equipment to confusing as long as it is up front (ie when placed I say: He has a Boltgun). More than 2-3 would probably be met with some groans, but a couple minor changes no problem...
All this WYSIWIG is a distraction at its base. Does/did the ATC have a WYSIWIG clause in the rules pack?
That particular rule no longer exists in 8th. Or at least I can't find it, if it does someone please point me to it. Arguing between yourselves about whose army should be removed and players banned is counterproductive and will do nothing to bring parity to the tournament scene.
JmOz01 wrote: Well I think most of you would hate my local area tournament scene. We tend to just want to throw dice and don't find a couple pieces with the wrong equipment to confusing as long as it is up front (ie when placed I say: He has a Boltgun). More than 2-3 would probably be met with some groans, but a couple minor changes no problem...
That's fine. But when the event rules require WYSIWYG (as the ATC did) you'd better follow them and accept the DQ without complaint if you don't.
AndrewC wrote: All this WYSIWIG is a distraction at its base. Does/did the ATC have a WYSIWIG clause in the rules pack?
That particular rule no longer exists in 8th. Or at least I can't find it, if it does someone please point me to it. Arguing between yourselves about whose army should be removed and players banned is counterproductive and will do nothing to bring parity to the tournament scene.
Yes it did. The below is directly from the rule packet.
2. Units must always be represented by appropriate models. This is the single, most important rule. The
'What You See Is What You Get' (WYSIWYG) rule is in effect for all events. That means all units MUST be
easily identifiable as the particular choice they represent and that any and all weapons/options taken for
a unit MUST be clearly represented on the model(s). Exceptions MAY be made for themed units or
armies. Furthermore, you need to contact us to let us know about any conversions you are planning on
using, and MUST provide us with photos of ALL models in question. Don’t worry – we fully appreciate
spectacular modelling skills, but we just want to make sure everything is super clear for your opponent
so that no confusion can arise during games. Players are required to email us to approve any
conversions/etc. (See below for submission guidelines). To protect everyone’s experience, you will be
required to remove any models that have not been approved, from the table, immediately.
And I could handle that, note it says that they will allow but want to see it first. I do not think the CC, or that my Sgt does not have his chainsword in hand would be a big issue with them, as long as I follow protocol (e-mail first)
JmOz01 wrote: Well I think most of you would hate my local area tournament scene. We tend to just want to throw dice and don't find a couple pieces with the wrong equipment to confusing as long as it is up front (ie when placed I say: He has a Boltgun). More than 2-3 would probably be met with some groans, but a couple minor changes no problem...
That's fine. But when the event rules require WYSIWYG (as the ATC did) you'd better follow them and accept the DQ without complaint if you don't.
That's the thing. A lot of it depends on what the tournament specifies.
Smaller, local tourneys that state they'll be a little looser on WYSIWIG, tournament points, whatever: that's fine, so long as it is all stated up front.
Bigger tourneys tend to have stricter rules. This also is fine, so long as it's all stated up front.
Regardless of the type, it is not okIMO to not read the event rules and then complain when you don't meet them and expect special treatment; you are not owed it. If an event has rules that you don't like or don't agree with, then don't go, since nobody is forcing you to do so.
One of the themes I see running in this thread is the frustration that some folks seem to go to these events and see other people not adhering to the stated rules, and seeing no consequences for it. For people who took the time to prepare and follow legal lists, legal conversions, etc., this is insulting and they're (rightfully) upset about someone else not doing that work and yet having nothing come of it. Offending players impact several other players, but of course they usually cry "but I spent money to be here." Yes, they did. But so did the 6 or whatever other players who just got ganked by having to play someone who didn't follow the same rules.
Rules exist to make it an "even" playground (no, I'm not going to say "balanced" because that's another can of worms). People who either knowingly or through antipathy don't follow those rules sour it for the many more who do.
Requiet wrote: How the heck can you talk about spending money to travel to this big tournament and spend money on a hotel but not spend money to model your units correctly? That's some insane logic right there and I really can not understand why those kinds of people don't feel the rules should apply.
It's not insane, it's money.
Because that's another $75 bucks for 15 scourges, when my local, but big group, is fine with the birds I have. A note to mark: scourges are one of GW's cheaper models; other 5 packs of elite, heavy or FA units are $40+, so I am really a cheap guy, preferring to spend money on booze.
And is one set of winged elves really so different from the soul-sick ones? Whadya think? Here are the ones I painted to match my drukahri's black and purple motif. Not good enough?
Requiet wrote: If you want to play with not wysiwyg awesome that's totally fine and acceptable. Don't pay to go to a tournament with that same mindset because those aren't the same damn thing.
Correct, which I'm not. I have attended all but one of FLG's big GTs in the last 6 years, as I have cited in many posts, I have yet to have an opponent give me grief about modeling.
It seems there are 2 schools of thought on WYSIWYG:
The Exact, No Exceptions JHDD and Ordana have advocated for
... and the other, which is my experience in California: a 'reasonable' WYSIWYG for GTs:
What has not been accepted in my meta and experience, that is, disallowed:
1. meltaguns must be meltaguns, no flamers for meltas, meltaguns for PGs, etc
2. MLs cannot be LasCans
3. rhinos cannot be wave serpents
4. a DP cannot proxy as the Great UnClean One
5. Bobby Billy has got to be Bobby Billy
6. Any kind of jumper marine needs to have a jump pack or wings
However, Overall, as long as the points were paid and it's close:
a. pistols, blast or plasma, yes, as long as it's paid for
b. guns on tanks (in my experience) are flexible, like razorback LasPlas of ... 6e? Though the local dudes worked out a good system to Get It Done.
c. Sternguard for Priamris for standard SMs? Sure. ... those guns gotta be accurate though
d. Winged aesthetic elves for sicky, winged Melnibonean elves
e. In earlier additions, Tau FireWarriors could have optional haywire grenades without needing to glue those 2x2x3 mm little grenade packs to their butts. *That* was a painful exercise in superglue, tweezers and nail polish remover
And ... when I come back from the game I'm going to play right now, I might cite more.
At this moment:
Thanks all for keeping this civil! Even though several of you must think I'm a blasphemous nutjob.
AndrewC wrote: All this WYSIWIG is a distraction at its base. Does/did the ATC have a WYSIWIG clause in the rules pack?
That particular rule no longer exists in 8th. Or at least I can't find it, if it does someone please point me to it. Arguing between yourselves about whose army should be removed and players banned is counterproductive and will do nothing to bring parity to the tournament scene.
Yes it did. The below is directly from the rule packet.
2. Units must always be represented by appropriate models. This is the single, most important rule. The 'What You See Is What You Get' (WYSIWYG) rule is in effect for all events. That means all units MUST be easily identifiable as the particular choice they represent and that any and all weapons/options taken for a unit MUST be clearly represented on the model(s). Exceptions MAY be made for themed units or armies. Furthermore, you need to contact us to let us know about any conversions you are planning on using, and MUST provide us with photos of ALL models in question. Don’t worry – we fully appreciate spectacular modelling skills, but we just want to make sure everything is super clear for your opponent so that no confusion can arise during games. Players are required to email us to approve any conversions/etc. (See below for submission guidelines). To protect everyone’s experience, you will be required to remove any models that have not been approved, from the table, immediately.
Thanks, fine the model should have been removed from the table as not meeting the rules, but a DQ should not be mandated for that sort of offence.
However, I still stand by my assertion that WYSIWIG is a distraction detracting from the underlying requirement that is needed on the tournament scene about playing fairly.
Thanks, fine the model should have been removed from the table as not meeting the rules, but a DQ should not be mandated for that sort of offence.
However, I still stand by my assertion that WYSIWIG is a distraction detracting from the underlying requirement that is needed on the tournament scene about playing fairly.
I think it falls into the argument perfectly that many tournaments clearly define wysiwyg or not and people still show up to these events expecting special treatment like the dark eldar guy because its fine for his local events. If a TO takes the time to publish a rules packet and your only defense is that other people are fine with it then the answer is simple and doesn't hurt anyone, keep playing with those people. If youre going to go to a large event in a different locale and you want to use your not wysiwyg models just run it by the TO and respect their decision. If you don't and someone gets annoyed that they have to play a memory game on top of the game at hand when they read and followed the rules, sorry to say but the offending player is wrong here.
As for punishments on wysiwyg I think that falls into 2 categories if a tourney defines they are using wysiwyg
1) models with paid for weapons listed on paper but not properly represented
For these infractions I totally agree with a remove the offending model/unit policy, game loss and continue play.
2) players using weapons not paid for whether they are modeled or not. Such as the convenient plasma pistol.
This is a greater offense where having the plasma pistol modeled but its actually a bolt pistol should be handled by the first punishment the second a player uses a weapon not on their list would be crossing the line into actual cheating for me and should result in an immediate dq because this is either deliberate or willfully ignorant.
The only distraction here is that having lenient wysiwyg policy leads to more people thinking they can get away with ghost equipment like that convenient plasma pistol. Having a tight set of rules and punishments that are actually enforced universally lessens what cheaters can get away with
Requiet, the problem with your assertion is that wysiwyg is now a house rule.
When it was a core rule in the BRB it was a standard accepted and applied to all. The house rule at that point was to not require it. With this edition and the removal, any effort at enforcing wysiwyg is now at TOs discretion, optional and personal preference. And because of that its a distraction. Fix the core problem of cheating first, ie points and rules infractions before chasing 'house rules'
Requiet wrote: How the heck can you talk about spending money to travel to this big tournament and spend money on a hotel but not spend money to model your units correctly? That's some insane logic right there and I really can not understand why those kinds of people don't feel the rules should apply.
It's not insane, it's money.
Because that's another $75 bucks for 15 scourges, when my local, but big group, is fine with the birds I have. A note to mark: scourges are one of GW's cheaper models; other 5 packs of elite, heavy or FA units are $40+, so I am really a cheap guy, preferring to spend money on booze.
And is one set of winged elves really so different from the soul-sick ones? Whadya think? Here are the ones I painted to match my drukahri's black and purple motif. Not good enough?
Requiet wrote: If you want to play with not wysiwyg awesome that's totally fine and acceptable. Don't pay to go to a tournament with that same mindset because those aren't the same damn thing.
Correct, which I'm not. I have attended all but one of FLG's big GTs in the last 6 years, as I have cited in many posts, I have yet to have an opponent give me grief about modeling.
It seems there are 2 schools of thought on WYSIWYG:
The Exact, No Exceptions JHDD and Ordana have advocated for
... and the other, which is my experience in California: a 'reasonable' WYSIWYG for GTs:
What has not been accepted in my meta and experience, that is, disallowed:
1. meltaguns must be meltaguns, no flamers for meltas, meltaguns for PGs, etc
2. MLs cannot be LasCans
3. rhinos cannot be wave serpents
4. a DP cannot proxy as the Great UnClean One
5. Bobby Billy has got to be Bobby Billy
6. Any kind of jumper marine needs to have a jump pack or wings
However, Overall, as long as the points were paid and it's close:
a. pistols, blast or plasma, yes, as long as it's paid for
b. guns on tanks (in my experience) are flexible, like razorback LasPlas of ... 6e? Though the local dudes worked out a good system to Get It Done.
c. Sternguard for Priamris for standard SMs? Sure. ... those guns gotta be accurate though
d. Winged aesthetic elves for sicky, winged Melnibonean elves
e. In earlier additions, Tau FireWarriors could have optional haywire grenades without needing to glue those 2x2x3 mm little grenade packs to their butts. *That* was a painful exercise in superglue, tweezers and nail polish remover
And ... when I come back from the game I'm going to play right now, I might cite more.
At this moment:
Thanks all for keeping this civil! Even though several of you must think I'm a blasphemous nutjob.
The thing I don't get is why not just play what you have at a tournament? Why do you have to field models with guns that they don't have when it might ruin the experience for your opponent that paid just as much money to go to a tournament? I take the time to magnetize all the options on all my models not for my own enjoyment (it takes about 5x longer to build everything) but for my opponents. This way if I want to switch a model my opponent doesn't have to remember 10 guns that aren't WYSIWYG and so they can be more immersed in the game. I would never feel so entitled that it should be my opponent's job to remember all these changes I made. On my old models, I build when I was younger before magnetizing I would never try to show up at a tournament claiming they had different wargear. I'd rather be 5% less effective than possibly ruin the experience for my opponent.
Because some of us don't mind when it is done to us, so we don't feel it is "ruining" things for others...Human beings tend to associate how they feel about a topic as the normal...,
Using my CC as an example, if a player was upset I would say "okay, then I will play him as if he had a laspistol and chainsword, that okay with you?" I MIGHT feel he was being petty, but I would respect him that much...However, my thought pattern is that it's not that big of a deal if a guy has equipment not sowing (I do get annoyed when it's a guy with somehting obvious and non equivalent (ie Bolter is a Lascannon)
JmOz01 wrote: Because some of us don't mind when it is done to us, so we don't feel it is "ruining" things for others...Human beings tend to associate how they feel about a topic as the normal...,
Using my CC as an example, if a player was upset I would say "okay, then I will play him as if he had a laspistol and chainsword, that okay with you?" I MIGHT feel he was being petty, but I would respect him that much...However, my thought pattern is that it's not that big of a deal if a guy has equipment not sowing (I do get annoyed when it's a guy with somehting obvious and non equivalent (ie Bolter is a Lascannon)
Whats the difference though? Why is it ok for a Las Pistol to be a bolter but not a bolter to be a Lascannon? It takes the exact same amount of mental energy to remember that x weapon is actually y weapon for this game regardless of what you plug in there? It's all just as distracting from a narrative perspective to have a las pistol shooting bolter rounds as it is for a rocket launcher to be shooting beams of energy. Its also incredibly rude to go against an opponent assuming x doesn't bother me so I'll just do it even when you could simply make a list that just included what you have modeled. It would also point at you most likely being a WAAC player as you would rather bend the rules and enjoyment of your opponent to just run a slightly more competitive build in a tournament
It seems there are 2 schools of thought on WYSIWYG:
The Exact, No Exceptions JHDD and Ordana have advocated for
... and the other, which is my experience in California: a 'reasonable' WYSIWYG for GTs:
This is a strange fething argument. WYSIWYG is black and white, I mean it literally is all in the name, what a player sees on the model is what they get. There is no reasonable WYSIWYG it either is or it isn't. Making it a regional thing is irrelevant too. Maybe that's true, but if the event states models must be WYSIWYG I don't see why folks from California need a specific hall pass here.
The only "reasonable" WYSIWYG arguments I see are things like extraneous double pistols, gluing boltguns together to make a storm bolter, etc. It's not "reasonable" to agree that a Dark Lance is not a Dark Lance.
All of this is extraneous to ATC because the model problem Team Happy had there were unapproved, rule-breaking conversions that clearly used pre-painted creatures instead of painted models.
The tl:dr
All of the following is my response to a few posts (quotes thrown in).
But it circles back to the thread's hopeful purpose: Making the tourney scene better by being better, more honest players. And while I am using invisible blast pistols (but points paid!), and those hawks for scourges, my opponent knows, and is re-informed, all the time, throughout the whole game.
It seems there are 2 schools of thought on WYSIWYG:
The Exact, No Exceptions JHDD and Ordana have advocated for
... and the other, which is my experience in California: a 'reasonable' WYSIWYG for GTs:
This is a strange fething argument. WYSIWYG is black and white, I mean it literally is all in the name, what a player sees on the model is what they get. There is no reasonable WYSIWYG it either is or it isn't. Making it a regional thing is irrelevant too. Maybe that's true, but if the event states models must be WYSIWYG I don't see why folks from California need a specific hall pass here.
It’s not that Calif needs a pass, I’m just telling you that is “How It Is" for the 6 years (do I need to retype the events I attend?) I've been playing at tourneys.
And you’re right, WYSIWYG is black or white, so whatever we're doing out here ... well, I guess it's not WYSIWYG. After talking to the TO tonight, I think it'd be more accurate to state, 'we players have a casual take on WYSIWYG."
We did agree, as many of you stated, that if I am a perennial Top Table player (like the top 10 guys in ITC stats), then absolutely, anal fixation tight, fastidious Sheldon Cooper, I will make sure, hunt down, and glue on, no fuzziness nor gray area every exact bit and have a 100% perfect WYSIWYG. srsly
Alas, I'm a kiddie pool flounder, with generally losing records.
@vonjankmon
Well said.
akaaean wrote:Lets take a Chaos Lord. I fielded him all through 6th and 7th with a Lightning Claw and a Power Fist. And lets say in 8th edition i want to run him with a Power Fist and the Murder Sword for some extra versatility vs hard to put down characters. I would fully expect that to make him legal for a tournament I would need to tear off his Lightning Claw and model him with a Power Sword instead. Its just the way it is.
You are correct and I support this call, arms off, install new weapons. I have a post in this mess that addresses this. Heck, I featured the Chaos Lord arms ripped off in a Bob and Fred comic. Click the link in my signature to the Quitting DPs. So, like you, been there, done that.
@gorgon
gorgon wrote:This thread certainly continues to inform.
What have you learned?
Chief Librarian Mephiston wrote:So rather than thinking only of yourself, why not think of all your potential opponents? They spent a ton of money on hotel rooms, plane tickets, and as others pointed out above, they also spent a bunch of money making sure that their army is WYSIWYG. So why not respect their efforts by putting in the same level of effort? Why not respect their game time by making sure that your army is WYSIWYG, rather than having to take the time before every game to point out all the different ways that your army isn't WYSIWYG, and making them memorize that on top of all the other things they're trying to keep in mind (Not to mention potentially penalizing them when they forget that one of your units is armed a certain way, only to be punished for forgetting that later on when they're taken by surprise by that unit)?
WYSISYG is a sensible rule for a tournament scene. Either hue to that rule or don't go to tournaments which enforce it.
I do think of my opponent. I constantly call my guns, to hits, strengths versus toughnesses, so it goes like, ”Haywire blasters, d3 shots each (rolls), hit on 3s, wound your vehicle’s T6 on 5s. Wounds of 4&5 produce a mortal wound)”. etc. And, your assertion that I would let an opponent be surprised is demonizing me without knowing me, assuming the worst (I'm still okay, and not Butt-Hurt) . No, if an opponent targets the wrong group, meaning he should be banging the haywires instead of heat lances, or the blaster born instead of kabalites (and those boys are WYSIWYG), I say things like, "Okay, so your Assault Cannon razorback is targeting the splinter rifle, poison, which wounds vehicles on 6s, troop objective secure guys, and leaving the TrueBlasters with the S8, -AP, D6 guys alive?"
Yes, I do point these things out. One of you might call BullShitakke Mushrooms on me, and well, maybe at some point, we can meet in a game and I'll prove it.
Asmodius wrote:The thing I don't get is why not just play what you have at a tournament? Why do you have to field models with guns that they don't have when it might ruin the experience for your opponent that paid just as much money to go to a tournament? I take the time to magnetize all the options on all my models not for my own enjoyment (it takes about 5x longer to build everything) but for my opponents.
Metal Hawks don’t have the option of pulling the gun off. And, my group readily accepts the birds. They accept that I’m honest. This is because I am one of the game store’s longest participants (not a thing in of itself but) *shrug*
I know that doesn’t do squat for someone new to the store, or any of you guys who haven't played me, but I constantly inform, call my dice and keep the opponent informed.
Asmodius wrote:This way if I want to switch a model my opponent doesn't have to remember 10 guns that aren't WYSIWYG and so they can be more immersed in the game. I would never feel so entitled that it should be my opponent's job to remember all these changes I made. On my old models, I build when I was younger before magnetizing I would never try to show up at a tournament claiming they had different wargear. I'd rather be 5% less effective than possibly ruin the experience for my opponent.
This “I expect my opponent to memorize the list (changes) and guns” has some how got legs it should not have. That has never been the case. By constantly calling, "These wyches shoot, 7 splinter pistols, 1 blast pistol, hit on 3s, wound on poison fours for those dice, that blast dice is the strength 8, -4AP, D6 damage gun.” I repeat it almost constantly.
When I reroll ones to wound for the kabal of the black heart, within 6" of the archon, I say, "Reroll wounds because of the Writ of the Living Muse." I wanna say every time, but maybe I've slipped here or there.
AdMech has been out for some time now, and I would fail a quiz if you showed me which guns on the Onager Doom Crawler (did I get that right without looking it up?) is the anti-tank one, let alone its name, versus the one that is better anti-I. And its name, too. I don't know which dudes are the tech priests versus the other ... priest. Guy.
I new all the units in 4e. All of them. I had every codex back then. I stopped trying to keep that standard up some time in 6e, so like an average player, I bet most players would not know a disintegrator from a dark lance, if one was shaped like a sausage and the other an umbrella. I *still* don't know which Imp Knight is which, but I don't care to study, because my opponents answer up when I ask. And they call their dice, too.
Asmodius wrote:Whats the difference though? Why is it ok for a Las Pistol to be a bolter but not a bolter to be a Lascannon? It takes the exact same amount of mental energy to remember that x weapon is actually y weapon for this game regardless of what you plug in there? It's all just as distracting from a narrative perspective to have a las pistol shooting bolter rounds as it is for a rocket launcher to be shooting beams of energy. Its also incredibly rude to go against an opponent assuming x doesn't bother me so I'll just do it even when you could simply make a list that just included what you have modeled. It would also point at you most likely being a WAAC player as you would rather bend the rules and enjoyment of your opponent to just run a slightly more competitive build in a tournament
Here you are really taking things to worst case scenarios, strawmen.
Of course a pistol would not be accepted for a LasCan; I stated this somewhere before or after your post. And with few exceptions, many players are constantly asking what does the (modeled) agonzier do? What does the (modeled) ShardNet do? And even as deep as turn 5, after I have stated it multiple times, “What does the net thing do again?”
Happily, I reply, the 11th or umteenth time, “The ShardNet and Impaler is +1S, -1 AP ... ” blah blah, finishing with the ‘Net’s D3 contribution to No Escape.
AndrewC wrote: Requiet, the problem with your assertion is that wysiwyg is now a house rule.
When it was a core rule in the BRB it was a standard accepted and applied to all. The house rule at that point was to not require it. With this edition and the removal, any effort at enforcing wysiwyg is now at TOs discretion, optional and personal preference. And because of that its a distraction. Fix the core problem of cheating first, ie points and rules infractions before chasing 'house rules'
Cheers
Andrew
In casual games it isn't a rule but in many tournaments it absolutely is whether you define a tournament rule that applies nationally as a house rule is your call but if youre signing up for these big tourneys and its a rule this is no longer a side piece but another part of how the cheaters get away with things. TOs have always had to police wysiwyg whether it was a house rule or not so saying that's any different now makes no sense
So, by this metric, a player who brings, say, a Squat force as anything but Squats, since the models are smaller in size than almost everything else, is not WYSIWYG and therefor should be DQ'd and maybe banned.
I have seen Squats played as AM/IG, and Orks. I play mine as SM Scouts. (All units except HQ, Elites and some Bikes are "scouts" with 4+ saves). I guess that means all those armies are illegal now.
I don’t understand how these big tournaments don’t already have codes of conduct and expectations set in advance for repercussions if you’re found cheating. If you don’t set expectations and judgement appears arbitrary. Set your ground rules and sanctions for breaking them out in advance, enforce them fairly, and no one can claim ignorance or feign surprise and claim mistreatment.
helgrenze wrote: So, by this metric, a player who brings, say, a Squat force as anything but Squats, since the models are smaller in size than almost everything else, is not WYSIWYG and therefor should be DQ'd and maybe banned.
I have seen Squats played as AM/IG, and Orks. I play mine as SM Scouts. (All units except HQ, Elites and some Bikes are "scouts" with 4+ saves). I guess that means all those armies are illegal now.
I wouldn't be pleased playing a fully proxied army in a tournament. At the local store is fine, but rule of cool is out the window when the stakes are higher.
helgrenze wrote: So, by this metric, a player who brings, say, a Squat force as anything but Squats, since the models are smaller in size than almost everything else, is not WYSIWYG and therefor should be DQ'd and maybe banned.
I have seen Squats played as AM/IG, and Orks. I play mine as SM Scouts. (All units except HQ, Elites and some Bikes are "scouts" with 4+ saves). I guess that means all those armies are illegal now.
I wouldn't be pleased playing a fully proxied army in a tournament. At the local store is fine, but rule of cool is out the window when the stakes are higher.
"Officially" Squats 'can' be played as either Am/IG or Orks.
I wouldn't be pleased playing a fully proxied army in a tournament. At the local store is fine, but rule of cool is out the window when the stakes are higher.
But stakes often are quite a bit lower at big tournaments (those everyone can attend without qualifiers, not counting invitationals). Games at your friends house or at a FLGS by definition means there's some regularity to the games and/or a FLGS nearby one actually can play, monthly maybe, let's say.
The big events like Nova, Adepticon, LVO, etc.. are by definition the places where people go that only play once every 2 years or so, without wargaming-friends, FLGS-infrastructure, gaming clubs, etc.. nearby. The majority, in percentage, of the LVO/Adepticon/etc.. crowd are the least (!) competitive players in 40K, multitudes less versed in the game than 12-year old Timmy who has a local Games Workshop and can get a match in every 6 weeks.
If you wanna apply "professional player standards", you need to tier it off. Run qualifiers, implement a Golf-style handicap system, have different tiered leagues with a "premier league" on top you need to work your way up to, etc.. something. You cannot demand "professional sports" standards unless everyone attending actually is a professional athlete whose there because of a years-long selection process from possibly primary school onward, which actually screens out thousands for every contender that gets in. If the tournament rules allow everyone to attend for a few dollars/euros/pound, no matter who you are, that's the baseline you'll have to consider.
Sunny Side Up wrote: You cannot demand "professional sports" standards unless everyone attending actually is a professional athlete whose there because of a years-long selection process from possibly primary school onward, which actually screens out thousands for everyone that get's in.
That's a terrible analogy. Playing a game of 40k without cheating is not a difficult standard to meet, especially when we're talking about things like not bringing an illegal list. Anyone who gives a can do it, while only a tiny minority of people can even attempt to become professional athletes. Stop making excuses for cheaters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
helgrenze wrote: So, by this metric, a player who brings, say, a Squat force as anything but Squats, since the models are smaller in size than almost everything else, is not WYSIWYG and therefor should be DQ'd and maybe banned.
Correct. Squats, unfortunately, are no longer supported and are not WYSIWYG for anything. And in a game where TLOS exists having a significantly different LOS profile is not a minor thing. It sucks if you have a squat army, but you can't expect tournaments to support models that were abandoned by the manufacturer decades (and multiple editions) ago. Play them in fun games, bring a modern army for tournaments.
I wouldn't be pleased playing a fully proxied army in a tournament. At the local store is fine, but rule of cool is out the window when the stakes are higher.
But stakes often are quite a bit lower at big tournaments (those everyone can attend without qualifiers, not counting invitationals). Games at your friends house or at a FLGS by definition means there's some regularity to the games and/or a FLGS nearby one actually can play, monthly maybe, let's say.
The big events like Nova, Adepticon, LVO, etc.. are by definition the places where people go that only play once every 2 years or so, without wargaming-friends, FLGS-infrastructure, gaming clubs, etc.. nearby. The majority, in percentage, of the LVO/Adepticon/etc.. crowd are the least (!) competitive players in 40K, multitudes less versed in the game than 12-year old Timmy who has a local Games Workshop and can get a match in every 6 weeks.
If you wanna apply "professional player standards", you need to tier it off. Run qualifiers, implement a Golf-style handicap system, have different tiered leagues with a "premier league" on top you need to work your way up to, etc.. something. You cannot demand "professional sports" standards unless everyone attending actually is a professional athlete whose there because of a years-long selection process from possibly primary school onward, which actually screens out thousands for every contender that gets in. If the tournament rules allow everyone to attend for a few dollars/euros/pound, no matter who you are, that's the baseline you'll have to consider.
I don't see how stakes are lower in a tournament with paid entry to playing in your FLGS or garage.
It's not asking for pro sports standards to have someone run the models they are meant to be. When you're against the clock and you can't tell what a model is meant to be carrying it adds pressure.
As much as I feel bad for Squats players, they've had over 20 years to build a new collection for tournaments. I just don't want TFG to have a lasgun one moment, then a bolter or plasma pistol the next. It's not too much to ask.
So, WYSIWYG is, pretty clear to me, and is pretty much always addressed in the Tournament Rules Pack well in advance of the event, alongside any rules on conversations and proxies.
Generally, a conversion that is substantially different to the standard model (see the ATC Rough Riders running around on Turtles and Alligators), and could potentially have an impact on the game from a “fair play” point of view. No-one was going to argue that the ‘Gater Riders were being used as anything other than Rough Riders, due to the Guard not having any other unit like them, available to them, but, the question gets raised around the whole “modelling for advantage” side of things. If they are suddenly 2-3cm shorter than standard, then it can have a big impact. Likewise when people were trying to use random artillery toys in place of Earthshaker platforms, but the toys were a 1/3 of the size of the actual model and thus could be hidden far far far easier.
I’ve always taken the WYSIWYG rule as follows –
Models must be equipped with their given loadout, with the exception of standard, free, equipment, such as standard pistols and grenades. If a model is given an upgrade that costs points, then that model must also then be modelled with the specialist equipment for ease of identification on the battlefield, for BOTH players.
In the Banner Bearer example, if you took a Command Squad with a Banner, then, as the Lasgun is standard equipment, there would be no need to find a way to model a Lasgun. But, if you then took your Banner Bearer as a standard trooper in an Infantry squad, I’d likely raise an eyebrow (in a tournament event) as it represents something completely different.
On the other side, I’d be perfectly fine with Brothererekose’s Hawks as Scourges, as a player and a TO, IF they were running as standard using the Shardcarbine. The moment they wanted to use blasters or haywire, then, I’d ask for them to be modelled as such. Especially if there is more than 1 unit of them on the table with different loadouts.
As for the ability to get hold of some bitz, I agree, it can be challenging at times, but, there are options out there to get them (In Europe at least, so I’m expecting the US has bitz sellers as well). If not, there are usually items up on ebay.
In regards to brand new players in a small, friendly local RTT, then, I think it depends completely on the group of people playing. If it was only 10 people use to playing each other, then the rules could be a bit more relaxed, but, I’d certainly strive for things to be as correct as possible. The moment you start including other people in the event, the moment you have to start enforcing the standard, for their sake. You owe it to the people travelling to the event and spending money on hotels etc, to have a good event that sticks to the pre-listed rules.
At the last Warhammer Fest of 7th edition, I played against an Ork army in my final game that was entirely made up of Squat models. It had been submitted to the GW event team in advance, and passed by them, so there was no issue. Everything was clearly labelled and identifiable, and in terms of wargear, everything was WYSIWYG. Due to it being a GW event, it also didn’t have much of an impact, because GW likes to play their event games with zero LoS blocking terrain. If it was an ITC event though where there was a lot more terrain etc, then I’d prob not allow it, due to the impact it would likely have. It’d be swings and roundabouts in terms of LoS, unit footprint etc, but the potential for unintended and unfortunate things to occur because of it, would be far too high to be reasonable.
Specialist weaponry, be it blades, pistols, heavy or special weapons have an impact on the game just by being there. If I know 1 unit of Scourges have blasters and 1 unit only has shardcarbines and I’m running some vehicles, I’m going to 100% priorities the unit with blasters in my plans before the game. If I then get into game and they are modelled completely differently, then it places an extra burden on me to remember that, that one certain unit actually has something completely different. I wouldn’t do that to my opponent personally, and I’d expect the same curtesy in return.
When I built my Eldar force for an event, and chose to run an Autarch Skyrunner with Banshee mask, Lance and Reaper Launcher, I modelled him having all those. Sure, it cost me 1 Banshee head and 1 Dark Reaper arm, but, in a way, that is the price to pay if you want to convert and run different things. Likewise, how I magnetised the sword/spear arm of my Farseers and Warlocks, should I find myself in a position with 5 points space/over and need to change it out.
In regards to relics, it is slightly different. If you gave a model the Teeth of Terra relic, I’d expect that model to be modelled with a Chainsword (as the relic replaces the existing war gear). If you gave a model the Aquila, then I wouldn’t have any issues with it not being modelled. (Though, I’m sure there are people out there that have decided to model it via kitbashing)
At the end of the day, it is down to the TO to set the rules prior to the event, and the players to then follow those rules. Punishment for not doing so should then be issued.
I still don't get what people are having trouble with.
If you're not using an official model for the army you are playing - take some decent photos and email them to the TO in advance of the tournament to confirm or deny if the conversions are allowed within their rules or not. This is 2018 and if you can afford GW models then you can afford a half decent camera; or if not you've at least likely got one or more friends who owns a camera/cameraphone to borrow
Some will allow them and some won't. Most often bigger national or international will be stricter whilst the tourney which is basically you and your friends from the local club is likely to be more casual/allowing of such things.
Confirm in advance and if its not allowed work with that and either don't go or use official models.
1. What the rules of the event should be
2. What the penalty should be for breaking those rules
Things like points limits are obvious, uncontroversial parts of point 1. WYSIWYG is, apparenly, more controversial though I'm really not sure how. I just don't get what the problem is here, especially when ATC had what seems to be a pretty sensible approach to this - models should by WYSIWYG and any conversions need to be pre-approved. Why do people have a problem with having to represent the correct wargear on their models? I've played 40k since 2nd edition and one of the most annoying things I've had ot do is change around my load-outs on my models because what's good seems to change with every edition. That takes time, effort and money but I do it because it's a basic courtesy to my opponent. Sometimers I might proxy in a friendly game, just to see if something is worth using, but I don't do it as a matter of course.
Things like Blast pistols are the perfect example of why WYSIWYG is so important at tournaments, I shouldn't be expected to remember stuff in your list and the difference between a Blast pistol and Splinter pistol is huge - one of them is lucky oto kill a Space Marine per game while the other can remove a Space Marine Captain in one shot. If the tournament has rules laid out for WYSIWYG you have two options: follow them or don't go. Don't show up to a tournament with clear rules and expect an exception because "it's only a pistol" or "everyone else does it".
The second point is probably the more interesting one to discuss, IMO. I don't think an instant DQ is warranted for all infringements and I don't think it's beneficial to the tournament scene to do so. But there have to be penalties for breaking the rules, otherwise what's the point in having the rules at all? For list mistakes and WYSIWYG infringements I'd suggest a game loss for each game played so far, followed by the TO adjusting the list to be legal for any future games. Of course, the TO would also be able to DQ somebody if they felt the infringement was more serious. So somebody going 2 points over because they forgot to include an upgrade gets the game losses and adjustment but somebody who conveniently forgets to add in the cost of all their heavy weapons could expect a DQ.
1. What the rules of the event should be
2. What the penalty should be for breaking those rules
The problem being that some here are of the opinion that any rules are set in stone with no room for accommodation, and they want those rules to reflect their version of "How the Game SHOULD be Played".
Some of these same people also feel that the rules are a hard line. Violate them, cross that line and "It's the BANHAMMER for you!! Get out and don't come back!"
They don't WANT a sliding scale. They want DQs and Bans for ANY violation of their version of the rules. Black and White, no Gray areas.
1. What the rules of the event should be
2. What the penalty should be for breaking those rules
The problem being that some here are of the opinion that any rules are set in stone with no room for accommodation, and they want those rules to reflect their version of "How the Game SHOULD be Played".
Some of these same people also feel that the rules are a hard line. Violate them, cross that line and "It's the BANHAMMER for you!! Get out and don't come back!"
They don't WANT a sliding scale. They want DQs and Bans for ANY violation of their version of the rules. Black and White, no Gray areas.
That's why I think point 2 is more important than point 1. I don't think hard bans and instant DQs are as good for the tournament scene as others would assert. I think what's important is that there is enforcement and it is seen to be done.
1. What the rules of the event should be
2. What the penalty should be for breaking those rules
The problem being that some here are of the opinion that any rules are set in stone with no room for accommodation, and they want those rules to reflect their version of "How the Game SHOULD be Played".
Some of these same people also feel that the rules are a hard line. Violate them, cross that line and "It's the BANHAMMER for you!! Get out and don't come back!"
They don't WANT a sliding scale. They want DQs and Bans for ANY violation of their version of the rules. Black and White, no Gray areas.
That's why I think point 2 is more important than point 1. I don't think hard bans and instant DQs are as good for the tournament scene as others would assert. I think what's important is that there is enforcement and it is seen to be done.
I agree, but several here don't just want that, they want the DQ's and Bans. Perhaps to weed out some of the stiffer competition?
A hard line can be very important if a community has gotten to a point where a casual line won't be respected. It can be the necessary stick to push things back to what they should be if the carrot is rejected or ignored.
Honestly I don't think the wargame world is in that state quite yet; if anything the more critical issue appears to be the practicalities and realities of enforcement. Especially when this thread is talking about TO in a very catch-all manner and thus is comparing those which have an actual budget and money to spend with those that just above cover the venue and prize money from the entrance fee.
There's also grey areas regarding Pre event actions. Eg registering army lists, reviewing army lists, reviewing custom models etc...
The problem being that some here are of the opinion that any rules are set in stone with no room for accommodation, and they want those rules to reflect their version of "How the Game SHOULD be Played".
Some of these same people also feel that the rules are a hard line. Violate them, cross that line and "It's the BANHAMMER for you!! Get out and don't come back!"
Who has actually said that? Who's actually said "One minor infraction and you should get a lifetime ban from all tournaments"? If someone's said it, quote it. Because from what I see, that's not a problem at all. The problem I see is that, rather than have a serious discussion, some people prefer to throw out ridiculous strawmen arguments.
They don't WANT a sliding scale. They want DQs and Bans for ANY violation of their version of the rules. Black and White, no Gray areas.
A lot of people I've seen have been talking about sliding scales. I haven't seen a single case of anyone stating "INSTANT LIFETIME BAN FOR ONE OFFENSE!!1!". Maybe I missed that persons post, in which case please quote that post for me. What I have seen is people saying "If your list is incorrect your previous games become losses and your list is adjusted for future games. If the problem persists then you're disqualified from that event", and so on. That's a sliding scale.
Peregrine wrote: The idea that cheating is only a point reduction or "correct it and keep playing" is a joke. Cheating, including an illegal list, should be an immediate DQ and removal from the event space. No playing, no watching your friends play, go sit in your hotel room and think about your failure. And in the case of multiple offenses it should be a blacklisting from all events. Stop going easy on cheaters and people will stop doing it.
Peri here is one of the most vocal about it. This was on page 3. You can review his other posts at your leisure.
Ah so you do know how to use the quote feature. Then why are you being disingenuous and acting like it's a large part of the thread? Your also not even bothering to read his quote are you? It clearly says multiple offenses, you bolded it even yet heres your take away:
Some of these same people also feel that the rules are a hard line. Violate them, cross that line and "It's the BANHAMMER for you!! Get out and don't come back!"
They don't WANT a sliding scale. They want DQs and Bans for ANY violation of their version of the rules. Black and White, no Gray areas.
A ban after MULTIPLE offenses IS a sliding scale mate.
Your also ignoring the one glaring weakness in your own argument. As others have pointed out, if an event explicitly outlines WYSIWYG in it's packet and you sign up to the event you are agreeing to play by that tournaments rules. If you either didn't bother reading the guidelines or worse yet ignored those guidelines then your breaking the event rules. If you want to play your counts as squats get it cleared by the TO, if they say no dice then I guess your not playing at that event. Your not entitled to play at someone else event without following the rules everyone else has to.
Your conflating two things, peoples opinions on WYSIWYG and repercussions for breaking an events rules. Your entitled to your opinions on WYSIWYG all you want, but if your opinion isn't in line with the rules of an event your still outta luck and that's your problem.
So after reading this whole thread, my thoughts (for the record, I wrote this while the previous comment was also being posted, it is not included in whole, but does not change my opinions in any real way)
I personally like some leeway in WYSIWYG
I personally feel that it is the player's responsibility to follow the guidelines of the tournament
I personally feel that a TO should pre-approve any model not strictly WYSIWYG, but reasonable leeway should be applied when evaluating the miniature. EDIT: it should be mentioned that reasonable is subjective and reasonable people wlll have disagreements on what is reasonable.
I personally feel that if there is room for confusion that it is the responsibility of the player to reduce this as far as reasonable (at a minimum announcing anything that might be confusing as it is placed (ie my CC: This is my Warlord he has Trait X, Relic Y, and while he has no weapons on the miniature he is armed with a A & B).
I personally feel the arguments about modeling for advantage are a bit ridiculous (within reason, a cm here or there is not a big deal, and there are advantages/disadvantages to smaller and larger miniatures that fairly balance each other...within reason)
I personally suspect that Team Happy was trying to use grey zones for their advantage, which I disagree with. Removing grey areas between opponents is important and trying to capitalize on them is unsporting
Things like points limits are obvious, uncontroversial parts of point 1. WYSIWYG is, apparenly, more controversial though I'm really not sure how.
It just comes down to the fact that the game demands too many repeated models, which makes small changes major projects. Weapon configurations don't really reward variety, so when they change, its not a matter of getting a few new models; its often close to replacing the whole army. The selling point of customizing your models down to the weapon sounds cool, right up to the point where the game changes a basic weapon that demands replacing everything, particuilarly if that comes in the form of point changes that actually demand something else to fit. That's ultimately why people resist or seek leniency on WYSIWYG. I get it; even if I agree it should be expected.
Red Corsair wrote: Ah so you do know how to use the quote feature. Then why are you being disingenuous and acting like it's a large part of the thread? Your also not even bothering to read his quote are you? It clearly says multiple offenses, you bolded it even yet heres your take away:
Some of these same people also feel that the rules are a hard line. Violate them, cross that line and "It's the BANHAMMER for you!! Get out and don't come back!"
They don't WANT a sliding scale. They want DQs and Bans for ANY violation of their version of the rules. Black and White, no Gray areas.
A ban after MULTIPLE offenses IS a sliding scale mate.
Your also ignoring the one glaring weakness in your own argument. As others have pointed out, if an event explicitly outlines WYSIWYG in it's packet and you sign up to the event you are agreeing to play by that tournaments rules. If you either didn't bother reading the guidelines or worse yet ignored those guidelines then your breaking the event rules. If you want to play your counts as squats get it cleared by the TO, if they say no dice then I guess your not playing at that event. Your not entitled to play at someone else event without following the rules everyone else has to.
Your conflating two things, peoples opinions on WYSIWYG and repercussions for breaking an events rules. Your entitled to your opinions on WYSIWYG all you want, but if your opinion isn't in line with the rules of an event your still outta luck and that's your problem.
First, let me apologize for not quoting every single, middling post I am replying to. I can see it has caused you some level of confusion.
Second, Define Multiple. When does the ban hit? After 2? in the previous quote, Peregrine states he wants a ban from continued play at the event after the DQ for any infraction.
Third, If I sign up for an event, I double check if those models would be allowed, even to the point of taking them to the TO when I arrive. I do have a second army I can play, but it is not set up the same way. Because of that, I make sure to ask the to beforehand if I can submit a secondary list. Also, I am aware that those models are shorter and some may claim 'modelling for advantage'. I allow that if your model cannot see mine, then mine cannot see yours, unless either one moves after LOS is checked.
Lastly, I was not conflating anything. YOU read that into posts on different subjects.
Honestly, I am on the side of a sliding scale. Any straight up Ban should be after multiple (more than 2) infractions over multiple (more than 2) events.
Your still trying to be disingenuous here. I never required you to quote everyone, in fact feel free not to quote anyone, just don't lie about what people are asking for and certainly don't lump every poster in here into some extreme strawman that is convenient for you to argue against. I mean, your literally putting your own emphasis on part Peregrins quote which says multiple issues, then going on to make a strawman about folks getting perma ban for a single offense.
And yes, you are making several arguments and ascribing them broadly. You disagreeing with others opinions on what the rules should be and then also disagreeing with what the penalties for breaking those rules should be.
In regards to your sliding scale opinion. Fair enough, I respect your opinion but I think it is far to light. More then two mistakes is a minimum of 3 but still undefined and same goes for the number of events. So you think folks should be caught (a key issue) screwing up 3 separate events before someone tells them not to come back? For one of events like adepticon that would mean a guy could have an illegal list three straight years? Why bother even trying to curb cheating?
First, let me apologize for not quoting every single, middling post I am replying to. I can see it has caused you some level of confusion.
BTW, please try to refrain from being petty here. Most people in this thread have been quite civil. You hadn't even bothered quoting a single person until called out, then you managed to misquote them entirely, not supporting your original claim. So please don't project your on confusion onto myself or others.
Kdash wrote: In the Banner Bearer example, if you took a Command Squad with a Banner, then, as the Lasgun is standard equipment, there would be no need to find a way to model a Lasgun. But, if you then took your Banner Bearer as a standard trooper in an Infantry squad, I’d likely raise an eyebrow (in a tournament event) as it represents something completely different.
Yes, this. This reasonable and what I experience.
Kdash wrote: On the other side, I’d be perfectly fine with Brothererekose’s Hawks as Scourges, as a player and a TO, IF they were running as standard using the Shardcarbine. The moment they wanted to use blasters or haywire, then, I’d ask for them to be modelled as such. Especially if there is more than 1 unit of them on the table with different loadouts.
And the 2 units painted overwhelmingly blue have haywires and the 3rd purple unit shown carry heat lances (painted orangey, fiery hot!).
I don't think a difference in paint color should be the standard. Folks are already mixing detachments in this addition and as a DE player myself, this army in particular already has up to three different army components before splitting up by obsessions. You can have multiple like units identified as a different obsession by color (and in fact should be), having gear denoted as well by color seems too confusing. This doesn't even factor in the lack in painting standards currently which further muddies the water.
Earlier you also mentioned discussing with your local TO (thanks for doing this and sharing btw) and you mentioned leniency based on performance. Basically, you would get away with less WYSIWYG models so long as your not winning the event. I can't disagree with this policy more. Justice and fairness requires the rules are applied equally, you cannot have one standard for someone at the bottom of the pack and one for somebody at the top. Regardless of how this hashes out, I think this is most important. This just validates those events where someone that knows the TO gets away with cheating (deliberate or not) and most folks agree that's something that needs to stop.
Red Corsair, I said "some", "several", "some of". Not once did I say "ALL." Peregrine is but one of those.
The Peregrine quote shows a call for Blacklisting after multiple infractions. Not a ban for a few events, a blacklisting from ALL events. It also calls for a ban from the remainder of the event for a single infraction.
Many of the "Pro Players" attend multiple events during the year. For instance, Wasn't the guy who won LVO also at ATC? In fact, I believe most of Team Happy were at LVO, as were many others who were at ATC.
If a person only attends one event a year, and gets called for a violation of the event rules once per event, then yeah it might take three years. But since many tourneys are either part of or follow ITC, then those that attend multiple events a year are likely to get caught more often and thus restricted or banned faster.
Peregrine wrote:
The idea that cheating is only a point reduction or "correct it and keep playing" is a joke. Cheating, including an illegal list, should be an immediate DQ and removal from the event space. No playing, no watching your friends play, go sit in your hotel room and think about your failure. And in the case of multiple offenses it should be a blacklisting from all events. Stop going easy on cheaters and people will stop doing it.
Peri here is one of the most vocal about it. This was on page 3. You can review his other posts at your leisure.
And.... you are still making things up. He is only advocating DQ's for black and white cheating. please see below for more of his posts.
]Of course it should be noted that the cases where I've advocated a zero tolerance, immediate DQ and removal from the event policy are cases where the situation is black and white. If you bring an illegal list you are 100% unambiguously at fault. There is nothing unclear in, to use the example that happened at this event, the 0-3 limit on copies of a single datasheet. The list was clearly illegal, with no possible argument that it wasn't. And there is nothing preventing them from putting in the effort to get it right.
The player either cheated deliberately or didn't give a about following the rules, and in either case they should be removed.
Also, there's a difference between cheating and plausible mistakes. An illegal list is cheating, the situation is black and white and there is no excuse for failing to bring a correct list. Making the wrong roll for a unit could be a mistake by both players (for example, forgetting that a unit moved and has the -1 penalty to its heavy weapons), and the penalty wouldn't be a DQ. But if you're consistently trying to use your BS 4+ unit as BS 3+ then yeah, that's a DQ. Either you're cheating, or you're so hopelessly uninformed about the rules of your own army that you don't belong in a tournament.
helgrenze wrote: The Peregrine quote shows a call for Blacklisting after multiple infractions. Not a ban for a few events, a blacklisting from ALL events.
since many tourneys are either part of or follow ITC, then those that attend multiple events a year are likely to get caught more often and thus restricted or banned faster.
And the problem with that is what, exactly? Cheaters getting booted from the circuit sooner is somehow a bad thing?
Red Corsair, I said "some", "several", "some of". Not once did I say "ALL." Peregrine is but one of those.
The Peregrine quote shows a call for Blacklisting after multiple infractions. Not a ban for a few events, a blacklisting from ALL events. It also calls for a ban from the remainder of the event for a single infraction.
Try "none", "no one", "none at all" You are making up stuff he did not say and no one else has. He only advocates DQ's and bans for people caught outright cheating, black and white, as they should be. No one is advocating the ban hammer for anything else.
@helgrazen, you've continued to demonstrate your lack of comprehension in regard to other posters remarks. You have even flat out misrepresented them.
You also just demonstrated a lack of understanding in regard to the ITC. The ITC is a template put forth for free as a guide. They don't adjudicate for every ITC event. Currently there is no such thing as a ban from every ITC event unless every TO that uses the ITC pack decides independently to ban a particular player.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just to add, that second part highlights for me why more then 2 infractions is required for action is a bad policy, because it assumes every ITC event is organized and judged by a single body which it isn't
Peregrine wrote: The idea that cheating is only a point reduction or "correct it and keep playing" is a joke. Cheating, including an illegal list, should be an immediate DQ and removal from the event space. No playing, no watching your friends play, go sit in your hotel room and think about your failure. And in the case of multiple offenses it should be a blacklisting from all events. Stop going easy on cheaters and people will stop doing it.
Peri here is one of the most vocal about it. This was on page 3. You can review his other posts at your leisure.
What you just quoted is a sliding scale. At no point does he say one offense is immediate ban for all offenses. It's disqualification for that one event. He never says that person should never be allowed to compete in tournaments ever again. In fact, he states the exact opposite, that it should require multiple offenses before an actual ban takes place. So yeah, you are strawmanning and misrepresenting the points of others.
Peregrine wrote: The idea that cheating is only a point reduction or "correct it and keep playing" is a joke. Cheating, including an illegal list, should be an immediate DQ and removal from the event space. No playing, no watching your friends play, go sit in your hotel room and think about your failure. And in the case of multiple offenses it should be a blacklisting from all events. Stop going easy on cheaters and people will stop doing it.
Peri here is one of the most vocal about it. This was on page 3. You can review his other posts at your leisure.
What you just quoted is a sliding scale. At no point does he say one offense is immediate ban for all offenses. It's disqualification for that one event. He never says that person should never be allowed to compete in tournaments ever again. In fact, he states the exact opposite, that it should require multiple offenses before an actual ban takes place. So yeah, you are strawmanning and misrepresenting the points of others.
So, "removal from the event space. No playing, no watching your friends play, go sit in your hotel room" does not constitute a ban? A DQ does not prevent you from enjoying other areas of the event. Removal from the event space does.
Blacklisting is an entirely different situation from banning.
The real issue here isn't what I posted or how you perceived it.
Yet again in needs to be pointed out that this was his prescribed measure for BLATANT CHEATING... But sure keep ignoring inconvenient details like that, your doing great
I might agree that "removal from event space" may be a little too much (especially for cons which have multiple events going on, etc.) for only one infraction, but "it depends" is really an appropriate caveat here. The reaction of the player to any DQ may cause sufficient drama to warrant asking them to just leave.
DQ is totally warranted for illegal lists, IMO. Almost all events publish some kind of "bring a legal list of X points, 2 detachments, whatever", so not following that and showing up and expecting to still play is arrogant and asking for special treatment. For events without a pre-approval process for lists, I could see a TO giving some allowance of "oh, you're actually over a bit here, do a quick tweak to fix it and you're ok" and that would be ok IMO so long as it was done before any games with said list were played.
helgrenze wrote: So, "removal from the event space. No playing, no watching your friends play, go sit in your hotel room" does not constitute a ban? A DQ does not prevent you from enjoying other areas of the event. Removal from the event space does.
Blacklisting is an entirely different situation from banning.
Why should cheaters be allowed to enjoy other areas of the event? Why do you want cheaters to be welcome at all?
So, "removal from the event space. No playing, no watching your friends play, go sit in your hotel room" does not constitute a ban? A DQ does not prevent you from enjoying other areas of the event. Removal from the event space does.
Blacklisting is an entirely different situation from banning.
The real issue here isn't what I posted or how you perceived it.
Unfortunately it's pretty risky to remove someone from the tournament and not the event. That's how you getting mumring mobs and politics just outside your event space. what is a disreputable group is do but punish the event organizers by organizing thier own soapbox? That's what Team Happy is accusing people of right now and is what they are trying to do after the fact.
ChainswordHeretic wrote: Actually, it is 100% what you posted and the problem is how you are perceiving things. The other posters in this thread are doing just fine.
Yay! I must be one of the ones doing well! Thanks, ChainswordHeretic. <----- very light-heartedly intended. <3
Today, this happened:
Not only did a lot of our discussion win me over to replacing the blue hawks, but:
a. the scourges cheaper price than I originally thought (I said so myself!)
b. damned fragility and weight of the old models made me realize that I do not want to keep worrying about dropping them, when they are constantly Deep Struck on the edge.
c. and of course WYSIWYG for its own sake
*waits for the Slow Clap*
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Of course, each box only has one haywire blaster, so I'll be converting, snipping, and such, because it'd be 8 boxes before I'd be able to field 2 units with 4 HWs each, that's $200; so I can be 100% WYSIWYG modeling the haywire blasters.
Do you guys see how nuts that is?
"Yes, Casey, it is nuts, but it has been that way for all of GW's run. Take Devastator squads for example. You had to buy four boxes before you could field a matching 4 ML unit or 4 LasCan team. That's just the way it is. Unless you bought back in 4e, when single LasCan marines came in a clamp package."
That counter argument given, using some of the expressions you guys have used (not sarcastically, but demonstrating that I am trying to listen and internalize and accept your reasons), I am going to do my opponent the courtesy of time and conversion. I am looking at my many sprues of DE bits. There's no haywires there, but other guns that will 'come close' to make the unit look like they all have haywire. I hope she or he will see I was thinking of them, in the spirit that several of you have voiced. srsly
Still, I wonder, would an opponent know a haywire from a shredder from a heat lance from a shard carbine? Quiz, anybody? Not you Red Corsair, you already play DE so , no ringers!
You can help me keep score, though.
Answers:
Spoiler:
a. disintegrator cannon
b. shredder
c. haywire blaster
d. splinter rifle
e. blaster
f. splinter cannon
g. shard carbine
h. blast pistol
i. splinter pistol
j. dark lance
k. heat lance
I created the quiz to illustrate a point:
WYSIWYG or not, a lot of opponents won't know one of those guns from another. I wouldn't know and still don't, any of the Imperial Knights guns and what they do. I ask my opponents to recite the stats, and if I forget, I ask again, next turn.
Most players can only tell the weapons their own army(ies) uses and any really deadly ones of other armies that they regularly face (or faced in an epic manner). However if every Dark Elf player uses the same weapon visually it increases awareness and casual learning.
It also makes it easier to jog their memory when playing your army and they take a glance - ask you what it is - and instead of just telling them you are also half reminding them (if they've played against your faction before).
Consistency helps whilst inconsistency hurts.
This isn't going against conversions, but rather goes for using official parts in the right places (and if they are used wrong giving them some kind of alteration visually to try and help out note the difference from the normal).
How have you not bought tons and tons of scourge boxes until now! They are probably the best model in the DE Range, and one of GW's best bits for conversions! Scourge wings look fantastic on everything from Battle Sisters to Chaos Space Marines...
- All models are expected to be WYSIWYG to a reasonable standard. Exceptions will be made for themed units or armies.
(bullet item) Using a reasonable substitute to “Counts As” another model, does not violate our policy. Thus, subbing emo, aesthetic elves for Melnibonian sickies with flesh grafted wings. Swooping Hawks for scourges.
And now you know where I am coming from with my far looser interpretation of WYSIWYG. I am not trying to persuade you guys from eating the same protein biscuit as me and the other ITC folks. I'm just letting you know, that we butter our bread side down, over here, and it is just fine, hundreds of players accept this. Just take a look at how many players are on the ITC points lists.
And if I come to your side of town, and I must butter my bread side up (100% WYSIWYG), then I will do so. Happily.
Yay! I must be one of the ones doing well! Thanks, ChainswordHeretic. <----- very light-heartedly intended. <3
Actually you are! you are not misrepresenting anything and you are stating your opinions clearly, I am cool with that We do not have to agree on everything and to be honest it will be impossible in the context of a code of context for 40k tourneys as is evident from this thread.
akaean wrote: @Brothererekose
How have you not bought tons and tons of scourge boxes until now! They are probably the best model in the DE Range, and one of GW's best bits for conversions! Scourge wings look fantastic on everything from Battle Sisters to Chaos Space Marines...
I know, shameful, huh? But, I've only restarted DE for a month or so, not seriously since 5e.
Sigh. Wonder when people will stop pretending 40k is competive game. It's not. Never has bebn, never been. Using terms competive and 40k is huge joke and is direct cause for these problems.
Get rid of attitude that 40k is competive game, problem solved
tneva82 wrote: Sigh. Wonder when people will stop pretending 40k is competive game. It's not. Never has bebn, never been. Using terms competive and 40k is huge joke and is direct cause for these problems.
Get rid of attitude that 40k is competitive game, problem solved
That doesn't fix anything. Let's go with the marketing and say it's a friendly game.
"Did you know you were playing a list outside what the rulebook allows? That other guy didn't have a fair chance'
"Yeah, but it's ok it's a friendly game"
It comes done to playing someone and knowing they are going to deal with you fairly and that they can expect the same out of you. Dungeons and Dragons, one of the greater hobbies least competitive games still has floor rules and league rules to ensure a fair playing experience. Those are rules the community needed when the cheaters were normally on their side. Let that sink in.
tneva82 wrote: Sigh. Wonder when people will stop pretending 40k is competive game. It's not. Never has bebn, never been. Using terms competive and 40k is huge joke and is direct cause for these problems.
Get rid of attitude that 40k is competive game, problem solved
Any game can be played with a competitive mindset, regardless of whether or not it is “designed” to be competitive or not. (hell, even single player Pokemon Red/Blue has the competitive aspect of speed running for World Records etc)
I play for fun, but, when I go to events, I also up my game, tactics and lists as I see it as an opportunity to test myself and my skills against other people doing the same. In a sense, I get competitive, because I want to see whether or not I can win.
Now, I don’t go out and try to be a complete dick about it all, or try to game the system etc (Shock! Horror! Not everyone playing with a competitive attitude is That Guy!! – but sure, some are!) I still aim to ensure it is a good game for both players, even if it is a completely 1 sided smashfest.
Mindset is everything. It is just unfortunate that some people do not have the ability to control said mindset.
Now, whether you want to argue if tournaments should exist or not is a completely different subject, as there are just as many narrative tournament style events here in the UK as competitive ones. (well, maybe not now GW branched out into their GT Heats in addition to their narrative stuff). The events are still pitching players and teams against each other for the “glory of winning”, but, they do it with different rules in place and a different mindset around the event. It doesn’t mean it isn’t competitive though.
The game has changed since I originally played. Back then it was all about playing with mates at home, at the local GW or at a gaming group. Now days, those still but events have filled some of the gaps that were there originally. They give people a chance to go out and play people they’ve never met before, in a reasonable and fair environment, often outside of their local area. Before a big event, besides going to Warhammer World with mates, I’d never have chosen to travel to the next town’s GW store and just look for a game. However, after going to few events, I can now easily and happily travel around the UK to various groups and join in with their events and games over a weekend.
Being competitive isn’t bad. Everyone needs to accept that. Being unable to control yourself however, is where the problem lies. And that problem has nothing to do with the game itself.
tneva82 wrote: Sigh. Wonder when people will stop pretending 40k is competive game. It's not. Never has bebn, never been. Using terms competive and 40k is huge joke and is direct cause for these problems.
Get rid of attitude that 40k is competive game, problem solved
Any game can be played with a competitive mindset, regardless of whether or not it is “designed” to be competitive or not. (hell, even single player Pokemon Red/Blue has the competitive aspect of speed running for World Records etc)
I play for fun, but, when I go to events, I also up my game, tactics and lists as I see it as an opportunity to test myself and my skills against other people doing the same. In a sense, I get competitive, because I want to see whether or not I can win.
Not when "competitive" means changing fundamental rules the game wasn't designed around.
You can play Football casually or competitively, but if you insist "competitively" means both teams get equal time of ball possession, you're fundamentally changing the game into something it's not. Same with changing the scoring method from balls in the goal to some weird "football-recon" of needing to have players in pitch quarters or whatnot.
You might be able to play 40K competitively, but only if you'd accept, among many other things, that some armies/games/players simply take longer than others and 40K isn't a game designed or intended to finish in X amount of time with equal time for both players. It's just not in the DNA of that rule set. By definition, a competitive 40K tournament would need a schedule flexible enough to allow games to go "as long as they need to be" and players to take "as much time as their army needs". You cannot change that if you wanna play 40K, competitively or not.
Look at any 40K game on Warhammer Twitch if you want, any old 40K game from GW people, game designers, etc.. . In an Orks vs. Knight game. of course the Ork player needs 3 times as much time as the Knight players. That's 40K. In an Ork vs. Ork match, the game will wrap at the and of turn 2 in the same time as a Knight vs. Knight game might get to turn 7. That's 40K.
There's a disconnect or possibly double meaning of what "playing 40K competitively" means. I suppose as per your example, you can play 40K "intense and focussed like a professional", yes. But if "playing 40K competitively" means changing/adding rules like ITC missions or time requirements at odds with the game, you're gonna have to face the reality that these changes are largely incompatible with the core game they are trying to change.
The problem isn't that you cannot play 40K "competitively/focussed/professionally". The problem is that "40K competitively" has taken on the meaning of a bunch of house rules that seek to ease organisational matters for TOs (like having fixed time) which are, at the core, incompatible with the game itself.
tneva82 wrote: Sigh. Wonder when people will stop pretending 40k is competive game. It's not. Never has bebn, never been. Using terms competive and 40k is huge joke and is direct cause for these problems.
Get rid of attitude that 40k is competive game, problem solved
Any game can be played with a competitive mindset, regardless of whether or not it is “designed” to be competitive or not. (hell, even single player Pokemon Red/Blue has the competitive aspect of speed running for World Records etc)
I play for fun, but, when I go to events, I also up my game, tactics and lists as I see it as an opportunity to test myself and my skills against other people doing the same. In a sense, I get competitive, because I want to see whether or not I can win.
Not when "competitive" means changing fundamental rules the game wasn't designed around.
You can play Football casually or competitively, but if you insist "competitively" means both teams get equal time of ball possession, you're fundamentally changing the game into something it's not. Same with changing the scoring method from balls in the goal to some weird "football-recon" of needing to have players in pitch quarters or whatnot.
You might be able to play 40K competitively, but only if you'd accept, among many other things, that some armies/games/players simply take longer than others and 40K isn't a game designed or intended to finish in X amount of time with equal time for both players. It's just not in the DNA of that rule set. By definition, a competitive 40K tournament would need a schedule flexible enough to allow games to go "as long as they need to be" and players to take "as much time as their army needs". You cannot change that if you wanna play 40K, competitively or not.
Look at any 40K game on Warhammer Twitch if you want, any old 40K game from GW people, game designers, etc.. . In an Orks vs. Knight game. of course the Ork player needs 3 times as much time as the Knight players. That's 40K. In an Ork vs. Ork match, the game will wrap at the and of turn 2 in the same time as a Knight vs. Knight game might get to turn 7. That's 40K.
There's a disconnect or possibly double meaning of what "playing 40K competitively" means. I suppose as per your example, you can play 40K "intense and focussed like a professional", yes. But if "playing 40K competitively" means changing/adding rules like ITC missions or time requirements at odds with the game, you're gonna have to face the reality that these changes are largely incompatible with the core game they are trying to change.
The problem isn't that you cannot play 40K "competitively/focussed/professionally". The problem is that "40K competitively" has taken on the meaning of a bunch of house rules that seek to ease organisational matters for TOs (like having fixed time) which are, at the core, incompatible with the game itself.
You really have a problem with chess clocks, don’t you? :/
“competitive” 40k isn’t changing any of the core rules of the game, or how things work. Sure, the mission format might be slightly different to the rulebook missions, but, that is a thing welcomed by GW and brings different experiences to the game. Sure, it can alter how a player approaches the game or what people add to their lists, but it isn’t fundamentally changing the game. You still follow the rules as normal, just the player "objectives" are different.
You also can’t compare 40k to football or any other team based “real time” sport. 40k is a game built around “I go, you go”. If I was able to always pull a Ynnari on you and interrupt you with a move of my own after you activate 1 unit, then, yes, we could start to draw comparisons, but, until I have the ability to “tackle you and take control of possession” then the comparison can’t be made.
As for chess clocks – that is a completely different discussion and is being implemented as a solution to a bigger problem. As highlighted in all the other threads arguing the pros and cons of chess clocks – as you well know.
Please stop comparing a timed event to a game streamed live on the Warhammer Community twitch channel. It is COMPLETELY different, and even GW bend the rules of their own events when streaming tournament games.
When GW streams one of their own tournaments, they do, and have on countless occasions, allow the players on the stream to continue playing after time has been called, if they are in a position to either naturally finish the game, or have only got to something like turn 3 – giving the players 1 extra turn to ensure a more “reasonable” game length.
As for all the other games they stream, they are NOT event games and they do not have a hard set cut off point. Plenty of their games over run on time, that is why they have such big time frames for each of their game sections. They are not on a time constraint (well, within reason) and they are playing for fun. No-one playing in a normal game (like they are doing on the stream) cares about whether or not 1 player is taking twice as long as the other, because it doesn’t matter. They still play to the NATURAL conclusion of the game.
As for GW event games going forward, we can see they are already trying different approaches to the ITC in an attempt to fix the same problem of games not ending on time. Their current option is to cut the points from 2000 to 1750. If that doesn’t bring the desired effect, you might see them start looking at timing players more as well.
Houserules? If you consider having a game length set at 3 hours, because the event needs to be ran fairly and within 2 days, then I’m a little bit confused. Sure, in a perfect world, 70 players playing 5 games could be played in “as long as it needs”, but, unfortunately that is not reasonable or practical for anyone involved. I am travelling up to an event after work today, starting tomorrow morning and ending Sunday afternoon. After which I need to spend 2-3 hours driving home, get everything sorted and then be ready to leave my house again for 6am Monday morning for work. If the event allowed players to just play until the end regardless of time, then, I’d have serious doubts about attending unless I could book the Monday off work as a holiday.
The ITC missions are house rules, I accept that – but, as I said above, they aren’t changing the fundamentals of the base game. Yes they have an impact on the event and the game, but, you are still playing 40k. Just because they aren’t listed in the rulebook or chapter approved, doesn’t mean they are “bad” or mean you aren’t playing 40k. GW’s GT heats and finals use everything straight from CA and the Rulebook. Does that make their events more “competitive” or a more “pure” form of competitive play than the ITC in your view?
The only other ITC house rule is that ground floor ruins block LoS. Personally, I, and thousands of others, accept this and think it is good for the game. Terrain is far from standard across every event and every table at each event. I also don’t think GW sells a piece of terrain that actually doesn’t have a window, hole or gap in it giving you LoS to whatever is “hiding”/”waiting” within in ambush. To me, it is one of the biggest flaws of GW terrain and their current core rules. If by using a recognised and publicly accepted house rule as a fix to this big CORE RULES issue, is bad for the game, then, quite frankly I’m not going to let it bother me and carry on using it anyway.
Most games I play, competitive or not, end within 3 hours. Most event games I play end with around 30 minutes to spare (some cases they end after turn 1 like a fair amount of game 5 games did at the LGT). Every so often, a game I am playing will run to time, usually somewhere between turns 4 and 5. That said, I’ve not had the dubious honour of playing the guy with 250 infantry models. The most i’ve played against was about 150-160ish, and we still managed to end on time.
Yes, playing with 250 Orks within a set time limit can be extremely challenging. But, as it has been said countless times by horde players on here (yes take with some salt) that it is possible to finish games with hordes on time.
Finally, going to an event is your own personal choice. You know the rules and limits beforehand. You plan around that. If you know that it will be using chess clocks as part of the “solve slow play and games not finishing” test project, then, you know you’ll have 1.5 hours or so to play your turns. If you then know you can’t play your 250 orks in 1.5 hours, then, either, don’t go to the event, take a slightly different ork list or still go with the 250 orks knowing and accepting that you’re not going to get your full amount of turns in and are going to be at a disadvantage in the latter stages of the game. Please stop trying to say that because a person’s choice of army LIST (not overall army, but LIST) is not particularly viable in a normal tournament situation, makes the game not competitive or “not suitable” for events.
I have no problem playing vs a horde list at a timed event. With or without chess clocks. No problem at all, as long as they are reasonable in their approach to time and the overall game. What I do have a problem with though, is not being able to have a fair conclusion to a game because we only managed to get 1 or 2 turns in. What is worse for the game? Getting to turn 2, or having an equal share of the time?
Yes, playing with 250 Orks within a set time limit can be extremely challenging. But, as it has been said countless times by horde players on here (yes take with some salt) that it is possible to finish games with hordes on time.
Finally, going to an event is your own personal choice. You know the rules and limits beforehand. You plan around that. If you know that it will be using chess clocks as part of the “solve slow play and games not finishing” test project, then, you know you’ll have 1.5 hours or so to play your turns. If you then know you can’t play your 250 orks in 1.5 hours, then, either, don’t go to the event, take a slightly different ork list or still go with the 250 orks knowing and accepting that you’re not going to get your full amount of turns in and are going to be at a disadvantage in the latter stages of the game. Please stop trying to say that because a person’s choice of army LIST (not overall army, but LIST) is not particularly viable in a normal tournament situation, makes the game not competitive or “not suitable” for events.
Again, you're conflating individual responsibility of players to stick to event rules (or the choice to not go to the event) and the discussion on whether the event rules make sense.
If the event requires you to wear a cowboy hat all the time, yes, it's the players responsibility to bring such a hat if they decide to go to this event (or opt to not attend). But that doesn't impinge in any way on the discussion if a rule requirement cowboy hats makes sense and/or improves the play-experience for everyone in the first place.
And there is no more fundamental or "core" change to the game than changing the win-conditions of a mission. If you change who wins or loses a game from a BRB mission to an ITC mission, it'll affect 100% of games played directly in who wins and who loses.
If, by contrast, you remove the psychic phase from the game or whatever, it'll affect maybe 60-70% of games and armies at best, for example, and the win/lose conditions much more indirectly. It'd be a much more minor change to the game all things considered.
Yes, playing with 250 Orks within a set time limit can be extremely challenging. But, as it has been said countless times by horde players on here (yes take with some salt) that it is possible to finish games with hordes on time.
Finally, going to an event is your own personal choice. You know the rules and limits beforehand. You plan around that. If you know that it will be using chess clocks as part of the “solve slow play and games not finishing” test project, then, you know you’ll have 1.5 hours or so to play your turns. If you then know you can’t play your 250 orks in 1.5 hours, then, either, don’t go to the event, take a slightly different ork list or still go with the 250 orks knowing and accepting that you’re not going to get your full amount of turns in and are going to be at a disadvantage in the latter stages of the game. Please stop trying to say that because a person’s choice of army LIST (not overall army, but LIST) is not particularly viable in a normal tournament situation, makes the game not competitive or “not suitable” for events.
Again, you're conflating individual responsibility of players to stick to event rules (or the choice to not go to the event) and the discussion on whether the event rules make sense.
If the event requires you to wear a cowboy hat all the time, yes, it's the players responsibility to bring such a hat if they decide to go to this event (or opt to not attend). But that doesn't impinge in any way on the discussion if a rule requirement cowboy hats makes sense and/or improves the play-experience for everyone in the first place.
And there is no more fundamental or "core" change to the game than changing the win-conditions of a mission. If you change who wins or loses a game from a BRB mission to an ITC mission, it'll affect 100% of games played directly in who wins and who loses.
If, by contrast, you remove the psychic phase from the game or whatever, it'll affect maybe 60-70% of games and armies at best, for example, and the win/lose conditions much more indirectly. It'd be a much more minor change to the game all things considered.
How does having a necessary time limit on games at a 2 day event not make sense? Wearing a cowboy hat is like some of the old, original AoS rules – like “pretend you’re riding a horse and you get full re-rolls for a turn”. Completely stupid, I agree and have no positive impact on the game, but, they are also completely different to setting 3 hours per game. People need to stop thinking that the event or the rules are “out to get them personally”. Player choice has so much more of an impact on their own experiences at events, than the TO setting a time limit on a game due to logistics and practicality. As I said, in a perfect world time limits wouldn’t be a factor, but unfortunately that’ll never happen unless we move to 3 games over 2 days and the support in place to allow players than finish after 1 hour to be notified of their next game 4-5 hours later when the final horde v horde game has finished.
Changing how a mission is won has nothing to do with the core rules that allow you to play the game in order to win the mission.
The ITC missions do not change the core rules, the phases of play, codex rules, unit rules, stratagems etc etc. It’s like saying, the Chapter Approved Missions fundamentally changed the game because they changed how to win a mission compared to the 8th edition Rulebook.
The mission is essentially an “end goal” of a game of 40k. Each and every mission from GW and ITC change the “end goal”. You still go about getting there in the same way. Just because you get points for killing a unit of 10 models, rather than a guaranteed first blood or linebreaker, doesn’t mean the game is fundamentally different.
How does having a necessary time limit on games at a 2 day event not make sense?
Maybe it makes sense. Maybe not. That's not the question. Point is, it's not what the game is designed to do and adding that requirement is a fundamental change to the "core" of the game.
At the very least, logic would imply that it will not simply "work" without some complementary changes to the game engine.
If ITC, ATC or somebody else can make a game better than 40K, I am all for it. But it's a change that'll require some fundamental game-design re-thinking. You can't just slap chess clocks and timing requirements on nilly willy and presume it'll fly like it's meant to do that.
Changing how a mission is won has nothing to do with the core rules that allow you to play the game in order to win the mission.
The ITC missions do not change the core rules, the phases of play, codex rules, unit rules, stratagems etc etc. It’s like saying, the Chapter Approved Missions fundamentally changed the game because they changed how to win a mission compared to the 8th edition Rulebook.
The mission is essentially an “end goal” of a game of 40k. Each and every mission from GW and ITC change the “end goal”. You still go about getting there in the same way. Just because you get points for killing a unit of 10 models, rather than a guaranteed first blood or linebreaker, doesn’t mean the game is fundamentally different.
Sure it is. Especially if you put it into context with the "time discussion above". A BRB mission like The Relic can easily be scored at the end of turn 2. This is crucial, since, as discussed, 40K out of the box doesn't require you to play to turn 6 always in time X. It's not meant to do that. Changing that to ITC "missions" which require to play to turn 5 to make sense when the game itself doesn't support that design goal (prior to changes) means there'll be tensions and problems where the changed rules (or "end goals" .. how is the end goal not the core of the game? That's like saying scoring goals isn't "core" to football or crossing the finishing line as fast as possible isn't the "core" of a track race?) do not work well with the engine that drives the game.
Yes, playing with 250 Orks within a set time limit can be extremely challenging. But, as it has been said countless times by horde players on here (yes take with some salt) that it is possible to finish games with hordes on time.
Finally, going to an event is your own personal choice. You know the rules and limits beforehand. You plan around that. If you know that it will be using chess clocks as part of the “solve slow play and games not finishing” test project, then, you know you’ll have 1.5 hours or so to play your turns. If you then know you can’t play your 250 orks in 1.5 hours, then, either, don’t go to the event, take a slightly different ork list or still go with the 250 orks knowing and accepting that you’re not going to get your full amount of turns in and are going to be at a disadvantage in the latter stages of the game. Please stop trying to say that because a person’s choice of army LIST (not overall army, but LIST) is not particularly viable in a normal tournament situation, makes the game not competitive or “not suitable” for events.
Again, you're conflating individual responsibility of players to stick to event rules (or the choice to not go to the event) and the discussion on whether the event rules make sense.
If the event requires you to wear a cowboy hat all the time, yes, it's the players responsibility to bring such a hat if they decide to go to this event (or opt to not attend). But that doesn't impinge in any way on the discussion if a rule requirement cowboy hats makes sense and/or improves the play-experience for everyone in the first place.
And there is no more fundamental or "core" change to the game than changing the win-conditions of a mission. If you change who wins or loses a game from a BRB mission to an ITC mission, it'll affect 100% of games played directly in who wins and who loses.
If, by contrast, you remove the psychic phase from the game or whatever, it'll affect maybe 60-70% of games and armies at best, for example, and the win/lose conditions much more indirectly. It'd be a much more minor change to the game all things considered.
The number of players affected by a change is completely different to the effect of the change on balance. You've created a false dichotomy by comparing missions to a phase of the game. Changing the missions affects everyone but, hypothetically, if those missions are perfectly balanced it affects everyone equally so there is no effect on the balance of the game. Removing a phase from the game (let's say the movement phase) affects the same number of people. It's effect on balance is not equal.
Your comparisons to other sports/games are flawed for other reasons but since I just had to explain the rather obvious problem with your other. You seem to have some problem with chess clocks, which isn't what's being discussed here so I wonder why you bring it up.
Kdash wrote: How does having a necessary time limit on games at a 2 day event not make sense?
Maybe it makes sense. Maybe not. That's not the question.
It totally makes sense, SunnySideUp; Chess clocks address and solve a key problem, Slow Play. Care to write a syllogism why it doesn't?
Sunny Side Up wrote: Point is, it's not what the game is designed to do and adding that requirement is a fundamental change to the "core" of the game.
At the very least, logic would imply that it will not simply "work" without some complementary changes to the game engine.
And from GW itself, there are matched play rules, designed for tourneys. This logic you have claimed that is doesn't work is refuted by:
a. Warmachine's successful chess clock use. And Warmachine is not an Apples to Oranges analogy to 40k, like M:tG, which is too far off base. The analogy works and so do chess clocks.
b. GW had, and continues, to reach out to the community for 8e's development. They have their Facebook page to take player input. They consulted extensively with FLG and others as 8e was being written.The upshot? 8e *has* GW writing and continuing to adapt to tourney player & organizer input.
Sunny Side Up wrote: If ITC, ATC or somebody else can make a game better than 40K, I am all for it. But it's a change that'll require some fundamental game-design re-thinking. You can't just slap chess clocks and timing requirements on nilly willy and presume it'll fly like it's meant to do that.
Actually, that is exactly what chess clocks do. And what do you think the ITC *has* been doing for several years? I'll tell you:
a. they modified and eventually created new missions that work better in a tourney setting. And these are constantly being reviewed and improved
b. When GW gave up in 4e's time on having tourneys (The Los Angeles - Westminster Battle bunker closed about then, right?) Calif seemed a tourney waste land. Nothing happening. Then, sometime in 5e's waning days, if I've got the timing right, GE Pasadena started a monthly RTT (I was there!). And someone started a little yearly gig called the Bay Area Open.
And from GW itself, there are matched play rules, designed for tourneys. This logic you have claimed that is doesn't work is refuted by:
a. Warmachine's successful chess clock use. And Warmachine is not an Apples to Oranges analogy to 40k, like M:tG, which is too far off base. The analogy works and so do chess clocks.
b. GW had, and continues, to reach out to the community for 8e's development. They have their Facebook page to take player input. They consulted extensively with FLG and others as 8e was being written.The upshot? 8e *has* GW writing and continuing to adapt to tourney player & organizer input.
Indeed. And based on all that, they have clearly shown through their own tournaments how to avoid/discourage/penalise ATC style problems and/or the problem of not enough games reaching their natural conclusion within the time frame set for most tournaments. 1750 points + sportsmanship and army presentation scores with significant and tangible impact on the tournament score.
Yet FLG/ITC appear almost principally opposed to follow what GW implemented as their conclusion after that process of deliberation involving, yes, FLG, but also hundreds of other sources, thousands of gamers in stores, their own social networks, etc.., etc.. as you noted.
Hard to make the case that ITC is working in sync or in the spirit of GW's design if their actions are the exact opposite.
Not when "competitive" means changing fundamental rules the game wasn't designed around.
You can play Football casually or competitively, but if you insist "competitively" means both teams get equal time of ball possession, you're fundamentally changing the game into something it's not. Same with changing the scoring method from balls in the goal to some weird "football-recon" of needing to have players in pitch quarters or whatnot.
You might be able to play 40K competitively, but only if you'd accept, among many other things, that some armies/games/players simply take longer than others and 40K isn't a game designed or intended to finish in X amount of time with equal time for both players. It's just not in the DNA of that rule set. By definition, a competitive 40K tournament would need a schedule flexible enough to allow games to go "as long as they need to be" and players to take "as much time as their army needs". You cannot change that if you wanna play 40K, competitively or not.
Look at any 40K game on Warhammer Twitch if you want, any old 40K game from GW people, game designers, etc.. . In an Orks vs. Knight game. of course the Ork player needs 3 times as much time as the Knight players. That's 40K. In an Ork vs. Ork match, the game will wrap at the and of turn 2 in the same time as a Knight vs. Knight game might get to turn 7. That's 40K.
There's a disconnect or possibly double meaning of what "playing 40K competitively" means. I suppose as per your example, you can play 40K "intense and focussed like a professional", yes. But if "playing 40K competitively" means changing/adding rules like ITC missions or time requirements at odds with the game, you're gonna have to face the reality that these changes are largely incompatible with the core game they are trying to change.
The problem isn't that you cannot play 40K "competitively/focussed/professionally". The problem is that "40K competitively" has taken on the meaning of a bunch of house rules that seek to ease organisational matters for TOs (like having fixed time) which are, at the core, incompatible with the game itself.
I've been over the BRB several times and I don't see anything that indicates that 40k is supposed to be an asynchronously timed game. Not even comments in the 'horde' codexes that you should expect to take a larger share of the game from your opponent. The closest is CA's apcolypse rules, which warn about the need to prearrange such long play times as they go well beyond the 'normal' scope of a 40k game.
I get it. Change is scary and it's hard to say where this wave of dangerous gamer liberalism will end. Next they'll want to be able to marry dice and the government will tax your ITC points on behalf of newbs.
Let me ask this: Have you actually tried playing with a chess clock? I have in both 40k and WMH and found my performance as a player vastly improved by the constraint. I spent less time dithering about staticly unlikely outcomes, stopped fretting about whether my 'gaunt blob was three figures deep or four if I wasn't in combat, and instead focused on the important tactical picture.
And Hell, if my plastic D6s wanna get hitched to my metal ones I won't stand in the way.
Actually, that is exactly what chess clocks do. And what do you think the ITC *has* been doing for several years? I'll tell you:
a. they modified and eventually created new missions that work better in a tourney setting. And these are constantly being reviewed and improved
b. When GW gave up in 4e's time on having tourneys (The Los Angeles - Westminster Battle bunker closed about then, right?) Calif seemed a tourney waste land. Nothing happening. Then, sometime in 5e's waning days, if I've got the timing right, GE Pasadena started a monthly RTT (I was there!). And someone started a little yearly gig called the Bay Area Open.
To help the tourney scene.
Except it's not working very well, is it? Otherwise we wouldn't have all those LVO/ATC "scandals" or the big witch-hunt for "slow players" for an issue that isn"t even a problem in the base game, not least because the ITC missions throw up so many more timing problems than the BRB/CA missions (with timing just being one example, of course... many more places where ITC creates unintended balance problems such as their bias towards field control, for example, which they don't account for with, for example, increased points for troops and infiltrators, which clearly have a buff/more important role in ITC.. etc.., etc.. )
Let me ask this: Have you actually tried playing with a chess clock? I have in both 40k and WMH and found my performance as a player vastly improved by the constraint. I spent less time dithering about staticly unlikely outcomes, stopped fretting about whether my 'gaunt blob was three figures deep or four if I wasn't in combat, and instead focused on the important tactical picture.
And Hell, if my plastic D6s wanna get hitched to my metal ones I won't stand in the way.
Yes. I love playing with chess clocks, if you're playing with armies of roughly equal time-intensity and/or players of comparable skill/experience.
I'd love to see chess clocks done right. But to make them work for 40K, there're knock-on effects that need to be considered and changed as well to keep things balanced. Setting a hard limit on model count, possibly simplifying time-intensive rules like CC for the competitive games to get a more even field there, etc.., etc..
I know, change is scary. It's scary precisely because it doesn't happen in a vacuum and creates "ripples' in an interwoven rules system like 40K that need to be addressed or it'll throw balance out of whack.
Likewise, if "professionalisation" is something the competitive scene strifes for, you probably need to tier off and create different "leagues" or "tiers' of players for events like the LVO/Adepticon/etc.. instead of having 12-year old Timmy with his first Dark Imperium starter box looking to have some fun and Nick Nanavati in the same pool. Or perhaps a golf-style handicap system. Or something. It just doesn't make sense in the current form and it WILL create problems, always.
I attend ITC tourneys. I think they go great. That's why I'm leaving in 90 minutes to go to BAO. My 6th BAO. I have never done better than 4 - 2. I go for fun and I keep going because the event is well run.
I was at LVO, and while driving back to LA, my buddy had the twitch broadcast on his phone, so I had a play-by-play when T.G. wouldn't let his opponent continue movement after placing some Deep Striking dudes. That has nothing to do with GW's rules nor ITC's.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Except it's not working very well, is it? Otherwise we wouldn't have all those LVO/ATC "scandals" or the big witch-hunt for "slow players" for
This is what Fox News does. "Look! 60,000 Americans died in crashes this year. Thanks, Obama!" None of these problems can be laid at the feet of the tourney changes to the game.
Sunny Side Up wrote: an issue that isn"t even a problem in the base game, not least because the ITC missions throw up so many more timing problems than the BRB/CA missions (with timing just being one example, of course... many more places where ITC creates unintended balance problems such as their bias towards field control, for example, which they don't account for with, for example, increased points for troops and infiltrators, which clearly have a buff/more important role in ITC.. etc.., etc.. )
Do you actually attend tourneys? And, do you have some solutions for missions or tourney play?
ChargerIIC wrote: Let me ask this: Have you actually tried playing with a chess clock? I have in both 40k and WMH and found my performance as a player vastly improved by the constraint. I spent less time dithering about staticly unlikely outcomes, stopped fretting about whether my 'gaunt blob was three figures deep or four if I wasn't in combat, and instead focused on the important tactical picture.
And Hell, if my plastic D6s wanna get hitched to my metal ones I won't stand in the way.
Yes. I love playing with chess clocks, if you're playing with armies of roughly equal time-intensity and/or players of comparable skill/experience.
I'd love to see chess clocks done right. But to make them work for 40K, there're knock-on effects that need to be considered and changed as well to keep things balanced. Setting a hard limit on model count, possibly simplifying time-intensive rules like CC for the competitive games to get a more even field there, etc.., etc..
I know, change is scary. It's scary precisely because it doesn't happen in a vacuum and creates "ripples' in an interwoven rules system like 40K that need to be addressed or it'll throw balance out of whack.
Then write some rules and present. Be a part of the solution, not just a complainer on a forum.
Then write some rules and present. Be a part of the solution, not just a complainer on a forum.
Why not? Making people aware of things not working well like ITC chess clock rules is a good thing. Certainly more productive than going full FLG-scientology and trying to drown out any and all criticism of their output with a deluge of ass-kissing and "whatever they do is perfect" that makes no contribution whatsoever.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Yes. I love playing with chess clocks, if you're playing with armies of roughly equal time-intensity and/or players of comparable skill/experience.
I'd love to see chess clocks done right. But to make them work for 40K, there're knock-on effects that need to be considered and changed as well to keep things balanced.
Chess clocks of any flavor are automatically done "right". If you want to play a horde slowly, and you lose to time, too bad for you. Learn to play faster, or play smarter, or play quicker.
We used chess clocks a lot in Warmachine initially, then in WWX when I was doing that. And frankly, I can't see any reason not to use chess clocks in events.
The arguments of "but it's not fair to horde armies" is a weak one IMO, as my answer there is either "don't bring a horde army to a timed event then" or "then have a damn plan and know what you're doing." I have personally seen large model count armies do just fine in chess-clocked games (in fact, have seen non-horde armies wind up losing due to running out their own time against horde armies who used their time wisely).
If you want to play competitively, at events with certain types of restrictions, then you need to plan for that environment and know how to run your army in that situation; the event does not need to change to accommodate you.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Yes. I love playing with chess clocks, if you're playing with armies of roughly equal time-intensity and/or players of comparable skill/experience.
I'd love to see chess clocks done right. But to make them work for 40K, there're knock-on effects that need to be considered and changed as well to keep things balanced.
Chess clocks of any flavor are automatically done "right". If you want to play a horde slowly, and you lose to time, too bad for you. Learn to play faster, or play smarter, or play quicker.
tl;dr = "git gud"
Is the intent of using chess clocks to enforce that both players use the same amount of time or is it to enforce the game concluding in a set amount of time? I don't see why players using the same amount of time is relevant. If the goal is to complete a full game of 4 turns in 3 hours and two players manage to do that but one player uses 2 hours of time to complete their 4 turns and the other player uses 1 hour of time to complete their 4 turns is that a problem? Different players using different armies can take different amounts of time to complete a turn without wasting time/slow playing so forcing all players to complete their turns in the same amount of time seems like an artificial constriction to me.
If games need to finish within a set timeframe then tournament rules should assess a penalty to both players for failing to complete the required amount of turns within the required amount of time. The focus should be on completing the game not equalizing time used by each player, no?
JohnHwangDD wrote: Chess clocks of any flavor are automatically done "right". If you want to play a horde slowly, and you lose to time, too bad for you. Learn to play faster, or play smarter, or play quicker.
tl;dr = "git gud"
Is the intent of using chess clocks to enforce that both players use the same amount of time or is it to enforce the game concluding in a set amount of time? I don't see why players using the same amount of time is relevant. If the goal is to complete a full game of 4 turns in 3 hours and two players manage to do that but one player uses 2 hours of time to complete their 4 turns and the other player uses 1 hour of time to complete their 4 turns is that a problem?
The intent is to ensure that both players get to play ALL of their turns within the allotted time. The fair way to do that is via a chess clock, so that a slow player cannot force the other player to rush their turns.
If you waste your time, too bad. You simply pass your turns. No move, no saves, nothing. Auto-fail.
Prestor Jon wrote: If the goal is to complete a full game of 4 turns in 3 hours and two players manage to do that but one player uses 2 hours of time to complete their 4 turns and the other player uses 1 hour of time to complete their 4 turns is that a problem?
It's a problem because if the player who requires 2 hours is matched against a player who requires their full 1.5 hours the game will not finish. You can't count on the other player being faster than average so that you get to have more than 50% of the time. So by taking more than 50% of the time you're saying that you feel entitled to more than your share and would rather not finish the game than stay within the limit.
(Now, chess clocks do have some major problems with the logistics of implementing them in a game that doesn't clearly define "active player", but the principle of a 50/50 split is not one of those problems.)
ChainswordHeretic wrote: Actually, it is 100% what you posted and the problem is how you are perceiving things. The other posters in this thread are doing just fine.
Yay! I must be one of the ones doing well! Thanks, ChainswordHeretic. <----- very light-heartedly intended. <3
Today, this happened:
Not only did a lot of our discussion win me over to replacing the blue hawks, but:
a. the scourges cheaper price than I originally thought (I said so myself!)
b. damned fragility and weight of the old models made me realize that I do not want to keep worrying about dropping them, when they are constantly Deep Struck on the edge.
c. and of course WYSIWYG for its own sake
*waits for the Slow Clap*
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Of course, each box only has one haywire blaster, so I'll be converting, snipping, and such, because it'd be 8 boxes before I'd be able to field 2 units with 4 HWs each, that's $200; so I can be 100% WYSIWYG modeling the haywire blasters.
Do you guys see how nuts that is?
"Yes, Casey, it is nuts, but it has been that way for all of GW's run. Take Devastator squads for example. You had to buy four boxes before you could field a matching 4 ML unit or 4 LasCan team. That's just the way it is. Unless you bought back in 4e, when single LasCan marines came in a clamp package."
That counter argument given, using some of the expressions you guys have used (not sarcastically, but demonstrating that I am trying to listen and internalize and accept your reasons), I am going to do my opponent the courtesy of time and conversion. I am looking at my many sprues of DE bits. There's no haywires there, but other guns that will 'come close' to make the unit look like they all have haywire. I hope she or he will see I was thinking of them, in the spirit that several of you have voiced. srsly
Still, I wonder, would an opponent know a haywire from a shredder from a heat lance from a shard carbine? Quiz, anybody? Not you Red Corsair, you already play DE so , no ringers!
You can help me keep score, though.
Answers:
Spoiler:
a. disintegrator cannon
b. shredder
c. haywire blaster
d. splinter rifle
e. blaster
f. splinter cannon
g. shard carbine
h. blast pistol
i. splinter pistol
j. dark lance
k. heat lance
I created the quiz to illustrate a point:
WYSIWYG or not, a lot of opponents won't know one of those guns from another. I wouldn't know and still don't, any of the Imperial Knights guns and what they do. I ask my opponents to recite the stats, and if I forget, I ask again, next turn.
A. Disintegration cannon
B. Shredder
C. Haywire
D. Splinter rifle
E. Blaster
F. Splinter cannon
G. Shard carbine
H. Blaster pistol
I. splinter Pistol
J. Dark Lance
K. Heat lance
Not trying to prove anything, i just like quizzes lol
Sunny Side Up wrote: Yes. I love playing with chess clocks, if you're playing with armies of roughly equal time-intensity and/or players of comparable skill/experience.
I'd love to see chess clocks done right. But to make them work for 40K, there're knock-on effects that need to be considered and changed as well to keep things balanced.
Chess clocks of any flavor are automatically done "right". If you want to play a horde slowly, and you lose to time, too bad for you. Learn to play faster, or play smarter, or play quicker.
tl;dr = "git gud"
What happens when the meq opponent of that horde player wanted to shoot a giant mob of figs that charged his
3 model remnant unit and should have wiped them out if there had been time to resolve the close combat? Instead of being able to fire on them on his turn, they'll instead resolve the combat on his turn and move forward again with impunity. Sure, you could have the option of allowing the opponent to take it out of his block but that might not allow him to do what he wants then and is punishing the wrong player.
Don't get me wrong...I'm intrigued by the idea of adding chess clocks to tourney 40k but they're not a magic bullet for slow play issues as your git gud post suggests.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Yes. I love playing with chess clocks, if you're playing with armies of roughly equal time-intensity and/or players of comparable skill/experience.
I'd love to see chess clocks done right. But to make them work for 40K, there're knock-on effects that need to be considered and changed as well to keep things balanced.
Chess clocks of any flavor are automatically done "right". If you want to play a horde slowly, and you lose to time, too bad for you. Learn to play faster, or play smarter, or play quicker.
tl;dr = "git gud"
What happens when the meq opponent of that horde player wanted to shoot a giant mob of figs that charged his 3 model remnant unit and should have wiped them out if there had been time to resolve the close combat? Instead of being able to fire on them on his turn, they'll instead resolve the combat on his turn and move forward again with impunity. Sure, you could have the option of allowing the opponent to take it out of his block but that might not allow him to do what he wants then and is punishing the wrong player.
I'm not sure you understand how chess clocks work. If the active Ork player runs out of time during their charge, and the MEQ player still has time, the correct resolution is that the clock shifts to the MEQ player, who then does his shooting. The Ork player is out of time, so passes the rest of their turn(s), doing NOTHING except pulling models from the table during the MEQ player's turn. The MEQ player then plays out his turn(s) against a Dummy, who auto-fails Saves and Morale (no time to roll them).
Note that the clock shifted to the Ork player when he interrupted the MEQ player's turn in order to shoot ALL his Boyz at the charging Assault Marines. It also shifted to the Ork player when he rolled his Attacks and Saves. Basically, whenever you're done with our actions, you hit it, and the clock passes to your opponent to roll dice, etc. It's not the entire turn. If you interrupt your opponent, it's your clock that ticks. If you want to spend a LOT of time interrupting your opponent's turn to roll a ton of 5+ shooting dice for 3+ wounds, that's on you. Opponent then gets the clock back when he rolls 3+ saves.
My implementation of "out of time" intends to be maximally punishing to the player who runs out of time, verging on automatic loss, except the player who still has time still has to play out their turns to grab objectives, etc.
I'm not sure you understand how chess clocks work. If the active Ork player runs out of time during their charge, and the MEQ player still has time, the correct resolution is that the clock shifts to the MEQ player, who then does his shooting. The Ork player is out of time, so passes the rest of their turn(s), doing NOTHING except pulling models from the table during the MEQ player's turn. The MEQ player then plays out his turn(s) against a Dummy, who auto-fails Saves and Morale (no time to roll them).
Note that the clock shifted to the Ork player when he interrupted the MEQ player's turn in order to shoot ALL his Boyz at the charging Assault Marines. It also shifted to the Ork player when he rolled his Attacks and Saves. Basically, whenever you're done with our actions, you hit it, and the clock passes to your opponent to roll dice, etc. It's not the entire turn. If you interrupt your opponent, it's your clock that ticks. If you want to spend a LOT of time interrupting your opponent's turn to roll a ton of 5+ shooting dice for 3+ wounds, that's on you. Opponent then gets the clock back when he rolls 3+ saves.
My implementation of "out of time" intends to be maximally punishing to the player who runs out of time, verging on automatic loss, except the player who still has time still has to play out their turns to grab objectives, etc.
Yeah, that's not what I was thinking. I was considering it a simple player turn timer and not a timer that flips back and forth for each player's actions in every phase of every turn (would that be an individual allotment for each phase/turn or just one pool for the entire game?). Feel free to PM me with any response so as not to further distract from the thread.
Brothererekose wrote: Then write some rules and present. Be a part of the solution, not just a complainer on a forum.
Why not? Making people aware of things not working well like ITC chess clock rules is a good thing.
I believe you are operating on mistaken assumptions:
a. that "Making people aware of things not working well" on a forum "is a good thing".
It is not. My experience tells me that attending those events, giving feedback directly to the organizers, and having your local community work out problems *actually* solves problems, not just in 40k, but in the world. Complaining about governments in forums goes nowhere. Run for office, help run a campaign to out an official, elect one, help write a law ... etc.
I understand that coming up with solutions is a far more difficult task than simply complaining, and not every one has the mindset to do this. <----- srsly, not meant to be a passive-aggressive backhand, but most people lack the guts to go into a confrontation to solve tense problems.
It's been a few days, and I don't know how far back those posts were, but I moved to have a bad player banned from my store, not by complaining about him, but by rallying the others into speaking/communicating directly to the TO, and even organizing a 2nd tourney in case he would show up, so he would be by himself, and the rest of us would have a 3 round RTT. However much credit I try to claim, he was still banned.
b. that chess clocks don't work.
I'm gonna let that little chessnut just lie there.
Lastly, is your dakka nation flag is Germany's? Are you in the states playing ITC or are you a non-ITC player?
about following the rules, whether through deliberate cheating or simply not bothering to try, and DQing them is the correct response.
). Sure, a 
