But twitch chat is invisible to the players.

It should be allowed, IMHO, for spectators to freely discuss cheating/rules mistakes among themselves without player knowledge.

The fact that this isn't allowed is telling. Like rather than using it as a lesson a'la "looks like chat is right, don't do this at home kids" the stream hosts seem to say "it's fine, it's all fine, and any news to the contrary is a bannable offense"

Yeah, endlessly discussing potential rules violations or incorrect rulings is a key part of any spectator sport.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yeah, endlessly discussing potential rules violations or incorrect rulings is a key part of any spectator sport.

Yep. Discussing whether or not the Immaculate Reception was actually legal or not will have gone on for fifty years by this Christmas.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yeah, endlessly discussing potential rules violations or incorrect rulings is a key part of any spectator sport.

For once Karol equating 40k to sports would actually be appropriate.

 DominayTrix wrote:


There's a lot of people who will flame you for being a "rules lawyer." People will say "that's not the way its intended" when you enforce rules and it allows stuff like this to happen. Until GW tightens up their language so it is clear and consistent, this kind of stuff will continue to happen...

Yeah if 40k had a solid framework of rules, judge calls wouldn't be seen as bad. Take MTG for example, its got one of the most solid ruleset in any game i've played. No interaction isnt accounted for in it. So calling a Judge is second nature for players. I'm not saying cheating doesnt happen in MTG (it totally does) but at least players aren't shy to either A : call a judge or B: know the rules themselves to call their OPP on them misusing some rules to their advantage

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But twitch chat is invisible to the players.

It should be allowed, IMHO, for spectators to freely discuss cheating/rules mistakes among themselves without player knowledge.

The fact that this isn't allowed is telling. Like rather than using it as a lesson a'la "looks like chat is right, don't do this at home kids" the stream hosts seem to say "it's fine, it's all fine, and any news to the contrary is a bannable offense"

That's not really how it goes. Talking about rules played incorrectly isn't actually banned on the stream. Constantly bringing it up, to the point there's no other discussion happening, is. This is in line with how a lot of TTG streams work. Experience shows it's the most effective way to deal with this sort of thing. There's nothing sinister about it.

Slipspace wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But twitch chat is invisible to the players.

It should be allowed, IMHO, for spectators to freely discuss cheating/rules mistakes among themselves without player knowledge.

The fact that this isn't allowed is telling. Like rather than using it as a lesson a'la "looks like chat is right, don't do this at home kids" the stream hosts seem to say "it's fine, it's all fine, and any news to the contrary is a bannable offense"

That's not really how it goes. Talking about rules played incorrectly isn't actually banned on the stream. Constantly bringing it up, to the point there's no other discussion happening, is. This is in line with how a lot of TTG streams work. Experience shows it's the most effective way to deal with this sort of thing. There's nothing sinister about it.

Well, the way a lot of TTG streams that I watch work is totally different.

Usually, the person reading the chat reports what the chat is saying to the players (like the American TTT or Tabletop CP) and the players sort out the issue. This would essentially be the equivalent of calling a judge based on Twitch Chat, but is only okay in casual games, because apparently telling someone in a tournament game that they aren't following the rules is "interfering with the players" (yeah, no gak, the players aren't actually playing by the rules).

This *also* makes it so the chat can discuss other things, because the problem is corrected and they can move on.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Well, the way a lot of TTG streams that I watch work is totally different.

Usually, the person reading the chat reports what the chat is saying to the players (like the American TTT or Tabletop CP) and the players sort out the issue. This would essentially be the equivalent of calling a judge based on Twitch Chat, but is only okay in casual games, because apparently telling someone in a tournament game that they aren't following the rules is "interfering with the players" (yeah, no gak, the players aren't actually playing by the rules).

This *also* makes it so the chat can discuss other things, because the problem is corrected and they can move on.

And what if chat is wrong or they misunderstood something? Should the game get interrupted still?

On non-tournament streams like Titans the "host" will notify the players, but that's an environment where the players are interacting with the viewers.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And what if chat is wrong or they misunderstood something? Should the game get interrupted still?

If the guy watching the stream sees that a bunch of people in chat are calling attention to something, the chance that they're all wrong and wasting time is considerably smaller than the chance that something has been misplayed.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And what if chat is wrong or they misunderstood something? Should the game get interrupted still?

If the guy watching the stream sees that a bunch of people in chat are calling attention to something, the chance that they're all wrong and wasting time is considerably smaller than the chance that something has been misplayed.

That's being awfully generous to chat... Maybe the 40k niche is small enough that it has knowledgeable chat, but most chat would just pile on the first person to say something was wrong and spam that without a clue if it's actually wrong or not.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Well, the way a lot of TTG streams that I watch work is totally different.

Usually, the person reading the chat reports what the chat is saying to the players (like the American TTT or Tabletop CP) and the players sort out the issue. This would essentially be the equivalent of calling a judge based on Twitch Chat, but is only okay in casual games, because apparently telling someone in a tournament game that they aren't following the rules is "interfering with the players" (yeah, no gak, the players aren't actually playing by the rules).

This *also* makes it so the chat can discuss other things, because the problem is corrected and they can move on.

And what if chat is wrong or they misunderstood something? Should the game get interrupted still?

On non-tournament streams like Titans the "host" will notify the players, but that's an environment where the players are interacting with the viewers.

This is a fair point, if you stop the game every time some jabronie from chat misunderstands how pile-in moves work, you'd never get a full turn it.

It's even worse in streams where the players aren't mic-ed up because there's things like wobbly model syndrome or other perfectly acceptable on table fudging that happens between players gets called out as cheating, even when it isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And what if chat is wrong or they misunderstood something? Should the game get interrupted still?

If the guy watching the stream sees that a bunch of people in chat are calling attention to something, the chance that they're all wrong and wasting time is considerably smaller than the chance that something has been misplayed.

This is blatantly false. Have you ever seen a twitch chat? They spiral on incorrect interactions and rules all the time. I watch a Streamer for Hunt: Showdown and multiple times per stream he has to stop what he's doing to explain that chat is NOT correct about a bug/game mechanic interaction.

90% of people in any given stream chat are just parrots. If the initial person is wrong, the 100 people after him will be equally as wrong. The system isn't really condusive to self-correction.

Presumably, the judge can act as a filter for wrong calls.

The twitch host can talk to a judge directly before interrupting the players.

We aren't asking the twitch host himself to go "WAIT WAIT EVERYONE STOP CHAT IS SCARED AND CONFUSED" and wave his arms over the table frenetically.

Yeah, the judge on hand can easily know or check right there before needing to notify the players.

At any rate, the current result is that cheating is a rewarded behavior at a large number of Warhammer tournaments.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:


There's a lot of people who will flame you for being a "rules lawyer." People will say "that's not the way its intended" when you enforce rules and it allows stuff like this to happen. Until GW tightens up their language so it is clear and consistent, this kind of stuff will continue to happen...

Yeah if 40k had a solid framework of rules, judge calls wouldn't be seen as bad. Take MTG for example, its got one of the most solid ruleset in any game i've played. No interaction isnt accounted for in it. So calling a Judge is second nature for players. I'm not saying cheating doesnt happen in MTG (it totally does) but at least players aren't shy to either A : call a judge or B: know the rules themselves to call their OPP on them misusing some rules to their advantage

Most imporant thing is. That if you were caught at a medium or large event, bar changing passport and moving to another country, you will not be able to attened an even. Or at least not easily. In this case, and many other talked over on this forum from the past, the "cheater" has been one for years. To a certain level I admire the balls to cheat in one event and just waltz in to a next one a cheat again, although with different army. Here the person would be kicked out, branded with name and face, so everyone knew who the cheater was. Their "career" as a table top, possibly also related games too.
I have met or played vs a guy called Xaos. I don't play infinity. But I know his face and I know his name. If I ever see him at an event, first thing I do is to inform the Orgs that Xaos is trying to sign up.

So while the allegations of cheating by that Black Templars player are indeed fascinating, the numbers still say that Tyranids are on a level of their own. I imagine that points increases are coming for them.

Perhaps they just need to rewrite the early Codexes. Give Space Marine Lascannons D3+3 that ignore invuls and 3 MWs. Double-down baby!

Karol wrote:
[Most imporant thing is. That if you were caught at a medium or large event, bar changing passport and moving to another country, you will not be able to attened an even. Or at least not easily. In this case, and many other talked over on this forum from the past, the "cheater" has been one for years. To a certain level I admire the balls to cheat in one event and just waltz in to a next one a cheat again, although with different army. Here the person would be kicked out, branded with name and face, so everyone knew who the cheater was. Their "career" as a table top, possibly also related games too.
I have met or played vs a guy called Xaos. I don't play infinity. But I know his face and I know his name. If I ever see him at an event, first thing I do is to inform the Orgs that Xaos is trying to sign up.

Exactly. I was blown away when I saw that a player was able to get caught cheating on camera, confess to doing it, and then return to high-level competitive play after only a short ban. That kind of thing makes a joke out of "competitive" 40k, if you get caught cheating you should be banned for life. But between that and the insistence that nobody can play 40k perfectly, mistakes are part of the game, etc, it really makes you wonder how many other big-name players are also getting there by cheating.

That's not a 40k problem though, that's a community problem.

I do empathise that it is quite hard for TOs to enforce bans on people, especially when players have done their time. Particularly when those TOs are just individuals deciding to run events.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Exactly. I was blown away when I saw that a player was able to get caught cheating on camera, confess to doing it, and then return to high-level competitive play after only a short ban. That kind of thing makes a joke out of "competitive" 40k, if you get caught cheating you should be banned for life. But between that and the insistence that nobody can play 40k perfectly, mistakes are part of the game, etc, it really makes you wonder how many other big-name players are also getting there by cheating.

I despise people who knowingly cheat, but IMO 6 month or 1 year bans are good for people who get caught cheating. Lifetime bans should be reserved for people who get caught cheating repeatedly, or of course for people who do things like throw hands over a rules dispute. If you make the punishment for cheating too draconian, it can create perverse incentives.

But yes, I get the impression that certain segments of the 40k community value perceived civility over sportsmanship in the way you describe.

Umbros wrote:
That's not a 40k problem though, that's a community problem.

I do empathise that it is quite hard for TOs to enforce bans on people, especially when players have done their time. Particularly when those TOs are just individuals deciding to run events.

This really. If there was some sort of professional 40k circuit that somehow got funded it might be different. When you have people spending a huge amount of time and money to host an event they generally don't want to get involved in drama because player X played a rule wrong, nudged a model (maybe) or was just generally unsportsmanlike.

Hecaton wrote:
If you make the punishment for cheating too draconian, it can create perverse incentives.

How's that? I guess you could try to catch your opponent cheating as a way to get them banned, but I can't think of any perverse incentive that would work unless there's actual cheating happening?

Tyel wrote:
When you have people spending a huge amount of time and money to host an event they generally don't want to get involved in drama because player X played a rule wrong, nudged a model (maybe) or was just generally unsportsmanlike.

This goes way beyond "maybe nudged a model". In the case I'm talking about the player in question was caught blatantly cheating on camera after having a reputation for previous (though less well documented) cheating incidents, confessed to doing it, received a temporary ITC ban, and was forced to apologize for cheating as a condition of being allowed to play again. There was no question about guilt, only what degree of punishment was appropriate. All a TO would have to do is refuse to let him enter their event but it seems like people want the attention from having a Big Name Player on their top tables more than they want a credible claim to being a serious competitive game.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
All a TO would have to do is refuse to let him enter their event but it seems like people want the attention from having a Big Name Player on their top tables more than they want a credible claim to being a serious competitive game.

Well I mean...its 40k. Thats like saying people don't want the drama side of pro wrestling because they want it to be seen as a serious competitive sport.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
How's that? I guess you could try to catch your opponent cheating as a way to get them banned, but I can't think of any perverse incentive that would work unless there's actual cheating happening?

Framing people for cheating becomes much more incentivized, and if it comes down to lifetime bans people may take "mercy" on people.

You want the punishment to be serious, but not like... severe to the point where people can go off the reservation over it.

Also, it needs to be clarified that if you misplay in such a way to gain an advantage, even if you weren't proven to be cheating or it was an honest mistake, that's still a game loss/loss of points/whatever. Just document it. It'll keep people more honest.

Hecaton wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
How's that? I guess you could try to catch your opponent cheating as a way to get them banned, but I can't think of any perverse incentive that would work unless there's actual cheating happening?

Framing people for cheating becomes much more incentivized, and if it comes down to lifetime bans people may take "mercy" on people.

You want the punishment to be serious, but not like... severe to the point where people can go off the reservation over it.

Also, it needs to be clarified that if you misplay in such a way to gain an advantage, even if you weren't proven to be cheating or it was an honest mistake, that's still a game loss/loss of points/whatever. Just document it. It'll keep people more honest.

That's why it works best if there's a sliding scale. I have no issue with lifetime banning someone who is clearly cheating and there is ample evidence to show it and the type of cheating is beyond "forgetting" a rule here and there. A certain Chaos player springs to mind.

But that would be for the most serious cases, or repeat offenders. For most cases, shorter bans would work fine and I fully support the idea of penalties for misplaying your rules even in the case of an honest mistake. Those type of penalties should be fairly minor at first but also have the possibility of ramping up over time to catch those people who coincidentally keep getting rules wrong in their favour.

Slipspace wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
How's that? I guess you could try to catch your opponent cheating as a way to get them banned, but I can't think of any perverse incentive that would work unless there's actual cheating happening?

Framing people for cheating becomes much more incentivized, and if it comes down to lifetime bans people may take "mercy" on people.

You want the punishment to be serious, but not like... severe to the point where people can go off the reservation over it.

Also, it needs to be clarified that if you misplay in such a way to gain an advantage, even if you weren't proven to be cheating or it was an honest mistake, that's still a game loss/loss of points/whatever. Just document it. It'll keep people more honest.

That's why it works best if there's a sliding scale. I have no issue with lifetime banning someone who is clearly cheating and there is ample evidence to show it and the type of cheating is beyond "forgetting" a rule here and there. A certain Chaos player springs to mind.

But that would be for the most serious cases, or repeat offenders. For most cases, shorter bans would work fine and I fully support the idea of penalties for misplaying your rules even in the case of an honest mistake. Those type of penalties should be fairly minor at first but also have the possibility of ramping up over time to catch those people who coincidentally keep getting rules wrong in their favour.

This. Like I said, the lifetime ban comment was about a player who was caught indisputably on camera cheating in a major way and confessed to doing it. No honest mistakes about a rule, no "maybe" about it, and not something you could frame someone for. Or there's the cases where a player "forgets" a rule in one game, gets corrected by the TO, and then promptly goes back to playing it incorrectly in their next game. The initial error gets the benefit of the doubt and shouldn't come with any permanent consequences but if you get corrected on something like that and then immediately ignore the correction as soon as the TO's back is turned you know perfectly well what you're doing.

And yeah, genuine mistakes work both ways. A player who is having genuine trouble keeping track of everything (40k is a complex game after all) is going to make mistakes in both directions. They'll think their model has two attacks instead of one because that's what it had last edition, but then they'll also forget that another of their units can re-roll charges and lose a game because of it. The "innocent mistake" justification stops being believable when you see the same people over and over again only making "mistakes" in their own favor.

 Sim-Life wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
All a TO would have to do is refuse to let him enter their event but it seems like people want the attention from having a Big Name Player on their top tables more than they want a credible claim to being a serious competitive game.

Well I mean...its 40k. Thats like saying people don't want the drama side of pro wrestling because they want it to be seen as a serious competitive sport.

Drama in any form of wrestling is entertaining though. Cheating in w40k is only interesting, if you plan to learn how to cheat yourself or you are on top tables, care for winning and cheating happens when you play.

An kirgis not shaking a hand of tadji wrestler is more intersting.

And yeah, genuine mistakes work both ways.

End results matter though. Can anyone make a mistake sure. In sports there are injuries, even deaths that sometimes happen. But if someone would break the fingers of all of his opponents, or at least all opponents in games that give qualification points. Then no amount of explanation that it just somehow happens would help them.

I mean, it'd be nice if there was a public database somewhere with a record of these incidents - heck, it is something I would expect the ITC to have, if they want their circuit to have any integrity.

I would be very weary of a public database given how many insane overreactors there are online.

So have we found a good reason yet why Twitch streamers streaming a game cannot talk to a judge quietly if they or their chat see suspected cheating?

Or are we back to "the twitch streamers care more about kumbaya and proving everything is fine in the House of 40k than they are with helping to ensure free and fair competition"

 Dysartes wrote:
I mean, it'd be nice if there was a public database somewhere with a record of these incidents - heck, it is something I would expect the ITC to have, if they want their circuit to have any integrity.

Without a membership system akin to what the DCI was for MtG that catches banned people on event sign-up, I doubt that sanctions would have any serious impact on anyone but the worst cheaters.

 catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Worth noting that the guy who played BT made several favorable rules mistakes.

It blows my mind that the game is so damned complicated that even highly-competitive players have to ask questions like 'do you have an ability that does X', and a cheater can cheat repeatedly across multiple games in a variety of ways without anybody noticing at the time.

Yeah, it blows mine too, tyranids (tomorrow another faction) winning way too much is one thing, but the bloat is what really puts any new player off I think.

Anyone know of people being able to start 40K these days ? The investment is so massive, the balance so poor, who in their right mind would want to start now ?

For tounaments you have the clock issue if you start going through your opponents book(s) to find the rule they are telling you about so... The game is so bad atm for comp play. Just... So... Bad... I have gone fully over to Mtg for the moment, until they nerf my nids (then i am back to 40k). The rule bloat issue will still be there though...

 addnid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Worth noting that the guy who played BT made several favorable rules mistakes.

It blows my mind that the game is so damned complicated that even highly-competitive players have to ask questions like 'do you have an ability that does X', and a cheater can cheat repeatedly across multiple games in a variety of ways without anybody noticing at the time.

Yeah, it blows mine too, tyranids (tomorrow another faction) winning way too much is one thing, but the bloat is what really puts any new player off I think.

Anyone know of people being able to start 40K these days ? The investment is so massive, the balance so poor, who in their right mind would want to start now ?

For tounaments you have the clock issue if you start going through your opponents book(s) to find the rule they are telling you about so... The game is so bad atm for comp play. Just... So... Bad... I have gone fully over to Mtg for the moment, until they nerf my nids (then i am back to 40k). The rule bloat issue will still be there though...

Most new players don't see the problems initially. They see the cool models and impressive visuals on FB, Instagram, YouTube etc. Balance and bloat are not things most people even think about when picking up a game. They may well affect player retention but I haven't seen any major effect on new players picking up the game. Sometimes, by the time you realise the issues, you're already into sunk cost territory.

Slipspace wrote:

 addnid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Worth noting that the guy who played BT made several favorable rules mistakes.

It blows my mind that the game is so damned complicated that even highly-competitive players have to ask questions like 'do you have an ability that does X', and a cheater can cheat repeatedly across multiple games in a variety of ways without anybody noticing at the time.

Yeah, it blows mine too, tyranids (tomorrow another faction) winning way too much is one thing, but the bloat is what really puts any new player off I think.

Anyone know of people being able to start 40K these days ? The investment is so massive, the balance so poor, who in their right mind would want to start now ?

For tounaments you have the clock issue if you start going through your opponents book(s) to find the rule they are telling you about so... The game is so bad atm for comp play. Just... So... Bad... I have gone fully over to Mtg for the moment, until they nerf my nids (then i am back to 40k). The rule bloat issue will still be there though...

Most new players don't see the problems initially. They see the cool models and impressive visuals on FB, Instagram, YouTube etc. Balance and bloat are not things most people even think about when picking up a game. They may well affect player retention but I haven't seen any major effect on new players picking up the game. Sometimes, by the time you realise the issues, you're already into sunk cost territory.

Yeah they may start as you say, and then, after seeing how hard its gonna be to keep up with things, they sell everything 6 months after their first purchase, waaaay before getting into sunken cost territory, from my experience.

Every time I have seen it a new player having their first 'real' 40k game (so not just a basic introduction of the basic rules) gets confronted with Traits, statagems, army special stuff like Nid Imperatives and mission secondaries their eyes just glass over and they tune out.

9th edition is absolutely horribly new player friendly.

But hey, they have bought in right. They spend a couple of 100 bucks on their first bunch of models. Pump and dump from GW.

Personally I don't see what is particularly hard about Nid imperatives, they are a relatively straightforward rule compared to the Space Marine Doctrine/Superdoctrine nonsense.

 Tyran wrote:
Personally I don't see what is particularly hard about Nid imperatives, they are a relatively straightforward rule compared to the Space Marine Doctrine/Superdoctrine nonsense.

Its not that its hard, its that its another thing they have to deal with and remember. All that adds up.

 addnid wrote:

Anyone know of people being able to start 40K these days ? The investment is so massive, the balance so poor, who in their right mind would want to start now ?

We see new people joining the game almost every week at the local shops. every other week at the worst. Often in pairs. They split a box - Necrons/SM, GK/TSons, whatever's out atm. They & a friend/brother/partner(in a few cases Father & son) have seen this cool looking game being played (online or at the shops) & people having fun and want in. Or people returning after several editions away.

Right now we've got several brand new players (Tyranids, Tzeentch demons, & Ad-Mech. Maybe a SM, Tau, & another Necron as well) all eagerly awaiting the launch of our next Crusade.
They've been busily building/painting/practicing these past 8 weeks or so as the Sigmar league ran.

 Tyran wrote:
Personally I don't see what is particularly hard about Nid imperatives, they are a relatively straightforward rule compared to the Space Marine Doctrine/Superdoctrine nonsense.

Its just more rules on top of an already very rules heavy game. Its easy when you've been playing for years but when you're just starting it's a lot.

Slipspace 805044 11381227 wrote:

Most new players don't see the problems initially. They see the cool models and impressive visuals on FB, Instagram, YouTube etc. Balance and bloat are not things most people even think about when picking up a game. They may well affect player retention but I haven't seen any major effect on new players picking up the game. Sometimes, by the time you realise the issues, you're already into sunk cost territory.

All it takes 3-4 real games. Don't even have to play themselfs. Watch your friend get blown up the table without doing much the entire game and people get diss illusioned about warhammer or aos very fast. And IMO it is better if a new player knows this earlier, then later. The whole intreduced the game by letting the new guy win, skip a ton of core rules etc does more harm to the new people, then anything else. Balance, liking or not liking to play, paint, read lore etc those can all be plowed through. But if a person finds out they were dupped and the game is different then they thought it was, they just quit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs 805044 11381302 wrote: Right now we've got several brand new players (Tyranids, Tzeentch demons, & Ad-Mech. Maybe a SM, Tau, & another Necron as well) all eagerly awaiting the launch of our next Crusade.
They've been busily building/painting/practicing these past 8 weeks or so as the Sigmar league ran.

I don't think that pairs of related adults playing the game is the norm of how the game is played around the world. Although I must say, it would be nice if new players were actualy new players and not 30+year olds returning after 1-2 edition break. Often as soon as their army gets an update, so they have a ready to play army day 1.

A general question, does newbies in your areas immediately jump to 2K games or do they start with smaller patrol games?

IMHO it is much easier to learn to play at small point costs, but I have heard that many communities are really obsessed with 2K game size.

Generaly unless they play vs other news players building armies at the same time as them, the chance to get an odd point games, vs a 1-2 edition veteran is rather low. Why would they want to waste their time on a substandard game, when they can play a regular one vs someone with a 2000pts game? Specialy as table space at the store and time to play is limited.

This creates better and worse editions, I think, to start in. In 8th , at my old store, there was like 25-30 people players starting at the same time as me. By the time most of those player reached 2000pts, the culture shock how real w40k looks like was huge. In 9th we had far fewer new players at the new store. Don't think it was 10 people, throught out the entire edition. But of those 10 no one quit. Out of those people that started at the same time as me, only 2 other people play now, and I am one of those two people.

One would imagine that if table space and time is limited it would favor smaller game sizes that play faster and require less space.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I mean, it'd be nice if there was a public database somewhere with a record of these incidents - heck, it is something I would expect the ITC to have, if they want their circuit to have any integrity.

Without a membership system akin to what the DCI was for MtG that catches banned people on event sign-up, I doubt that sanctions would have any serious impact on anyone but the worst cheaters.

I was talking about the ITC - I was under the impression there was a membership system involved there.

Whether the functionality is currently there to do the "this person is suspended/banned" thing is another matter entirely, of course.

 Tyran wrote:
A general question, does newbies in your areas immediately jump to 2K games or do they start with smaller patrol games?

IMHO it is much easier to learn to play at small point costs, but I have heard that many communities are really obsessed with 2K game size.

1k points are about the minimal about what I think you can do for an actual game of 40k. Some of the more elite factions have practically nothing at 500.

With the less experiences players we usually play 1500 as the 'standard' size since between banter and looking up rules games just don't finish in the ~3 hours we have for a game night.

There is a healthy intro scene at my local GW. 25PL crusade games, with a mix of new players and old vets. It’s not all 2k matched out there.

 Tyran wrote:
A general question, does newbies in your areas immediately jump to 2K games or do they start with smaller patrol games?

Some do, and that's mostly the crowd that sells their stuff after a few months. When I started the hobby I couldn't care less about the game, I played with other newbies and with lots of proxies for a long time. In the meanwhile I enjoyed learning the basics of the game, painting my models and reading stuff about 40k and WHFB. It took me like 3 years to have a full painted army that was ready for the standard format, and 5ish years to have enough to have a chance to play competitively (5th edition). Never had a problem with that.

Tournaments and competitive gaming are for veterans. In that yes, 40k is not player friendly. And IMHO it's not a bad thing. The less people who demand "Everything Now!" we have around, the better.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I mean, it'd be nice if there was a public database somewhere with a record of these incidents - heck, it is something I would expect the ITC to have, if they want their circuit to have any integrity.

Without a membership system akin to what the DCI was for MtG that catches banned people on event sign-up, I doubt that sanctions would have any serious impact on anyone but the worst cheaters.

I was talking about the ITC - I was under the impression there was a membership system involved there.

Whether the functionality is currently there to do the "this person is suspended/banned" thing is another matter entirely, of course.

Not sure how it is in the states, but here they just declare that they are running an ITC tournament and end up typing the results somewhere.

In MtG, even for friday night events, you had to provide your DCI number in order to participate or create a one for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
A general question, does newbies in your areas immediately jump to 2K games or do they start with smaller patrol games?

IMHO it is much easier to learn to play at small point costs, but I have heard that many communities are really obsessed with 2K game size.

Depends on how high they are on the whale scale.

Most start with a combat patrol or half of some versus box plus one or two kits they like.

For some money is not an issue, so the first thing they post is their living room filled with unopened boxes worth 10k points of whatever army they decided on.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I mean, it'd be nice if there was a public database somewhere with a record of these incidents - heck, it is something I would expect the ITC to have, if they want their circuit to have any integrity.

Without a membership system akin to what the DCI was for MtG that catches banned people on event sign-up, I doubt that sanctions would have any serious impact on anyone but the worst cheaters.

I was talking about the ITC - I was under the impression there was a membership system involved there.

Whether the functionality is currently there to do the "this person is suspended/banned" thing is another matter entirely, of course.

ITC is an extremely loose conglomeration. It's honestly more of a 'leaderboard tracker' than a traditional event circuit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
Every time I have seen it a new player having their first 'real' 40k game (so not just a basic introduction of the basic rules) gets confronted with Traits, statagems, army special stuff like Nid Imperatives and mission secondaries their eyes just glass over and they tune out.

9th edition is absolutely horribly new player friendly.

But hey, they have bought in right. They spend a couple of 100 bucks on their first bunch of models. Pump and dump from GW.

This strikes me as much more anecdotal than you're suggesting it is.

The type of person who gets into 40k is the type of person who tend to be excited about that kind of rules minutia. If they have any experience with even just the core rules and continue playing the game, it's highly unlikely that Traits/Stratagems/Army rules would discourage them.

The only way I could really see it is if someone babysat them through multiple full games using just the core rules and a handful of basic squads.

While 9th has gotten to the point where the full game mirrors the complexity of previous editions, it's still much more approachable than the 300 page BRBs of old. That said, by the time you're done explaining how a couple of basic unit datasheets interact with each other, it should be fairly obvious that the game is pretty damn dense.

 Tyran wrote:
A general question, does newbies in your areas immediately jump to 2K games or do they start with smaller patrol games?

IMHO it is much easier to learn to play at small point costs, but I have heard that many communities are really obsessed with 2K game size.

My group's tried, and 1K with full rules is a total slog for new players. The things that contribute high cognitive load- subfaction traits, stratagems, relics, WLTs, purity bonuses, turn-by-turn abilities- are all in play regardless of points size.

To introduce newbies in 8th/9th we've basically started with just core rules, and then 1500 or 2K is fine, because there isn't a whole lot going on and it's mostly driven by the datasheets.

ERJAK wrote:
While 9th has gotten to the point where the full game mirrors the complexity of previous editions, it's still much more approachable than the 300 page BRBs of old.

9th Ed is 368 pages. If you meant just rules, the core rules in 3rd-5th are all of 40-50 pages. 9th is 37 pages of core rules. It's really not that different.

The complexity of older editions came from all the unit types, vehicles, and USRs, but it was never a requirement to dump all of those on a newbie from the get-go. They came into play organically as you increased in game size. The core rules were, by wargame standards, fairly simple, and the advanced rules could be looked up when they were situationally relevant.

I cannot imagine that the sort of player who can handle having to memorize an unorganized list of stratagems and then recall which ones might be relevant at any given moment would find the rules of older editions unapproachable.

 Tyran wrote:
Personally I don't see what is particularly hard about Nid imperatives, they are a relatively straightforward rule compared to the Space Marine Doctrine/Superdoctrine nonsense.

I play both armies and I think you have that backwards. Super Doctrines are the same every game and require a decision maybe once, Imperatives change every time you change your army composition, limit your positioning, and require actual decision making based on the game state every turn.

But that's just, like, my opinion man.

The Newman wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Personally I don't see what is particularly hard about Nid imperatives, they are a relatively straightforward rule compared to the Space Marine Doctrine/Superdoctrine nonsense.

I play both armies and I think you have that backwards. Super Doctrines are the same every game and require a decision maybe once, Imperatives change every time you change your army composition, limit your positioning, and require actual decision making based on the game state every turn.

But that's just, like, my opinion man.

Imperatives are a more flexible and complex rule with more variables and it actually requires some thinking to use, in that I agree.

But they are also all present in one book instead of being spread over 10 books and they are one layer of rules while (super)doctrines are two layers.

Moreover the fact that you are planning your imperatives from the list building state and all through the game while (super)doctrines just happen with little player input IMHO makes Imperatives easier to remember. Also the fact that imperatives are way fluffier (being an extension of the synaptic network) also helps.

 catbarf wrote:
I cannot imagine that the sort of player who can handle having to memorize an unorganized list of stratagems and then recall which ones might be relevant at any given moment would find the rules of older editions unapproachable.

After two years of pandemic we got to play our first 9th Ed games last weekend.

By the end of my first turn with my 'Nids I was thinking "I should have written a summary/check-list sheet". I've never thought that about a 40k game before. I've never even thought about that for far more crunchy games, like BattleTech.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I cannot imagine that the sort of player who can handle having to memorize an unorganized list of stratagems and then recall which ones might be relevant at any given moment would find the rules of older editions unapproachable.

After two years of pandemic we got to play our first 9th Ed games last weekend.

By the end of my first turn with my 'Nids I was thinking "I should have written a summary/check-list sheet". I've never thought that about a 40k game before. I've never even thought about that for far more crunchy games, like BattleTech.

Yeah, it's not the complexity that gets you, it's the cognitive load.

For all of BattleTech's complexity, you really just need to remember the basic structure, and the rest you can look up as you go or have written down on your record sheets. In 9th Ed, you don't have a choice- if you don't remember your stratagems, you lose out on a ton of potential power and counterplay. If you lose track of what Synaptic Imperatives you've used, or what Synaptic Imperatives you've assigned to which units, or what Adaptive trait you've picked for the battle, or what psychic powers you've attempted in the turn, you might cheat without meaning to. It just isn't tracked anywhere except in your head. Each of these little things would probably be fine on its own, but they add up.

It makes me wonder how they're testing these rules. I feel like there's a pretty good chance that they've got their own internal play aids that don't make it into the codex.

 catbarf wrote:
It makes me wonder how they're testing these rules. I feel like there's a pretty good chance that they've got their own internal play aids that don't make it into the codex.

You almost got the right answer.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I cannot imagine that the sort of player who can handle having to memorize an unorganized list of stratagems and then recall which ones might be relevant at any given moment would find the rules of older editions unapproachable.

After two years of pandemic we got to play our first 9th Ed games last weekend.

By the end of my first turn with my 'Nids I was thinking "I should have written a summary/check-list sheet". I've never thought that about a 40k game before. I've never even thought about that for far more crunchy games, like BattleTech.

Yeah, check lists are a thing now for most armies.

There is also that thing that when you are a professional at something, you very often don't make a good trainer or worse rules maker for the thing you are proficient at. And really bad things happen if you do. Suddenly stuff that was unique to your or was giving you an edge over others, gets implemented as an obligatory thing for everyone. And suprise suprise, not everyone is willing to work 80 hours a week or has your extended lung capacity or much denser bone and muscle structure.

I can imagine this happening to playtesters too. A more complicated game is both more fun , for them, and it also eliminates a lot of the luck, scrubs trying to play powerful armies etc. And it can be seen in other industries. Blizzard went so far down the world first race rabbit hole, that they stopped making their games for majority of player base, but rather for the top few hundred people. W40k is no where near at that level now, but through 2 extra system for each army, core or not, that require checking the range of multiple units in multiple phases and we could arrive at that point. Some armies, like ad mecha, are already at it right now.

 Jidmah wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I cannot imagine that the sort of player who can handle having to memorize an unorganized list of stratagems and then recall which ones might be relevant at any given moment would find the rules of older editions unapproachable.

After two years of pandemic we got to play our first 9th Ed games last weekend.

By the end of my first turn with my 'Nids I was thinking "I should have written a summary/check-list sheet". I've never thought that about a 40k game before. I've never even thought about that for far more crunchy games, like BattleTech.

Yeah, check lists are a thing now for most armies.

I need to make cards for the new nid book.

I use a program called Magic Set Editor. Makes MtG style cards, few different formats to choose, or you can make your own templates. I’ve used them for doctrines, WL traits, psychic powers, spells, etc. in the past. Very nice for once per battle things, or buff/debuffs. You can put the card in front of you/next to the unit to help remind you what’s going on.

I know it's a language thing, but:

a COMPLEX (many moving parts) game is fun.
a COMPLICATED (difficult to play) game is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
I need to make cards for the new nid book.

I use a program called Magic Set Editor. Makes MtG style cards, few different formats to choose, or you can make your own templates. I’ve used them for doctrines, WL traits, psychic powers, spells, etc. in the past. Very nice for once per battle things, or buff/debuffs. You can put the card in front of you/next to the unit to help remind you what’s going on.

I use laminated cards and dry-erase markers. Especially helps when you run into an opponent with tons of buffs and debuffs, but no way to mark them.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I need to make cards for the new nid book.

I use a program called Magic Set Editor. Makes MtG style cards, few different formats to choose, or you can make your own templates. I’ve used them for doctrines, WL traits, psychic powers, spells, etc. in the past. Very nice for once per battle things, or buff/debuffs. You can put the card in front of you/next to the unit to help remind you what’s going on.

I use laminated cards and dry-erase markers. Especially helps when you run into an opponent with tons of buffs and debuffs, but no way to mark them.

I use a grease/china pencil on card sleeves. I made unit cards for my crusade army and it helps to be able to put tick marks on the cards to track who’s getting kills, scoring agendas, etc.

In my dice box I also keep some plastic poker chips. Sometimes they get a “-1” written on them and placed next to a unit. Or just placing a red chip next to something is enough of a reminder that there is something going on there.

I don’t mind loosing games when I’m out played, or luck is just not with me. But it bothers me when I forget stuff that I shouldn’t have. And 40k has a [b]lot[/b[] of moving parts these days.

 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, check lists are a thing now for most armies.

That's not something to celebrate. If anything, that's proof positive of a failure of design.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, check lists are a thing now for most armies.

That's not something to celebrate. If anything, that's proof positive of a failure of design.

I was just confirming your viewpoint, since you are clearly two years late to the party.

Feel free to switch to orks though, no checklists, stratagems or even measuring auras required. GW made sure that you'll never need any of that, just make sure to call your Waaagh! and reduce damage for ramshackle.

Guy in our group has both a spreadsheet and a checklist.