Did anyone see the article on BoLS about cheating at tournies? One of the points was about Castellan cheating in regards to House rules, and their detachments. Basically this seems to have resulted from a top 8 finalist having a bit of a tizzy when he got called out on it. But I can't find the specifics?
Did anyone watch the feed and see what they were referencing? I need to review to see if it was a honest mistake or if it was infact cheating. To be honest, shouldn't this sort of thing be handled clearly in the army list reviews? If you walk up to a game, with x unit, and don't know the rules, isn't that on the player?
I don't want to name the player, for interest of shaming. But I think you can likely find it off a search of the googles or at least reviewing the article on BoLS.
I can tell you unequivocally that not all instances are deliberate. I will share with you my LVO story.
It was my first 40K tournament (at least since I played earlier in life around 3rd edition), and my first ITC games. I usually play casual with friends and so hadn't built a "competitive" list before. Knowing knights are an issue, I took 6 harlequin Skyweaver jetbikes in an auxiliary detachment for my Craftworlders. No problem I thought, I'll eat the CP as I felt the tradeoff was worth it. So I played my first 3 games day one vs 3 very cool guys, in one game I put the bikes into the webway, in the others I'd spent a CP to put prismatic blur on them. No problems, right? Game 4 I play a guy who seemed very experienced tourny wise (think he knew my list better than I did, lol) and he calmly pointed out that I couldn't use strategems on my harlequins as it is an auxiliary detachment (I was contemplating putting them in webway). Wait, what? He said to look in my codex at strategems page and sure enough, there it was written at top of page. I've been playing 8th since it's inception and have never noticed this. Sure I knew I'm losing CPs by taking this unit, but I was never aware of any other drawbacks since I'd only played casual games before and never taken an auxiliary detachment. None of my local guys were aware and mentioned it when reviewing my list, we just didn't know.
Of course, now I feel like crap for my first 3 opponents. Would it have changed the final outcome of the games? Very possibly, maybe not. Either way, it's still a mistake on my behalf, not my opponents for not knowing this. I went 0-3 in my second day so I'd like to say that was karma, but even if I went 3-0 the second day I would have absolutely pulled out of any playoff game if I was fortunate to have got that far as it would have been disingenuous to believe I had reached that far "cleanly'. All I can do at this point is apologize to my first 3 opponents and hope I see them next year to buy them an enormous beer.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Did anyone see the article on BoLS about cheating at tournies? One of the points was about Castellan cheating in regards to House rules, and their detachments. Basically this seems to have resulted from a top 8 finalist having a bit of a tizzy when he got called out on it. But I can't find the specifics?
Did anyone watch the feed and see what they were referencing? I need to review to see if it was a honest mistake or if it was infact cheating. To be honest, shouldn't this sort of thing be handled clearly in the army list reviews? If you walk up to a game, with x unit, and don't know the rules, isn't that on the player?
I don't want to name the player, for interest of shaming. But I think you can likely find it off a search of the googles or at least reviewing the article on BoLS.
If I remember correctly it was in the Tau vs imperium soup game. I don't remember exactly what happened (i also don't play imperial knights so don't know all their rules super well). But essentially the IK player attempted to use a strategem that wasn't technically available to him because of his house. What that arguing was about was if he should get refunded on the command points used or not. I guess the question now is if he had used that combo of a strategem in other games. Either way i dont really classify this as falt out cheating this is more of a yellow card vs a red card
I didn't see it, but it was mentioned in another thread:
Spoiler:
Zande4 wrote: Someone can probably sum it up better than me for the ones more familiar with House Raven rules but i'll try to get the jist of it.
Ad Mech player got a lucky seize and was stomping the Tau player. Tau player made a mis-move earlier in the game and the Ad Mech wouldn't let him do a re-do.
Later in the game, the Ad Mech player spent 3 command points to make his Castellan's weapons count as assault so he could advance and still shoot. He advanced 1'' to try and get LoS on the Broadsides.
Tau player pointed out he couldn't use that power or something because it was the wrong house. I'm unsure on this part because I don't know their rules well. He was correct so the ad-mech player asked for a re-do, so he could both undo the advance and get his command points back.
Tau player said no, which is fair because he did the same earlier.
Admech player started getting really angry, red faced etc. Judge was called over and said the Castellan advanced so it can't shoot and no re-do but he does get the command points back.
Personally I don't think he should have got the command points back because he had already declared he was using them.
Game was pretty tense for the next 2 turns or so.
There seems to be some confusion over what a single Knight in a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment is entitled to (in terms of Traits, Stratagems, etc.).
Personally, I'd like to see Tos make participants use units that are clearly marked differently than other units of the same type. I see more of the 2nd and 3rd things mentioned and a lot of the time it is an honest mistake. But there have been times when I've played (not just 40K) that somehow that unit on the right became what I was sure had special rules that only applied to the unit on the left. The other problem comes from when those 2 units intermix. Somehow, somebody ends up closer/farther from where the unit was supposed to be all to the controlling players favor.
I'm not saying use different paint jobs but maybe different colors on the base or maybe even different scenic stuff on the bases (one has red bushes the other blue).
beast_gts wrote: I didn't see it, but it was mentioned in another thread:
There seems to be some confusion over what a single Knight in a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment is entitled to (in terms of Traits, Stratagems, etc.).
Doesn't sound like "confusion", it sounds like he just didn't know his rules...which I'd argue is worse than cheating.
beast_gts wrote: I didn't see it, but it was mentioned in another thread:
There seems to be some confusion over what a single Knight in a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment is entitled to (in terms of Traits, Stratagems, etc.).
Doesn't sound like "confusion", it sounds like he just didn't know his rules...which I'd argue is worse than cheating.
Not knowing your rules is bad, but cheating is worse. I'd rather someone be ignorant than malevolent.
beast_gts wrote: I didn't see it, but it was mentioned in another thread:
There seems to be some confusion over what a single Knight in a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment is entitled to (in terms of Traits, Stratagems, etc.).
Doesn't sound like "confusion", it sounds like he just didn't know his rules...which I'd argue is worse than cheating.
Not knowing your rules is bad, but cheating is worse. I'd rather someone be ignorant than malevolent.
Exactly. At least with ignorance you can rectify for the future.
Cheating is part of a core personality and attitude. Granted I'll admit as a kid I wasn't the most honest when it came to board games, but I'm definitely ashamed of that. To this day, I would even consider conceding a game if I misinterpreted in my favor and it led to me winning.
beast_gts wrote: I didn't see it, but it was mentioned in another thread:
There seems to be some confusion over what a single Knight in a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment is entitled to (in terms of Traits, Stratagems, etc.).
Doesn't sound like "confusion", it sounds like he just didn't know his rules...which I'd argue is worse than cheating.
The IK Codex says "ABILITIES - IMPERIAL KNIGHTS Detachments (excluding Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain the following abilities: [KNIGHT LANCES/HOUSEHOLD TRADITIONS]" so it can't be run as House Raven (and I can't see that it's been FAQ'd) - but if that's the case how did he get to game 4(?) before someone called him on it - did none of his other opponents or the judges notice?
I found a reddit thread the pretty clearly laid out the events, and the people involved.
Player in question Had a Castellan, which I think we can all agree was the "central unit" of his whole game plan. No one brings a Titanic unit and uses it as chaff. He needs to know the rules of his core strategy mechanic.
That being the case, he began the game and denied his opponent a "rewind" on a rules error, when his opponent asked for one. Then, when his error came into play, he asked for a rewind after his opponent called him on it. He was denied a rewind, in turn. His opponent actually stated that the player in question had made this "mistake" in all his previous games, and had received warnings previously that day regarding this. Then the player in question begins shouting and throwing a temper tantrum, that not only makes it onto the game microphone, but also on one of the neighboring game's recordings as well. After shouting at the TO for about 5 minutes, he is allowed to keep his mistake, AND given back his CP that he spent on the "mistake".
To me this is pretty damning. Having one mistake, fine. accept it, learn from it, move on. Do not make a scene, throw a temper tantrum, and act like a jackbass all after receiving multiple warnings for the exact thing you are trying to do again.
Other people who have played this player state he is a jerk and a clock bully, who has used this "mistake" in tournament settings before.
Just my opinion, but this wasn't a mistake. This was one player trying and succeeding to get away with rules bloat, and having a hissy fit when called on it. Case and point - reports are TO's removed the videos of his game, and started banning people on the chat mentioning the event, or the player's name.
beast_gts wrote: I didn't see it, but it was mentioned in another thread:
There seems to be some confusion over what a single Knight in a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment is entitled to (in terms of Traits, Stratagems, etc.).
Doesn't sound like "confusion", it sounds like he just didn't know his rules...which I'd argue is worse than cheating.
The IK Codex says "ABILITIES - IMPERIAL KNIGHTS Detachments (excluding Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain the following abilities: [KNIGHT LANCES/HOUSEHOLD TRADITIONS]" so it can't be run as House Raven (and I can't see that it's been FAQ'd) - but if that's the case how did he get to game 4(?) before someone called him on it - did none of his other opponents or the judges notice?
You can run a knight as House Raven in an aux detachment, you just don't get the "chapter tactics" of advancing and shooting (pg 90 vs pg 106). It'll still qualify for the relic and strats (since it has the right key words), so the incident must have centered around him trying to use the advance+shoot household tradition when he couldn't.
This allegedly happened at major tournaments, with players reportedly being called on it and claiming they misread the rule. I’ve seen it happen enough to doubt that all instances of it happening are innocent.
This goes a bit over my understanding of english, so can someone help me. How can something happened allegedly aka we don't know if it happened, to in the next sentance go to I have seen it happen, and not just one time, but often enough to be able to discern this being done as part of cheating and being done by someone with not full grasp of rules?
Plus if this is about LVO why didn't he just use named and say X cheated, and not play around with words. Because either there is a problem or there is no problem.
Zande4 wrote: Someone can probably sum it up better than me for the ones more familiar with House Raven rules but i'll try to get the jist of it.
Ad Mech player got a lucky seize and was stomping the Tau player. Tau player made a mis-move earlier in the game and the Ad Mech wouldn't let him do a re-do.
Later in the game, the Ad Mech player spent 3 command points to make his Castellan's weapons count as assault so he could advance and still shoot. He advanced 1'' to try and get LoS on the Broadsides.
Tau player pointed out he couldn't use that power or something because it was the wrong house. I'm unsure on this part because I don't know their rules well. He was correct so the ad-mech player asked for a re-do, so he could both undo the advance and get his command points back.
Tau player said no, which is fair because he did the same earlier.
Admech player started getting really angry, red faced etc. Judge was called over and said the Castellan advanced so it can't shoot and no re-do but he does get the command points back.
Personally I don't think he should have got the command points back because he had already declared he was using them.
Game was pretty tense for the next 2 turns or so.
There seems to be some confusion over what a single Knight in a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment is entitled to (in terms of Traits, Stratagems, etc.).
Out of curiosity what strategem he was trying to use? Imperial knights don't have such strategem(1CP one gives the HEAVY STUBBERS for all knights such ability at -2 to hit but I doubt that was issue and 3CP...). Googling up don't see admech strategems having one either.
Would be thinking he was trying to use raven house trait with lone knight(illegal) but that doesn't cost 3CP.
This allegedly happened at major tournaments, with players reportedly being called on it and claiming they misread the rule. I’ve seen it happen enough to doubt that all instances of it happening are innocent.
This goes a bit over my understanding of english, so can someone help me. How can something happened allegedly aka we don't know if it happened, to in the next sentance go to I have seen it happen, and not just one time, but often enough to be able to discern this being done as part of cheating and being done by someone with not full grasp of rules?
Plus if this is about LVO why didn't he just use named and say X cheated, and not play around with words. Because either there is a problem or there is no problem.
Well if he doesn't have solid proof accusing them publicly could technically even be cause for legal trouble wouldn't it? Especially in America. There's court charges for weirder things in there.
I found a reddit thread the pretty clearly laid out the events, and the people involved.
Player in question Had a Castellan, which I think we can all agree was the "central unit" of his whole game plan. No one brings a Titanic unit and uses it as chaff. He needs to know the rules of his core strategy mechanic.
That being the case, he began the game and denied his opponent a "rewind" on a rules error, when his opponent asked for one. Then, when his error came into play, he asked for a rewind after his opponent called him on it. He was denied a rewind, in turn. His opponent actually stated that the player in question had made this "mistake" in all his previous games, and had received warnings previously that day regarding this. Then the player in question begins shouting and throwing a temper tantrum, that not only makes it onto the game microphone, but also on one of the neighboring game's recordings as well. After shouting at the TO for about 5 minutes, he is allowed to keep his mistake, AND given back his CP that he spent on the "mistake".
To me this is pretty damning. Having one mistake, fine. accept it, learn from it, move on. Do not make a scene, throw a temper tantrum, and act like a jackbass all after receiving multiple warnings for the exact thing you are trying to do again.
Other people who have played this player state he is a jerk and a clock bully, who has used this "mistake" in tournament settings before.
Just my opinion, but this wasn't a mistake. This was one player trying and succeeding to get away with rules bloat, and having a hissy fit when called on it. Case and point - reports are TO's removed the videos of his game, and started banning people on the chat mentioning the event, or the player's name.
I can tell you specifically that it was not intentional, and he had gotten confused over a FAQ and recieved conflicting information on how that was supposed to work. Where he screwed up was not going to the judges earlier to get a definitive ruling and also losing his cool over it.
I have played the guy more than any of these people and he has always tried to be open and honest. The fact is people make mistakes in games over rules. There are better ways to handle it than he did, but you show me anyone that hasn't gotten twisted up on a rule in the game and i'll show you someone lieing through their teeth.
If he was mistaken, fine. What about the previous warnings and "mistakes"? Also, losing your cool about it, while denying your opponent a redo, while demanding one, and then screaming so loud it's picked up on another game's mics, isn't symbolic of a "good player". It's symbolic of a whiney entitled brat who got called on his cheap moves and couldn't handle being told he's wrong.
Like others have said, it is impossible to prove intent.
But the facts surrounding the matter speak volumes. Multiple SPECIFIC warnings about this. Refusal to submit when told he was wrong by the judge. Hysterics.
And finally I have withheld the name of the people involved out of respect to those involved. It's up to that person to clear their name, not mine to destroy it. When outright cheating happened last year, the player involved came out with a one page article explaining his actions and apologizing. BTW, that same player was also top 20(?) at this event.
Well if he doesn't have solid proof accusing them publicly could technically even be cause for legal trouble wouldn't it? Especially in America. There's court charges for weirder things in there.
A kind of a sad, that you can't say what you think. Thank you for explaining this to me.
This allegedly happened at major tournaments, with players reportedly being called on it and claiming they misread the rule. I’ve seen it happen enough to doubt that all instances of it happening are innocent.
This goes a bit over my understanding of english, so can someone help me. How can something happened allegedly aka we don't know if it happened, to in the next sentance go to I have seen it happen, and not just one time, but often enough to be able to discern this being done as part of cheating and being done by someone with not full grasp of rules?
Plus if this is about LVO why didn't he just use named and say X cheated, and not play around with words. Because either there is a problem or there is no problem.
You can't say it did happen, since you don't know for sure -- so you say "alleged" as in, someone is alleging that this event happened this way.
Zande4 wrote: Someone can probably sum it up better than me for the ones more familiar with House Raven rules but i'll try to get the jist of it.
Ad Mech player got a lucky seize and was stomping the Tau player. Tau player made a mis-move earlier in the game and the Ad Mech wouldn't let him do a re-do.
Later in the game, the Ad Mech player spent 3 command points to make his Castellan's weapons count as assault so he could advance and still shoot. He advanced 1'' to try and get LoS on the Broadsides.
Tau player pointed out he couldn't use that power or something because it was the wrong house. I'm unsure on this part because I don't know their rules well. He was correct so the ad-mech player asked for a re-do, so he could both undo the advance and get his command points back.
Tau player said no, which is fair because he did the same earlier.
Admech player started getting really angry, red faced etc. Judge was called over and said the Castellan advanced so it can't shoot and no re-do but he does get the command points back.
Personally I don't think he should have got the command points back because he had already declared he was using them.
Game was pretty tense for the next 2 turns or so.
There seems to be some confusion over what a single Knight in a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment is entitled to (in terms of Traits, Stratagems, etc.).
Out of curiosity what strategem he was trying to use? Imperial knights don't have such strategem(1CP one gives the HEAVY STUBBERS for all knights such ability at -2 to hit but I doubt that was issue and 3CP...). Googling up don't see admech strategems having one either.
Would be thinking he was trying to use raven house trait with lone knight(illegal) but that doesn't cost 3CP.
No idea - I can't think what stratagem it would be either. It's just adding to the confusion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maelstrom808 wrote: I can tell you specifically that it was not intentional, and he had gotten confused over a FAQ and recieved conflicting information on how that was supposed to work. Where he screwed up was not going to the judges earlier to get a definitive ruling and also losing his cool over it.
I have played the guy more than any of these people and he has always tried to be open and honest. The fact is people make mistakes in games over rules. There are better ways to handle it than he did, but you show me anyone that hasn't gotten twisted up on a rule in the game and i'll show you someone lieing through their teeth.
What was his intention - what was he trying to do?
From the article, its the Strat that lets you move, advance, and shoot? He was trying to do that. He was allowed to keep the advance, and his CP was returned. If you are in the finals, you shouldn't be given any second chances.
So I wasn’t there and I heard about this 3rd or 4th hand…
But supposedly 2 guys there were playing on the clock, and as you know when you get both players below 10 minutes neither player can start another turn. Supposedly Necron player took an exceptionally long turn, gutted his opponents army, and ended with 8 or so minutes on his clock, when his opponent with just a few models left had 40+. The guy with 40+ sat there for 30 minutes till his clock was under 10, and then passed the turn, and as he had a few more CP, wins, as Necron player who has a massive advantage didn’t get another turn to finish up.
I really doubt this happened, as it would be against the code of conduct, and only an idiot necron player would sit there for 30 minutes, but it was something people seems to be talking about.
Zande4 wrote: Someone can probably sum it up better than me for the ones more familiar with House Raven rules but i'll try to get the jist of it.
Ad Mech player got a lucky seize and was stomping the Tau player. Tau player made a mis-move earlier in the game and the Ad Mech wouldn't let him do a re-do.
Later in the game, the Ad Mech player spent 3 command points to make his Castellan's weapons count as assault so he could advance and still shoot. He advanced 1'' to try and get LoS on the Broadsides.
Tau player pointed out he couldn't use that power or something because it was the wrong house. I'm unsure on this part because I don't know their rules well. He was correct so the ad-mech player asked for a re-do, so he could both undo the advance and get his command points back.
Tau player said no, which is fair because he did the same earlier.
Admech player started getting really angry, red faced etc. Judge was called over and said the Castellan advanced so it can't shoot and no re-do but he does get the command points back.
Personally I don't think he should have got the command points back because he had already declared he was using them.
Game was pretty tense for the next 2 turns or so.
There seems to be some confusion over what a single Knight in a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment is entitled to (in terms of Traits, Stratagems, etc.).
Out of curiosity what strategem he was trying to use? Imperial knights don't have such strategem(1CP one gives the HEAVY STUBBERS for all knights such ability at -2 to hit but I doubt that was issue and 3CP...). Googling up don't see admech strategems having one either.
Would be thinking he was trying to use raven house trait with lone knight(illegal) but that doesn't cost 3CP.
No idea - I can't think what stratagem it would be either. It's just adding to the confusion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maelstrom808 wrote: I can tell you specifically that it was not intentional, and he had gotten confused over a FAQ and recieved conflicting information on how that was supposed to work. Where he screwed up was not going to the judges earlier to get a definitive ruling and also losing his cool over it.
I have played the guy more than any of these people and he has always tried to be open and honest. The fact is people make mistakes in games over rules. There are better ways to handle it than he did, but you show me anyone that hasn't gotten twisted up on a rule in the game and i'll show you someone lieing through their teeth.
What was his intention - what was he trying to do?
The strategum was order of companions which is the reroll all 1's in the shooting phase. He tried to shoot after advancing as the raven house trait allows, but he didn't have said trait.
The argument started I believe over the 3CP for the strategum as technically the strategum doesn't require the model to be able to shoot to have the strategum played on it, it would be pointless but he played the strategum and then tried to shoot with a model that couldn't be chosen to shoot.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: From the article, its the Strat that lets you move, advance, and shoot? He was trying to do that. He was allowed to keep the advance, and his CP was returned. If you are in the finals, you shouldn't be given any second chances.
That's the House Raven Tradition (Chapter Tactic) - Heavy weapons are treated as Assault weapons, and there's no penalty for advancing & shooting Assault weapons.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: From the article, its the Strat that lets you move, advance, and shoot? He was trying to do that. He was allowed to keep the advance, and his CP was returned. If you are in the finals, you shouldn't be given any second chances.
That's the House Raven Tradition (Chapter Tactic) - Heavy weapons are treated as Assault weapons, and there's no penalty for advancing & shooting Assault weapons.
You are not allowed house strats in the detachment he was using.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: From the article, its the Strat that lets you move, advance, and shoot? He was trying to do that. He was allowed to keep the advance, and his CP was returned. If you are in the finals, you shouldn't be given any second chances.
But thing is what strategem let's you do that? Only one that I know from knight codex(which I just double checked) that deals with advance+shoot is 1CP one pregame that gives your HEAVY STUBBERS ability to do that(at -2 to hit). Doesn't sound right. I googled up adeptus mechanicum ones and drew blank there. Other strategem that deals with advance+X is 2CP one that allows you to CHARGE but thing is that's 100% legal strategem to use regardless of your house or are you super heavy or super heavy auxiliary detachment.
Apart from heavy stubber one above only one that allows advance+shooting is Raven TRAIT and yes that is illegal if knight is solo knight in super heavy auxiliary but that doesn't cost CP.
Now guess one possibility is it's something from Vigilus book which I don't know fully. In which case would be nice to know. I don't recall any strategem that fits description so if there IS one I would like to know name and what publication it is.
edit: Aah above explanation cleared. Strategem was legal, trait no. Good to know I hadn't missed any strategem!
Reemule wrote: So I wasn’t there and I heard about this 3rd or 4th hand…
But supposedly 2 guys there were playing on the clock, and as you know when you get both players below 10 minutes neither player can start another turn. Supposedly Necron player took an exceptionally long turn, gutted his opponents army, and ended with 8 or so minutes on his clock, when his opponent with just a few models left had 40+. The guy with 40+ sat there for 30 minutes till his clock was under 10, and then passed the turn, and as he had a few more CP, wins, as Necron player who has a massive advantage didn’t get another turn to finish up.
I really doubt this happened, as it would be against the code of conduct, and only an idiot necron player would sit there for 30 minutes, but it was something people seems to be talking about.
Oh it's happened at times, with players running out the clock. Best one I heard was in WMH, where a player saw they were playing what would be an unbeatable Trollkin list for them (and if they did engage, a miserable, drawn out game) so- what they did when their turn (and clock) started was walk off and go buy an ice cream then proceeded to eat it in front of their opponent as slowly as possible.
No idea if the guy got a judge over, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did (even though the player was breaking no rules).
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: From the article, its the Strat that lets you move, advance, and shoot? He was trying to do that. He was allowed to keep the advance, and his CP was returned. If you are in the finals, you shouldn't be given any second chances.
That's the House Raven Tradition (Chapter Tactic) - Heavy weapons are treated as Assault weapons, and there's no penalty for advancing & shooting Assault weapons.
You are not allowed house strats in the detachment he was using.
Incorrect. Detachments don't limit strategems. If your strategem is imperial knight detachment he gets strategems. Whether it's super heavy or super heavy auxiliary is irrelevant(note this is different from regular auxiliary). And house strategems have no separate restriction either and even in super heavy auxiliary detachment you have house despite no trait.
It's the trait that is not allowed. So the strategem here was 100% legal usage. Just pointless as he couldn't shoot after advance due to not having the TRAIT(which requires non-superheavy auxiliary detachment).
Reemule wrote: So I wasn’t there and I heard about this 3rd or 4th hand…
But supposedly 2 guys there were playing on the clock, and as you know when you get both players below 10 minutes neither player can start another turn. Supposedly Necron player took an exceptionally long turn, gutted his opponents army, and ended with 8 or so minutes on his clock, when his opponent with just a few models left had 40+. The guy with 40+ sat there for 30 minutes till his clock was under 10, and then passed the turn, and as he had a few more CP, wins, as Necron player who has a massive advantage didn’t get another turn to finish up.
I really doubt this happened, as it would be against the code of conduct, and only an idiot necron player would sit there for 30 minutes, but it was something people seems to be talking about.
Oh it's happened at times, with players running out the clock. Best one I heard was in WMH, where a player saw they were playing what would be an unbeatable Trollkin list for them (and if they did engage, a miserable, drawn out game) so- what they did when their turn (and clock) started was walk off and go buy an ice cream then proceeded to eat it in front of their opponent as slowly as possible.
No idea if the guy got a judge over, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did (even though the player was breaking no rules).
It wouldn't work in Warmahordes. The clock is sudden death. He can sit their and buy ice cream and eat it, and the other guy can watch movies on his phone. The first guy to run out of time loses at that moment. The Troll player wouldn't have cared.
While I immediately doubt the insistence that he "just got it wrong", I think the main thing here is simple: act like a child, get treated like a child - yes, even if you're right. TO's, and judges need to start curb-stomping this kind of behavior. This race-to-the-bottom-customer-is-always-right nonsense is a garbage way to approach a community of players/consumers.
I'm not surprised to hear that someone in a gaming tournament cheated, etc. I am surprised to see anyone allow an adult to throw a temper tantrum in a public space without being kicked out. Stop allowing children to partake in your events, it lowers the atmosphere and respectability of your event by miles.
Reemule wrote: So I wasn’t there and I heard about this 3rd or 4th hand…
But supposedly 2 guys there were playing on the clock, and as you know when you get both players below 10 minutes neither player can start another turn. Supposedly Necron player took an exceptionally long turn, gutted his opponents army, and ended with 8 or so minutes on his clock, when his opponent with just a few models left had 40+. The guy with 40+ sat there for 30 minutes till his clock was under 10, and then passed the turn, and as he had a few more CP, wins, as Necron player who has a massive advantage didn’t get another turn to finish up.
I really doubt this happened, as it would be against the code of conduct, and only an idiot necron player would sit there for 30 minutes, but it was something people seems to be talking about.
Oh it's happened at times, with players running out the clock. Best one I heard was in WMH, where a player saw they were playing what would be an unbeatable Trollkin list for them (and if they did engage, a miserable, drawn out game) so- what they did when their turn (and clock) started was walk off and go buy an ice cream then proceeded to eat it in front of their opponent as slowly as possible.
No idea if the guy got a judge over, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did (even though the player was breaking no rules).
It wouldn't work in Warmahordes. The clock is sudden death. He can sit their and buy ice cream and eat it, and the other guy can watch movies on his phone. The first guy to run out of time loses at that moment. The Troll player wouldn't have cared.
I'm aware. Troll player was denied a game they played money for though (I'll have to ask my friend for more details as he told me this) and his opponent knew they'd have a gak game so gave them a proverbial middle finger, seems annoying enough behaviour to call a judge over for, despite knowing they'll auto win the game.
I remember reading a reddit thread when this happened and a player knew this guy and they had met in basically a mirror match, however the redditer had his Castellan in a lance and apparently they'd discussed how that Castellan became a lot more powerful since it could effectively outrange the SHAD Castellan with all but one weapon. The story there being he absoluttely would've known about the rule (which he should've anyways since it's his centerpiece model).
Obviously take that story with a grain of salt but from what I gather, that guy had a bit of a reputation (according to several redditers) going into the event. I don't want to besmirch the man and can't point to the veracity of those claims. I can say that the behaviour shown at the time of this particular incident left a lot to be desired.
It's a shame that one of the storylines emerging from this years LVO seems to be players with poor sportmanship doing really well
PiñaColada wrote: I remember reading a reddit thread when this happened and a player knew this guy and they had met in basically a mirror match, however the redditer had his Castellan in a lance and apparently they'd discussed how that Castellan became a lot more powerful since it could effectively outrange the SHAD Castellan with all but one weapon. The story there being he absoluttely would've known about the rule (which he should've anyways since it's his centerpiece model).
Obviously take that story with a grain of salt but from what I gather, that guy had a bit of a reputation (according to several redditers) going into the event. I don't want to besmirch the man and can't point to the veracity of those claims. I can say that the behaviour shown at the time of this particular incident left a lot to be desired.
It's a shame that one of the storylines emerging from this years LVO seems to be players with poor sportmanship doing really well
I've always been a fan of sports scores. Small tournaments it sucks if you're not part of the clique, but with such a large tournament it would be hard to game it.
I found a reddit thread the pretty clearly laid out the events, and the people involved.
Player in question Had a Castellan, which I think we can all agree was the "central unit" of his whole game plan. No one brings a Titanic unit and uses it as chaff. He needs to know the rules of his core strategy mechanic.
That being the case, he began the game and denied his opponent a "rewind" on a rules error, when his opponent asked for one. Then, when his error came into play, he asked for a rewind after his opponent called him on it. He was denied a rewind, in turn. His opponent actually stated that the player in question had made this "mistake" in all his previous games, and had received warnings previously that day regarding this. Then the player in question begins shouting and throwing a temper tantrum, that not only makes it onto the game microphone, but also on one of the neighboring game's recordings as well. After shouting at the TO for about 5 minutes, he is allowed to keep his mistake, AND given back his CP that he spent on the "mistake".
To me this is pretty damning. Having one mistake, fine. accept it, learn from it, move on. Do not make a scene, throw a temper tantrum, and act like a jackbass all after receiving multiple warnings for the exact thing you are trying to do again.
Other people who have played this player state he is a jerk and a clock bully, who has used this "mistake" in tournament settings before.
Just my opinion, but this wasn't a mistake. This was one player trying and succeeding to get away with rules bloat, and having a hissy fit when called on it. Case and point - reports are TO's removed the videos of his game, and started banning people on the chat mentioning the event, or the player's name.
So usual "sweep it under the carpet" instead of address the issue and potentially ban this person from future events?
Sounds like business as usual. The old "He had a lapse in judgment" crap and "Let's not have any witchhunts" while allowing cheaters to essentially get away scot free by stopping discussion of it.
This is IMHO why competitive 40k can't be taken seriously. Literally, every single major tournament (in the US at least) since 8th edition has had some sort of drama on the top tables: Cheating, slow play, "misremembering" a rule, etc. And every time nothing is really done about it and in fact they seem to go out of their way to protect the guilty party from repercussions resulting from their behavior.
I am not referring to Alex Harrison, the outed cheater of last year, who was banned from London GTs for life for repeated violations of "player misconduct"
I think it's hilarious - people are everywhere complaining about the lists, the TERRAIN, and the TOs. Meanwhile you have one well known banned cheater in the top 3, and possibly other cheaters in the top 8.
If ITC wants to be taken seriously, and if wargaming as a whole wants to be taken seriously, it needs to have harsh penalties for "multiple oopsies" players like Harrison. If this other person is found to have cheated, they need to have a public demonstration that this crap isn't tolerated.
Why spend your money and hard earned time off to go out and loose to multiple cheaters and "low-scorers" (form of cheating in some tournaments)? I mean, if Harrison had one this, which he was close to doing, the whole event would have been a complete joke.
It's obvious this game has a cheating problem with more than just moving models an extra inch. You have calculated cheaters in top 8.
In other tourney scenes, it seems if there is question on your behavior, and people question your win, or you were found wrong to have done something, you DQ yourself. Sort of a fall on your sword. Why doesn't that happen in 40K?
Could you give specifics? I didn't read completely so I missed but apart from the admech thing other mentions I noticed seemed to be players of dubious trust from PREVIOUS cases like London GT hammerhead pushing.
(incidentally got good laugh at the mention of daemon players 6k points or so worth of summoning pool. Well to be fair that's pretty much point of summoning to give you ability to custom tailor your summoning against opponent so you pretty much need to have tons of options. Horrible to transport probably 3x points just for reserves...well maybe that 6k was exaggeration)
Could you give specifics? I didn't read completely so I missed but apart from the admech thing other mentions I noticed seemed to be players of dubious trust from PREVIOUS cases like London GT hammerhead pushing.
(incidentally got good laugh at the mention of daemon players 6k points or so worth of summoning pool. Well to be fair that's pretty much point of summoning to give you ability to custom tailor your summoning against opponent so you pretty much need to have tons of options. Horrible to transport probably 3x points just for reserves...well maybe that 6k was exaggeration)
Didn't check that link out thouroghly but there has been a lot of cleaning up in the reddit threads over the last few days. Things escalate pretty quickly when discussing suspected cheaters.
Also, I'm pretty sure the 6k isn't an overstatement, I think it was 6750 points. Fairly certain that was confirmed, there was a picture of his cart and everything.
Well more power to him if he did have that much models with him Impressive just to carry that much models! That's then what 8000+ pts...IF anybody has picture of that cart please share
But at least he's taking max out of summoning. If you don't have big toolbox of reinforcements to tailor to your opponent/current need the summoning kind of loses it's point entirely.
Could you give specifics? I didn't read completely so I missed but apart from the admech thing other mentions I noticed seemed to be players of dubious trust from PREVIOUS cases like London GT hammerhead pushing.
(incidentally got good laugh at the mention of daemon players 6k points or so worth of summoning pool. Well to be fair that's pretty much point of summoning to give you ability to custom tailor your summoning against opponent so you pretty much need to have tons of options. Horrible to transport probably 3x points just for reserves...well maybe that 6k was exaggeration)
I'm sorry, but this thread is 2 pages long. We have discussed multiple times what the first guy did. The second guy is such a well known cheater he is banned for life from attending the London Tournament.
There are no daemon players in my meta but I was under the impression that you had to list all of your units and summoned units had to appear on the army list. Is this not the case? Are you really allowed to "free form" part of your army this way?
The Household Raven trait allows Knights to advance and still shoot all weapons including heavy with no penalty. It does not get this ability if taken in a super heavy auxiliary like this player took.
This player in his movement phase must have advanced to get into range of an enemy unit. As it advance, it only gets to fire assault weapons at -1 to hit i.e. meltaguns.
The Order of Companions stratagem costs 3CP (which this knight can use) specifies at the START of the shooting phase to nominate a knight to reroll all 1s. Declaring it at the START is a key part of how this should be played as you should not be able to shoot other stuff first and then decide to play this strat when you please.
As the Knight advanced, it could only fire its assault weapons. So the stratagem technically speaking still works.
From the information that is here and on reddit etc, said player was told about this rule, wanted to reverse his decision to play the stratagem to get back his 3CP, and then I believe take back his advance move in the Movement phase, thereby enabling it to fire as normal. I suspect that it advanced but was probably not in range of anything. He may then decided to play the stratagem if he wanted.
That is the gist of it.
My take, yes the rule is easy enough to mix up if your new to the faction. It would be passable if it was someone inexperienced. This guy ended up in the top 8 so doesn't get an easy pass for his actions. Also his response to this was unacceptable at all levels. I don't believe anyone should have to tolerate such tantrums and its a shame that they would be allowed to continue to the top. Not a good look for the tournament or the game in general.
Could you give specifics? I didn't read completely so I missed but apart from the admech thing other mentions I noticed seemed to be players of dubious trust from PREVIOUS cases like London GT hammerhead pushing.
(incidentally got good laugh at the mention of daemon players 6k points or so worth of summoning pool. Well to be fair that's pretty much point of summoning to give you ability to custom tailor your summoning against opponent so you pretty much need to have tons of options. Horrible to transport probably 3x points just for reserves...well maybe that 6k was exaggeration)
I'm sorry, but this thread is 2 pages long. We have discussed multiple times what the first guy did. The second guy is such a well known cheater he is banned for life from attending the London Tournament.
So you are refering to just the 3 guys mentioned in reddit thread that i mentioned? In which only 1 guy actually had done anything fishy and the 2 other mentioned were mentioned just due to their past history with no indication or proof they cheated here?
Good to know.
Btw what does this thread being 2 pages be relevant to that reddit thread being long as hell?
Smirrors wrote: The Household Raven trait allows Knights to advance and still shoot all weapons including heavy with no penalty. It does not get this ability if taken in a super heavy auxiliary like this player took.
This player in his movement phase must have advanced to get into range of an enemy unit. As it advance, it only gets to fire assault weapons at -1 to hit i.e. meltaguns.
The Order of Companions stratagem costs 3CP (which this knight can use) specifies at the START of the shooting phase to nominate a knight to reroll all 1s. Declaring it at the START is a key part of how this should be played as you should not be able to shoot other stuff first and then decide to play this strat when you please.
As the Knight advanced, it could only fire its assault weapons. So the stratagem technically speaking still works.
From the information that is here and on reddit etc, said player was told about this rule, wanted to reverse his decision to play the stratagem to get back his 3CP, and then I believe take back his advance move in the Movement phase, thereby enabling it to fire as normal. I suspect that it advanced but was probably not in range of anything. He may then decided to play the stratagem if he wanted.
That is the gist of it.
My take, yes the rule is easy enough to mix up if your new to the faction. It would be passable if it was someone inexperienced. This guy ended up in the top 8 so doesn't get an easy pass for his actions. Also his response to this was unacceptable at all levels. I don't believe anyone should have to tolerate such tantrums and its a shame that they would be allowed to continue to the top. Not a good look for the tournament or the game in general.
To be fair, he has only been playing for a little over a year and a half, and he did receive a yellow card for his reactions.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: There are no daemon players in my meta but I was under the impression that you had to list all of your units and summoned units had to appear on the army list. Is this not the case? Are you really allowed to "free form" part of your army this way?
You just reserve points. Whole point of summoning is the free forming. Otherwise they are just inferior daemons with no free rules you get from locustes etc that come by having existing character sitting at one point. Even with free forming it's generally considered weak making getting to 10th impressive feat.
To be fair, he has only been playing for a little over a year and a half, and he did receive a yellow card for his reactions.
Word is he has some infractions from some other tournaments so perhaps that makes it look worse. Also there have been player anecdotal evidence that he should have know this specific rule as it was brought up with him from a previous tournament.
From reddit:
"As someone who has played XXX in a tournament last year and faced his Aux Detachment Castellan vs my castellan and we literally talked about how he couldnt advance which meant my Castellan out threat ranged his - yes, he is definitely a cheater. That is not including any of the other shenanigans he tried to pull on me as well including claiming equipment was on models and when we( myself and the judge standing right there) looked at his list - it was infact NOT on the models. The man also likes to move his movment 6 models 8-9''. I've played Mini Games and Warhammer for 20 years - he has the award of mine of the worst opponent I have ever played, in any game."
It probably makes no difference but I think that his attitude deserves worse than just a yellow card. But assume that is going off the new code of conduct so it is what it is.
From my understanding, there is some very bad blood between the player on question and a group in KC. This came to a head in a tournament last year. This is where he got banned, not because of what happened at the tournament but because of the facebook argument that ensued afterwards (again he gets way too emotional with this stuff). I would bet that these guys are involved in the Reddit discussion. The stuff they accuse him of are not even remotely consistent with his play locally.
As I understand it he has run into this before and was confused due to some faq, and asked several highly respected players how it was supposed to be played and he was playing consistent to how he was told by them and how it had been played against him in matches. Like i said before, the right move would have been to ask the judges beforehand so there would be no question.
Like I said, intense - yes, over emotional - yes, inexperienced - yes, but intentionally shady player - no, that has not been my experience, or the experience of the local players here.
Edit: and yes, the cries of those that are out for blood, er bannings, seem to forget that there is a code of conduct and the judges followed that code. And I cannot think of a single competitive sport or event where competitors get banned from the event for the slightest rules infraction. There are generally levels of warnings and penalties.
Does the defense of his behavior as "not shady" account for the fact that he refused to let his opponent take back a mistake earlier in the game but then threw a fit over not being allowed to take back his mistake? That's a texbook example of a TFG player trying to bend the rules in their favor.
That faq and experienced players telling part sounds rather fishy though. What faq exactly are we talking that supposedly changes very clear rule in codex that specifically excludes sh aux det from getting traits?
If such a faq confused him surely he has no trouble specifying exact faq and quote from the answer in question?
I have to say that my biggest problem with this guy wasn't his misunderstanding/misuse of the rules, or even the tantrum.
It's the violation of the Golden Rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated.
He refused someone else a 'takeback/do-over', and then expected one himself, from the same guy, in the same game.
Either it's perfectly okay to refuse that to your opponent, in which case it should be perfectly okay for them to refuse it to you---or it's sort of a douche move, when you do it, and when they do it to you. What kind of entitled head-space can someone get into where a courtesy should be extended to them, from a person to whom they refused that courtesy? My mind boggles.
I don't know, I'd have to ask him. Just trying to recall some of the conversation we had.
As far as the take back he viewed it as an entirely different situation due to timing or something. I told him that that was a pretty rediculous view as it doesn't matter. As soon as you deny a take back in a game, you can't expect your opponent to allow you a take back regardless of the situation or circumstances.
I'm not justifying what he did or how he approached it. I'm just offering the perspective that he did not go into it with a "haha I'm getting away with something I shouldn't" attitude.
Maelstrom808 wrote: The stuff they accuse him of are not even remotely consistent with his play locally.
As I understand it he has run into this before and was confused due to some faq, and asked several highly respected players how it was supposed to be played and he was playing consistent to how he was told by them and how it had been played against him in matches. Like i said before, the right move would have been to ask the judges beforehand so there would be no question.
Like I said, intense - yes, over emotional - yes, inexperienced - yes, but intentionally shady player - no, that has not been my experience, or the experience of the local players here.
The player I quoted stated he explained to him how the rule works (where true or not is another matter). His public tantrum is pretty consistent with what people are saying. As even you said, intense and emotional.
Its a very easy rule to explain. There is no need for a judge or highly respected player. Just point to the codex where it explicitly says auxiliaries don't get the trait.
I am sure even you can see why it does not add up. We aren't talking Ynnari soul burst shenanigans or something technical.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maelstrom808 wrote: I don't know, I'd have to ask him. Just trying to recall some of the conversation we had.
As far as the take back he viewed it as an entirely different situation due to timing or something. I told him that that was a pretty rediculous view as it doesn't matter. As soon as you deny a take back in a game, you can't expect your opponent to allow you a take back regardless of the situation or circumstances.
I'm not justifying what he did or how he approached it. I'm just offering the perspective that he did not go into it with a "haha I'm getting away with something I shouldn't" attitude.
Ask him if someone ever told him that he could not advance and shoot as the guy on reddit claimed. That should tell you everything. His explanation about being confused doesn't pass the BS test.
You also have to note that a cheater will never admit it. They make excuses hence why its a slippery slope when you accuse someone. If he admits anything, he's basically done for as far as 40K competitive goes.
He may very well have thought he could get away with it at the time. He may have made a mistake. You will never get the true answer.
I've had plenty of players "explain" rules to me and be dead wrong because they missed a FAQ or some other interaction or straight up were full of it. Again, I don't know exactly where he got messed up on the rule, just relaying what i can remember and my experiences with him over numerous tournaments, practice games, and other players interactions.
And yeah I've seen even the some of the best players get twisted up on simple stuff before.
Edit: If you play a cheater enough, it will eventually become apparent that they are a cheater. Even if not to you, then to other people that you know and trust that play them. That has not been the case here, and many of the claims of the Reddit thread are inconsistent with the experience we have had playing him over many more games than the posters there ever will. When I get the chance, I'll talk to him some more about it.
Maelstrom808 wrote: I've had plenty of players "explain" rules to me and be dead wrong because they missed a FAQ or some other interaction or straight up were full of it. Again, I don't know exactly where he got messed up on the rule, just relaying what i can remember and my experiences with him over numerous tournaments, practice games, and other players interactions.
And yeah I've seen even the some of the best players get twisted up on simple stuff before.
Edit: If you play a cheater enough, it will eventually become apparent that they are a cheater. Even if not to you, then to other people that you know and trust that play them. That has not been the case here, and many of the claims of the Reddit thread are inconsistent with the experience we have had playing him over many more games than the posters there ever will. When I get the chance, I'll talk to him some more about it.
Well there's NOTHING in knight faq that would be even close to being confusing with this.
Well if he doesn't have solid proof accusing them publicly could technically even be cause for legal trouble wouldn't it? Especially in America. There's court charges for weirder things in there.
A kind of a sad, that you can't say what you think. Thank you for explaining this to me.
Why should you be able to "say what you think" to whoever you want even if it isn't true? That kind of stuff can damage people's reputations, hurt their livelihoods and careers, and cost them a lot of money.
America doesn't even have particularly stringent laws in this regard... for example, to sue for libel/slander in the U.S. the person doing the suing has to prove that what is being said is a lie, which is usually impossible unless there is direct evidence.
I've heard that in the U.K the person being sued has to outright prove that it's TRUE.
OK, as someone who was watching the stream at the time – this is how it went down.
It was the top of turn 2. The Admech/Knight player had a very very strong first turn and was in a very strong position, to the point where the T’au player had basically 0% chance of winning in normal circumstances.
In the movement phase, the Admech player advanced his Knight Raven Castellan (in an Auxiliary Super Heavy Detachment) for a grand total of an extra 2” movement. He didn’t need to advance to draw LoS on the remaining units the Castellan would target.
Shooting phase he uses the Raven Strat to allow him to re-roll 1’s on everything then attempts to shoot with the Knight. The T’au player steps in and says he can’t shoot due to advancing and ASHD don’t give you House traits.
15-20 mins later the guy is still arguing with everyone about it (being described as very angry, agitated and red faced by the casters), to the point where he is refunded the 3CP for the Raven Strat but, is -NOT- allowed to fire the Castellan that round.
Long and short of it, the way the player reacted and handled the situation was way more important than the actual rules mistake. He’d already won the game at this point, and arguing the way he did, with the people he did, in such a pubic manner was nothing short of completely unacceptable.
Also, I agree with Tneva and the others regarding faq mistakes etc. There is nothing, anywhere, that would imply that a Knight, outside of a Super Heavy Detachment, would gain the benefits of the chosen Knight House. Maybe he just mis-read the rule in his codex (if he actually had the codex with him/has it at all). But to say that other people potentially confused him with explaining faqs etc, is a pretty bad, and non-starter, excuse.
Maybe it was completely unintentional and he got caught out, maybe it wasn’t. But, we can be 99% sure that based on what has been said, and his reaction, he was playing it the same in all his previous games. It just wasn’t picked up.
Could you give specifics? I didn't read completely so I missed but apart from the admech thing other mentions I noticed seemed to be players of dubious trust from PREVIOUS cases like London GT hammerhead pushing.
(incidentally got good laugh at the mention of daemon players 6k points or so worth of summoning pool. Well to be fair that's pretty much point of summoning to give you ability to custom tailor your summoning against opponent so you pretty much need to have tons of options. Horrible to transport probably 3x points just for reserves...well maybe that 6k was exaggeration)
I'm sorry, but this thread is 2 pages long. We have discussed multiple times what the first guy did. The second guy is such a well known cheater he is banned for life from attending the London Tournament.
So you are refering to just the 3 guys mentioned in reddit thread that i mentioned? In which only 1 guy actually had done anything fishy and the 2 other mentioned were mentioned just due to their past history with no indication or proof they cheated here?
Good to know.
Btw what does this thread being 2 pages be relevant to that reddit thread being long as hell?
Alex is going to carry that stigma for years, and the internet is just a great way to keep reminding people about it all, I guess.
But, in his defence in regards to his conduct at the LVO, I doubt that there has ever been someone so closely watched and scrutinised by the Judges, spectators and his players. The fact that he beat some of the USA’s top players cleanly and fairly over the course of the event, in said circumstances, is something that needs to be highlighted. Alex doesn’t need to cheat to win. He just himself over by what he did last year.
Kdash wrote: Alex is going to carry that stigma for years, and the internet is just a great way to keep reminding people about it all, I guess.
No doubt but claiming there was more suspicious just for past actions seems bit too harsh. Having extra monitorin for him sure. But was there even anything actual shady in THIS tournament from him to warrant such a claim? If he was scrutinised by everybody surely at least some hint of such would have come if he's accused of suspicious activity.
Woah woah woah guys, for his acts in previous events? This Alex Harrison guy totally screwed over Skari. Read his post on Reddit. Collected missed dice as hits and bullied Skari off the board.
Woah woah woah guys, for his acts in previous events? This Alex Harrison guy totally screwed over Skari. Read his post on Reddit. Collected missed dice as hits and bullied Skari off the board.
That seems a bit strange to even let such players play.
elook wrote: Woah woah woah guys, for his acts in previous events? This Alex Harrison guy totally screwed over Skari. Read his post on Reddit. Collected missed dice as hits and bullied Skari off the board.
Well that's why I asked was there anything else in that reddit post because from what I read from that thread only references to Alex were "he was that guy from last London GT" and same for the 3rd guy.
Peregrine wrote: Does the defense of his behavior as "not shady" account for the fact that he refused to let his opponent take back a mistake earlier in the game but then threw a fit over not being allowed to take back his mistake? That's a texbook example of a TFG player trying to bend the rules in their favor.
That and his apparent poor impulse control and anger management are the real issue here. That behaviour should IMO result in an immediate forfeiture of that particular game at the very least (personally I'd say expulsion from the event and the venue should have been the punishment, regardless of whether he made a mistake or deliberately cheated. If you can't behave like a civilised adult, then no-one else should be forced to suffer your antics.
Speaking as someone who owns a Castellan and has been playing that rule wrong since the codex came out (as in, I didn't find out about it until reading this thread):
If I made that mistake or a similar error in a paid-entry tournament with prizes, and didn't find out until a couple games in, I would request to have all my wins posthumously changed to losses.
If I found out, say, game one turn one, after advancing and spending the Command Points on a Stratagem I couldn't use, I'd eat the command points, not fire my weapons, and keep playing.
When at a competitive event with prizes on the line, getting the rules wrong in your advantage isn't acceptable.
(This goes for other types of cheating mentioned, too. If I get two units mixed up or forget to nominate them, I'll let my opponent decide which is which.)
Waaaghpower wrote: Speaking as someone who owns a Castellan and has been playing that rule wrong since the codex came out (as in, I didn't find out about it until reading this thread):
If I made that mistake or a similar error in a paid-entry tournament with prizes, and didn't find out until a couple games in, I would request to have all my wins posthumously changed to losses.
If I found out, say, game one turn one, after advancing and spending the Command Points on a Stratagem I couldn't use, I'd eat the command points, not fire my weapons, and keep playing.
When at a competitive event with prizes on the line, getting the rules wrong in your advantage isn't acceptable.
elook wrote: Woah woah woah guys, for his acts in previous events? This Alex Harrison guy totally screwed over Skari. Read his post on Reddit. Collected missed dice as hits and bullied Skari off the board.
Well that's why I asked was there anything else in that reddit post because from what I read from that thread only references to Alex were "he was that guy from last London GT" and same for the 3rd guy.
Waaaghpower wrote: Speaking as someone who owns a Castellan and has been playing that rule wrong since the codex came out (as in, I didn't find out about it until reading this thread):
If I made that mistake or a similar error in a paid-entry tournament with prizes, and didn't find out until a couple games in, I would request to have all my wins posthumously changed to losses.
If I found out, say, game one turn one, after advancing and spending the Command Points on a Stratagem I couldn't use, I'd eat the command points, not fire my weapons, and keep playing.
When at a competitive event with prizes on the line, getting the rules wrong in your advantage isn't acceptable.
Shame that not many people would do so.
I get a bit of a reputation for being a rules stickler with my friends, but it usually comes down to "I want to play the game the way it's designed to be played" combined with "I don't want to win unless I've earned it". Winning is fun, but it's only fun because you overcame a challenge. I don't mind when other players make mistakes, especially in casual games, and if we're not at a prized tournament I always let my opponents go back and fix stuff they've done wrong unless it's impractical to do so. But for my army, especially when my opponent has paid for the privilege to be at a tournament, I'm not going to rob them of a fair game or a shot at the top prize if I can help it.
So, that reddit thread really is just an Alex vs Skari + reddit. Something obviously must have happened for Skari to make the post, but there are some many opinions put out as facts from all quarters it’s hard to put forward a neutral informed view.
I must admit I hadn’t seen that conversation before today.
I’m kinda confused about the whole Jinx issue with Brandon’s Bullgryn. I didn’t see the game as I fell asleep, but was it first turn as Alex suggests it was? And, Jinx does reduce the saving throw by 1, so any 4’s would become 3’s etc. If it wasn’t first turn and Barrier was up, then I guess they just negate each other. Likewise, with the +1 to save from cover negating Jinx’s effects on the armour saves. Without cover or barrier, vs Jinx, the Bullgryn would always have a 3+ save on the slab shields and a 5++ on the brute shields. If in cover, it’d have been a 2+ on the slabs and a 4+/5++ on the brutes. Cover and Barrier would have been 1+ & 3+/4++.
I’m guessing I’m missing something here, otherwise, it seems like a pretty straight forward interaction to me?
I don’t suppose anyone can independently confirm whether or not Alex actually got any yellow cards at the event? Does FLG publish these things now they have their new system up and running?
Picking up hits vs picking up misses is, and always will be contentious. I wonder what’d have happened if Alex was requested to pick up the misses instead. I think this could prob do with being added into the Code of Conduct as a suggestion for all players to follow, along with clearing dice from the “rolling area” before making the next rolls.
I can see how Alex constantly making comments like “lets see if it explodes” even in a joking way, before you have a chance to say anything yourself, would get very annoying. The only people that know how that back and forth went were the 2 players and the judge that showed up pretty early on (by the sounds of it). Everything else is just pointless speculation.
Bullying is always unacceptable, regardless of the form it takes.
Right now, all we can do is hope FLG have taken note and take action based on the actual evidence and any first-hand accounts they have. (however, I’m not expecting a great deal…)
Ordana wrote: If someone with the reputation of Alex is picking up hits instead of misses then he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, he was trying to cheat.
Exactly. He also seems amusingly unaware of how much worse he looks when he comes in to defend himself. On a more serious note, if you've got people claiming that not only was he cheating, but also involved in behaviour that came across as bullying that's something that needs to be dealt with very severely if shown to be true, though unfortunately it's very difficult to prove. Kind of telling as well that LVO didn't want ot put the game on stream because of the player involved. If you're that worried about a player's behaviour in the first place why is he at your event?
I had hoped we'd seen an end to these types of behaviours at big tournaments and I'm a little surprised a guy who was shouting and screaming about a ruling wasn't ejected from the event on the spot. Even if it wasn't directed at a judge, that's the sort of behaviour I'd except from an entitled 12-year old, not a grown adult and, again, TOs need to be seen to be dealing with that sort of thing appropriately.
Alex earned his rep. Now he has to work to un-earn it. He needs to be followed and watched by a dedicated TO, and none of his games can get press. I think that was his situation here? Did they include anything else stricter?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Alex earned his rep. Now he has to work to un-earn it. He needs to be followed and watched by a dedicated TO, and none of his games can get press. I think that was his situation here? Did they include anything else stricter?
According to Skari's comments in the linked Reddit post there wasn't a judge permanently stationed at the table until turn 3, so there wasn't constant judge/TO scrutiny, no.
I disagree with the idea any player should be monitored that closely at an event anyway. If you have a player who is so untrusted by the organisers they feel the need to station a judge at their table for each and every game just ban them. It's not worth the hassle. Having reflected on something Skari mentions in his Reddit post I think there's an important factor to consider for the TOs here that may have been overlooked. Skari commented he was already a bit upset that the game was supposed to be streamed but when the organisers realised who his opponent was they decided against streaming it. Assuming that's true, you've got a player who is being affected by the poor reputation of their opponent, missing out on the opportunity to play on stream and get some limited edition dice, all through no fault of their own. Doesn't seem so fair to allow that one bad opponent to spoil things like that for others, does it?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Alex earned his rep. Now he has to work to un-earn it. He needs to be followed and watched by a dedicated TO, and none of his games can get press. I think that was his situation here? Did they include anything else stricter?
According to Skari's comments in the linked Reddit post there wasn't a judge permanently stationed at the table until turn 3, so there wasn't constant judge/TO scrutiny, no.
I disagree with the idea any player should be monitored that closely at an event anyway. If you have a player who is so untrusted by the organisers they feel the need to station a judge at their table for each and every game just ban them. It's not worth the hassle. Having reflected on something Skari mentions in his Reddit post I think there's an important factor to consider for the TOs here that may have been overlooked. Skari commented he was already a bit upset that the game was supposed to be streamed but when the organisers realised who his opponent was they decided against streaming it. Assuming that's true, you've got a player who is being affected by the poor reputation of their opponent, missing out on the opportunity to play on stream and get some limited edition dice, all through no fault of their own. Doesn't seem so fair to allow that one bad opponent to spoil things like that for others, does it?
I was watching the stream I seem to remember them saying Alex didn't want his games to be streamed. And I think its only natural and fair to ask both players if they want to be on stream before putting them infront of a camera.
(The final is the final and I don't think players had a choice to be on stream there)
Which is a very different situation compared to organisers not wanting Alex to be on stream.
Honestly, I say kudos for somebody finally taking a stand against this instead of just ignoring it like ITC tends to do.
Name and shame these scumbags. Ban them. Make people know that they are bad for the hobby and, if possible, push them out. They don't belong here. Not that I think this game even remotely belongs as a competitive one, but until cheaters get dealt with harshly it will never be taken seriously.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Alex earned his rep. Now he has to work to un-earn it. He needs to be followed and watched by a dedicated TO, and none of his games can get press. I think that was his situation here? Did they include anything else stricter?
According to Skari's comments in the linked Reddit post there wasn't a judge permanently stationed at the table until turn 3, so there wasn't constant judge/TO scrutiny, no.
I disagree with the idea any player should be monitored that closely at an event anyway. If you have a player who is so untrusted by the organisers they feel the need to station a judge at their table for each and every game just ban them. It's not worth the hassle. Having reflected on something Skari mentions in his Reddit post I think there's an important factor to consider for the TOs here that may have been overlooked. Skari commented he was already a bit upset that the game was supposed to be streamed but when the organisers realised who his opponent was they decided against streaming it. Assuming that's true, you've got a player who is being affected by the poor reputation of their opponent, missing out on the opportunity to play on stream and get some limited edition dice, all through no fault of their own. Doesn't seem so fair to allow that one bad opponent to spoil things like that for others, does it?
I was watching the stream I seem to remember them saying Alex didn't want his games to be streamed. And I think its only natural and fair to ask both players if they want to be on stream before putting them infront of a camera.
(The final is the final and I don't think players had a choice to be on stream there)
Which is a very different situation compared to organisers not wanting Alex to be on stream.
Fair enough, that lines up with the account from Skari, even if the reasoning wasn't 100% correct.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Alex earned his rep. Now he has to work to un-earn it. He needs to be followed and watched by a dedicated TO, and none of his games can get press. I think that was his situation here? Did they include anything else stricter?
According to Skari's comments in the linked Reddit post there wasn't a judge permanently stationed at the table until turn 3, so there wasn't constant judge/TO scrutiny, no.
I disagree with the idea any player should be monitored that closely at an event anyway. If you have a player who is so untrusted by the organisers they feel the need to station a judge at their table for each and every game just ban them. It's not worth the hassle. Having reflected on something Skari mentions in his Reddit post I think there's an important factor to consider for the TOs here that may have been overlooked. Skari commented he was already a bit upset that the game was supposed to be streamed but when the organisers realised who his opponent was they decided against streaming it. Assuming that's true, you've got a player who is being affected by the poor reputation of their opponent, missing out on the opportunity to play on stream and get some limited edition dice, all through no fault of their own. Doesn't seem so fair to allow that one bad opponent to spoil things like that for others, does it?
If a TO was stationed at each of the top 8 tables, and final 4, and so on, it would seriously cut down on these "judgement mistakes". It is too prevalent a problem, and far too easy a solution. 1 "mistake" issue in the top 8 is too many. It's why you don't see these sort of "mistakes" in other professional events. You don't see chess players moving rooks diagonally, or tennis players accidentally catching balls out of the air. If you are a top competitor in your given field/hobby/sport, you don't make these "mistakes".
One bad opponent having the game watched by a TO would make the match as fair as possible, and remove the fear of cheating. How is that spoiling things???
If a TO was stationed at each of the top 8 tables, and final 4, and so on, it would seriously cut down on these "judgement mistakes". It is too prevalent a problem, and far too easy a solution. 1 "mistake" issue in the top 8 is too many. It's why you don't see these sort of "mistakes" in other professional events. You don't see chess players moving rooks diagonally, or tennis players accidentally catching balls out of the air. If you are a top competitor in your given field/hobby/sport, you don't make these "mistakes".
One bad opponent having the game watched by a TO would make the match as fair as possible, and remove the fear of cheating. How is that spoiling things???
The "spoiling things" quote was in relation to Skari not getting to be on stream, not in relation to having a judge at the table. It seems there may have been a slightly different reason for not being on stream anyway. I have no problem with judges at the top tables as a matter of routine. Judges are a limited resource but putting them on the top tables sounds like a good idea all round. What I'm not in favour of is singling out one individual to have permanent judge presence at their table due to their reputation and regardless of their position in the tournament. At that point you might as well just ban that individual.
So the Code of Conduct didn't matter in this event?
If the actions to be believed
Player A says no to a take back for Player B...
Player A makes a mistake and Player B says rightly NO to a take back.
Player A acts in an anti-sport manner (at this point I think this is intentional cheating due to the behaviour alone).
-E.g. it looks to be someone using any trick in the book to win games rather than relying on their skill. An "Unintentionally" forgetting how your rules work on a top table.
Judge should have taken a more harsh action and not refund any cp, an mby more serious actions in the CodeC.
I from a ygo TCG context an breaking the sequence of events is really game breaking.
TLDR: You would be instantly DQ'd in a ygo event if you behaved like this LUL.
I'm going to give the judge a pass. Losing a shooting phase from the Castellan is most likely good enough. No need to double down on taking the 3 CP. And I'd be fine with that if I was the opponent. I have my own sportmanship to maintain as well.
Regarding the Alex Harrison game in the final, wasn't there a bit of controversy where he moved like half his supersonic fliers and then starting going back to the ones he already moved and altering their positions?
I can be somewhat malleable if it's normal unit you're doing that to since it doesn't matter all that much IMO but supersonics have really restrictive rules for moving (even though not as much for the space elves) so if you noticed mistakes after you put it down and finished moving several other planes then tough luck.
Generally speaking, I think it's fine and the correct response to refund the CP if it wasn't something you could have done in the first place e.g. use a stratagem that you wouldn't have been able to use (such as one used at the start of the movement phase at the end of the movement phase by "mistake")
ThatMG wrote: So the Code of Conduct didn't matter in this event?
If the actions to be believed
Player A says no to a take back for Player B...
Player A makes a mistake and Player B says rightly NO to a take back.
Player A acts in an anti-sport manner (at this point I think this is intentional cheating due to the behaviour alone).
-E.g. it looks to be someone using any trick in the book to win games rather than relying on their skill. An "Unintentionally" forgetting how your rules work on a top table.
Judge should have taken a more harsh action and not refund any cp, an mby more serious actions in the CodeC.
I from a ygo TCG context an breaking the sequence of events is really game breaking.
TLDR: You would be instantly DQ'd in a ygo event if you behaved like this LUL.
They had said multiple times that such behavior will not be tolerated, especially arguing with judges. Yet, this player did not receive red card and even get CP refund. About Harrison without video we don`t have evidence, i guess most top players are not easy to play against.
I believed he was monitored every game, since he have such reputation, but i guess they did not manage to do that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Generally speaking, I think it's fine and the correct response to refund the CP if it wasn't something you could have done in the first place e.g. use a stratagem that you wouldn't have been able to use (such as one used at the start of the movement phase at the end of the movement phase by "mistake")
You are wrong, he could have used the strat with adv weapons. Is that good no, is it legal yes.
With all the talk about trying to legitimize tournaments and make them some kind of esport, I'd say if you want to be taken seriously you absolutely need to blacklist people proven to be cheaters and that blacklist should be a public viewable file.
Same as in real sports when you get caught doping and you end up on the front page for it.
You are wrong, he could have used the strat with adv weapons. Is that good no, is it legal yes.
I agree, but the trick is to be nice. I mean, Alex shouldn't have asked. Have some pride man and accept your play. But the desire is to beat him at his best, not his worse.
auticus wrote: With all the talk about trying to legitimize tournaments and make them some kind of esport, I'd say if you want to be taken seriously you absolutely need to blacklist people proven to be cheaters and that blacklist should be a public viewable file.
Same as in real sports when you get caught doping and you end up on the front page for it.
Sports are *replete* with people cheating and getting away with it. Let's not act like regular sports are something to look up to.
auticus wrote: With all the talk about trying to legitimize tournaments and make them some kind of esport, I'd say if you want to be taken seriously you absolutely need to blacklist people proven to be cheaters and that blacklist should be a public viewable file.
Same as in real sports when you get caught doping and you end up on the front page for it.
Sports are *replete* with people cheating and getting away with it. Let's not act like regular sports are something to look up to.
Besides, the comparison doesn't work. Most sports have multiple refs and judges watching the action.... and still getting it wrong.
I just hope the LVO goes out with a statement that carries general statistics of the event, amonst those stats how many yellow cards were handed out. I don't think they need to name those people, at least not if they only got a single card since those could be given for not uploading you list on time IIRC. I don't think we need to publicly shame people for that but a breakdown of how many cards were handed out at the event alongside a breakdown for what they were given for would be illuminating.
If someone was banned (I don't think that happened here) then there should be a statement as to why the player was banned. It easily becomes a situation where that person is heavily publicly shamed which isn't great (there should be reprecussions but online bullying might damage that persons psyche, which is a bridge too far IMO). But at the same time the players deserve to know if the person they're playing has a history of cheating.
You are wrong, he could have used the strat with adv weapons. Is that good no, is it legal yes.
I agree, but the trick is to be nice. I mean, Alex shouldn't have asked. Have some pride man and accept your play. But the desire is to beat him at his best, not his worse.
I disagree, its top 8 in the biggest tournament, you are not allowed to take moves back.
Even if the opponent give you the chance to correct the mistake, you have to refuse.
You are wrong, he could have used the strat with adv weapons. Is that good no, is it legal yes.
I agree, but the trick is to be nice. I mean, Alex shouldn't have asked. Have some pride man and accept your play. But the desire is to beat him at his best, not his worse.
I disagree, its top 8 in the biggest tournament, you are not allowed to take moves back.
Even if the opponent give you the chance to correct the mistake, you have to refuse.
It's a policy of mine that I give leniency to my opponent, but refuse it for myself. If I make a mistake I need to learn from it so as to not repeat it.
auticus wrote: With all the talk about trying to legitimize tournaments and make them some kind of esport, I'd say if you want to be taken seriously you absolutely need to blacklist people proven to be cheaters and that blacklist should be a public viewable file.
Same as in real sports when you get caught doping and you end up on the front page for it.
Sports are *replete* with people cheating and getting away with it. Let's not act like regular sports are something to look up to.
I'm not looking up to them. Rather we are trying to make 40k tournaments the same in respect to sporting leagues. As we are trying to do that, then the people participating in those endeavors should be held at a higher level of scrutiny and standard and should be blacklisted if they are caught cheating.
I'm also of the opinion that no one should be using their own dice in tournaments because its a known thing with a lot of groups that people either bake or choose dice iin their collection that favorably rolls the majority of what they want.
You are wrong, he could have used the strat with adv weapons. Is that good no, is it legal yes.
I agree, but the trick is to be nice. I mean, Alex shouldn't have asked. Have some pride man and accept your play. But the desire is to beat him at his best, not his worse.
I disagree, its top 8 in the biggest tournament, you are not allowed to take moves back.
Even if the opponent give you the chance to correct the mistake, you have to refuse.
It's a policy of mine that I give leniency to my opponent, but refuse it for myself. If I make a mistake I need to learn from it so as to not repeat it.
If you want to make this about how real sports cheat, and Esports is no different, well, I present you the case of Thomas Brady vs. NFL. There was a LITERAL CONGRESSIONAL HEARING about whether or not there was cheating in the NFL, and how Brady might have cheated. They attempted to pass ACTUAL legislation to deal with cheating in sports. But when you have two team owners playing live action Bloodbowl, with billions spent on the real life models, it takes a different scope I guess. But I digress.
If the ITC spent even a fraction of their time actually caring about game accountability, they would have a lot less problems then they do now. But, as it stands, they obviously don't. They care about butts in seats, and dollars in pockets. All the ITC has to do is publicly call out one incident of cheating, to make a difference. And they don't even have to use names. "A player during the tournament was deemed by judges to have attempted to gain an unsportman like advantage, and was thus removed from play."
auticus wrote: With all the talk about trying to legitimize tournaments and make them some kind of esport, I'd say if you want to be taken seriously you absolutely need to blacklist people proven to be cheaters and that blacklist should be a public viewable file.
Same as in real sports when you get caught doping and you end up on the front page for it.
Sports are *replete* with people cheating and getting away with it. Let's not act like regular sports are something to look up to.
I'm not looking up to them. Rather we are trying to make 40k tournaments the same in respect to sporting leagues. As we are trying to do that, then the people participating in those endeavors should be held at a higher level of scrutiny and standard and should be blacklisted if they are caught cheating.
I'm also of the opinion that no one should be using their own dice in tournaments because its a known thing with a lot of groups that people either bake or choose dice iin their collection that favorably rolls the majority of what they want.
But I digress.
I've often pondered making a dice app that verifies by pairing to your opponent. Results of rolls are visible on both devices simultaneously and occasionally seeded by a central server.
But...it's probably a big ask to make sure everyone has a properly charged phone that can last all day.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you want to make this about how real sports cheat, and Esports is no different, well, I present you the case of Thomas Brady vs. NFL. There was a LITERAL CONGRESSIONAL HEARING about whether or not there was cheating in the NFL, and how Brady might have cheated. They attempted to pass ACTUAL legislation to deal with cheating in sports. But when you have two team owners playing live action Bloodbowl, with billions spent on the real life models, it takes a different scope I guess. But I digress.
If the ITC spent even a fraction of their time actually caring about game accountability, they would have a lot less problems then they do now. But, as it stands, they obviously don't. They care about butts in seats, and dollars in pockets. All the ITC has to do is publicly call out one incident of cheating, to make a difference. And they don't even have to use names. "A player during the tournament was deemed by judges to have attempted to gain an unsportman like advantage, and was thus removed from play."
I think the problem is there can be negatives about that also. Even legal consequences. They should make sure all ducks are in all orders before they attempt this as a big event. Some guy that spent several grand getting and playing in an event might be able to make a case of this if they aren't careful to do some prep work before this kind of action.
As someone who has had family involved in professional athletics, most people would be seriously shocked at how common cheating is at the upper level of competition. My completely anecdotal number is that roughly one third (33%) of professional athletes "cheat" in some capacity (usually performance enhancing drugs), and most get away with it their entire careers. Yes, THAT much. There is an entire industry devoted to helping athletes "juice" in a way undetectable by drug tests.
That being said, just because it is common, doesn't mean it needs to be accepted. Cheaters should absolutely be called out when caught, and punished.
That being said, innocent until proven guilty. Just because a person has a particular "reputation" doesn't mean we need to start assuming the worst every single time they are involved in anything shady. That may be base human nature, but out legal system and societal rules are trying to evolve past that.
w1zard wrote: As someone who has had family involved in professional athletics, most people would be seriously shocked at how common cheating is at the upper level of competition. My completely anecdotal number is that roughly one third (33%) of professional athletes "cheat" in some capacity (usually performance enhancing drugs), and most get away with it their entire careers. Yes, THAT much. There is an entire industry devoted to helping athletes "juice" in a way undetectable by drug tests.
That being said, just because it is common, doesn't mean it needs to be accepted. Cheaters should absolutely be called out when caught, and punished.
That being said, innocent until proven guilty. Just because a person has a particular "reputation" doesn't mean we need to start assuming the worst every single time they are involved in anything shady. That may be base human nature, but out legal system and societal rules are trying to evolve past that.
If they have a bad enough reputation they just need to be blacklisted for a period of time, maybe permanently if it's bad enough.
Instead, ITC usually goes out of their way to avoid mentioning it, or if they do it's always trying to deflect it and say how the guy is really a good guy and it should be ignored, which is the opposite of what you want. They usually defend the cheater against being outed as a cheater.
I guess they don't for the simple reason that it costs money to do this sort of background research, and to build a history on a player takes time. There were 300 tables? Times 2 players? So 600x(Time+Money) = Never going to happen unless the community self polices.
For starters, I think games media take a big swing at this.
If GW/we are trying to make this a T-sport sort of thing, then there are some major upgrades necessary to make it happen.
1) being a former competitive player and mostly a painter now I can’t stand watching the final at the LVO, as their armies looked bare minimum in term of painting requirements, I understand that most of us are not into the hobby side of things, but if the miniatures moving on the table look more like toys rather than gaming miniature=pro team wearing HS JV gear in the finals;
2) commentators: there should be a team of 3-4, 1 play by play, 1 tactics, 1 reporting from other tables, 1 color commentary;
3) prize support, I would ideally like the 40k prize support to be total at 40k, do some sort of scaling for placement winning;
4) make our hobby more accessible, GW should make replays on the streams available to everyone, not just subscribers, take a hint from free to play games like Fortnite/Apex etc.
I think a lot of this comes down to a culture of "Win at all costs" something that sadly has been cropping up over time in this country at least. Cheating is not only accepted its expected. The "ends justify the means" concept that I see all too often among young people makes it no surprise that this is happening in a tournament. Now dont get me wrong, there are plenty of class acts and great people out there but like anything else in life the nice person always finishes last.
As to HOW they get away with it, I'm going to say all kinds of harsh stuff, so roll with me on this. As a former straight white male (im still white, but im neither straight nor male anymore!) I have seen this lifestyle from both sides. Its very common for them to believe that they have the RIGHT to win. This means cheating is on the table, it means that other people do not have the wherewithal to QUESTION their decisions. Its a culture of "im right, you're wrong, because I'm the man" and this isn't just an attitude addressed at women, its addressed at anyone perceived as weak. It keeps circulating because more often or not these guys are also bullies. No one wants to deal with them because they are here to play a game and enjoy themselves so more often than not its the case of "well screw it, he can win, I dont need this crap in my life" from their opponents. This awful combination of events further inflates the egos of these nasty fellows and more often than not others will emulate this behavior because they want to win too "if he's cheating and gets away with it, why shouldn't I?". Its a pervasive sense of a certain group of people that the world owes them something and that its theirs to take as they please.
This guy should have been penalized. The fact he had been noted to have been breaking rules before hand should have meant there was zero room for interpretation. A cheater is a cheater and will cheat again, zero tolerance.
Now like I said, this MY interpretation based on my different view of life, a sort of outsiders perspective from someone who has seen the inside. I think people should earn everything in life, especially their failures. And through failure is how we grow. When people choose not to confront self entitled people like this they spread that disease and it sets in like a virulent cultural cancer. No amount of sportsmanship and good will can stop it unless the TOs are willing to excise these people.
To be perfectly honest I think 40k is probably one of, if not the worst, choices for a game to be a position as a "T-Sport", and that concept alone I think is ridiculous as something that should even remotely be considered as good for the hobby as a whole.
E-sports are toxic enough as it is and encourage an entire subculture that tries to "win" at life by being good at video games. We don't need to have that sort of garbage infest tabletop games. Streamers and people trying to be "e-celebrities" are bad enough.
If a TO was stationed at each of the top 8 tables, and final 4, and so on, it would seriously cut down on these "judgement mistakes". It is too prevalent a problem, and far too easy a solution. 1 "mistake" issue in the top 8 is too many. It's why you don't see these sort of "mistakes" in other professional events. You don't see chess players moving rooks diagonally, or tennis players accidentally catching balls out of the air. If you are a top competitor in your given field/hobby/sport, you don't make these "mistakes".
One bad opponent having the game watched by a TO would make the match as fair as possible, and remove the fear of cheating. How is that spoiling things???
You have cheating in chess. You have cheating in sport. You have cheating everywhere. Especially where money comes.
Wayniac wrote: To be perfectly honest I think 40k is probably one of, if not the worst, choices for a game to be a position as a "T-Sport", and that concept alone I think is ridiculous as something that should even remotely be considered as good for the hobby as a whole.
E-sports are toxic enough as it is and encourage an entire subculture that tries to "win" at life by being good at video games. We don't need to have that sort of garbage infest tabletop games. Streamers and people trying to be "e-celebrities" are bad enough.
It's not about making a sport. It's about strengthening the community enjoyment of Warhammer and presenting the hobby in a manner that encourages other people to play.
I guarantee you hardly any people unfamiliar with Warhammer watched those streams and left worried about a cheating problem. It's the internal community that lights these fires on a crusade to fix what they perceive as a rampant problem. I think we can all agree that it needs to be addressed more sharply, but treating competitive Warhammer like it's some bar on Tatooine is just silly.
There were over 3,000 games played and we're hearing about a few of incidents. I imagine there were way more incidents of dodgy dice manipulation on key rolls, but I'd bet if you polled the players you wouldn't indicate that they thought they had been cheated at any rate that is problematic.
So, to this ever becoming a sport that is accessible, I'm sorry, but no. For the cost it takes to get started in this "hobby" I can fully deck myself out for YEARS in other hobbies. To get a fully painted 2k army, with rules, codecies, faqs, CAs, and tools, we are talking well into the thousands. Maybe even 3 or 4.
No other competitive "every-man" hobby takes that sort of input. E-sports are popular because literally anyone can buy a game and play, that's all that is required., Skill is free. Even real sports like baseball only require a few hundred for equipment.
Warhammer is singular in the "hobby sports" in it's extreme cost and time investment.
Until GW comes up with a less "gouge the customer at all costs" attitude, you will never see this become mainstream.
Plenty of sports are bloody expensive. Sure equipment might be "few hundreds". Of course those are replaced pretty much yearly. Then club fees. Thousands is cheap.
And thousands for 2k is...optimistic.
Castellan, cadian defence force, 2 start collecting: IG, 2 ig infantry squad, 2 HWS, 3 basilisk, 3 boxes of ogryns, 2 codex. Not sure of points exact but that has castellan, 8 infantry squads, 9 mortars, 3 basilisks, 3 leman russ commanders and bits and stuff. Pretty sure that's 2k with spare. 622£. Add in rules and paints. Hardly thousands and 3-4k is laughable.
Big Mac wrote: If GW/we are trying to make this a T-sport sort of thing, then there are some major upgrades necessary to make it happen.
1) being a former competitive player and mostly a painter now I can’t stand watching the final at the LVO, as their armies looked bare minimum in term of painting requirements, I understand that most of us are not into the hobby side of things, but if the miniatures moving on the table look more like toys rather than gaming miniature=pro team wearing HS JV gear in the finals;
More than likely, organizations would either commission out their armies, or maintain a painter on staff who would paint the team's armies/miniatures to a consistent and high standard, much like any e-Sports team's support staff.
there are way more sports that cost a heck of a lot more than 40k to play competitively that are open to non-professionals, just as they are hobbies that cost way more.
plus hobbies that cost way less, price is almost a non-issue here, people cheat at zero stakes card games, some view it as a challenge, some out of habit, some because they are insecure enough they need to win at everything, reasons vary.
adding prize money makes the cheating more creative typically, adding 'authorities' makes the cheating a lot more creative
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, to this ever becoming a sport that is accessible, I'm sorry, but no. For the cost it takes to get started in this "hobby" I can fully deck myself out for YEARS in other hobbies. To get a fully painted 2k army, with rules, codecies, faqs, CAs, and tools, we are talking well into the thousands. Maybe even 3 or 4.
Multiple thousands? Well perhaps if you are commissioning a painter, but honestly most armies can be build for hundreds - 1K at most for some for a viable army provided you build and paint it yourself.
Heck a good PC computer to play those computer games will cost that much and is just as much a luxury expense since basic things (email word etc...) can run easily on a very cheap computer. Heck a basic console is going to cost you a good bulk army cost and that's without a game. Compare it to hobbies like photography and a decent entry level DSLR and lens is going to cost you, again, well into the hundreds that would be the bulk of a 40K army very easily.
Also lets compare some other sports - what about equine - the horse alone, for mid to high level competing, is going to make a warhammer army seem like small change and that's without running costs (feed, vet).
So I disagree, GW is by far and away not alone and isn't actually as expensive as many people think. Sure there ARE cheaper hobbies and there are more expensive ones and GW is not the cheapest of the cheap; but I would hardly say that its prices at a point where its a drastic barrier. I would argue that more likely its got an "image" of being expensive (not helped by its heavy targeting of younger markets where its expensive for the parents) and that image is what GW is trying to break with things like killteam and the board games.
Ok, Horseback riding, Helicopter flying, and Space jumping might be more expensive than 40k. But lets go into the math of 40k.
Models alone: $750 to $1k - Especially if you plan on having back up models incase you come across different types of armies. Three full troop squads of marines is at least 150, un painted.
Paint - This can vary depending on skill and army. If you are going black templars - $100 bucks. If you are going deathwatch or 1Ksons, 350? If you don't buy GW magic paints, 200.
Carrying cases - High side professional grade travel cases - 250. Cardboard box with bubblewrap: 50/
Tools - about 150 if you get every brush and snip.
BOOKS - 250.(Battlescribe = 0)
Travel costs - Vary, but there are no professional players, so you eat this. No sponsors in 40k.
So we get about 1500-2500. Not far off my original estimate. That is 2k points of ONE ARMY. My GW store guy made it easy. Points=Dollars. 2k point lists cost about 2k dollars.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, Horseback riding, Helicopter flying, and Space jumping might be more expensive than 40k. But lets go into the math of 40k.
Models alone: $750 to $1k - Especially if you plan on having back up models incase you come across different types of armies. Three full troop squads of marines is at least 150, un painted.
Paint - This can vary depending on skill and army. If you are going black templars - $100 bucks. If you are going deathwatch or 1Ksons, 350? If you don't buy GW magic paints, 200.
Carrying cases - High side professional grade travel cases - 250. Cardboard box with bubblewrap: 50/
Tools - about 150 if you get every brush and snip.
BOOKS - 250.(Battlescribe = 0)
Travel costs - Vary, but there are no professional players, so you eat this. No sponsors in 40k.
So we get about 1500-2500. Not far off my original estimate. That is 2k points of ONE ARMY. My GW store guy made it easy. Points=Dollars. 2k point lists cost about 2k dollars.
That is not an amateur level investment.
Sort of? Generally speaking who straight one shots all equipment to get into a professional sport (or hobbies (outside of the kinds that require a full buy in like most animal keeping or saltwater aquariums) or buys 100% new. second hand market will probably cut that 1k in half.
Paints it depends. good planning and you could spend about 30$ to get a fully painted army. Carrying cases and display boards are all over the place with options so best to pick the one best suited for your situation. tools 150 seems pretty high. aliexpress flush cutters 1.00, or harbor freight flush cutters 5 dollars, winsor newton 1 about 10-20 depending on sales, needle files like 5 dollars exacto like 5 dollars. i dont know how you got to 150.
This cost thing is a useless endeavor. There are ALWAYS people who point out "But <insert expensive non-tabletop hobby> is expensive too!" and don't get why that's not a valid comparison.
Collecting priceless works of art is more expensive than 40k too. Doesn't mean 40k isn't expensive.
IMO he should have been dropped from the tourney based on behavior alone. Also if you are getting rules wrong at a top 8 table I consider that cheating via negligence; there is no excuse for having your rules wrong in that context. I think we can all remember a game where a player conveniently 'forgot' to read his FAQ and Eratta.
I think another Elephant in the room is Rules Bloat. I mean we need how many different books now? And still GW refuses to make a Battlescribe app. But seriously, Base codex, Base Rulebook, Faqs, CAs, White Dwarfs......
"MAN! AIN'T NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT!"
But seriously - GW. Get your crap together and Edit the damn Digital copies.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think another Elephant in the room is Rules Bloat. I mean we need how many different books now? And still GW refuses to make a Battlescribe app. But seriously, Base codex, Base Rulebook, Faqs, CAs, White Dwarfs......
"MAN! AIN'T NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT!"
But seriously - GW. Get your crap together and Edit the damn Digital copies.
You don't "need" CA in full present with you 100% of the time. You just need the point values. If you can't handle having a sticky note with the page reference # and the point values written down, stuck into your book?
There's a problem. Also, White Dwarf hasn't had as much rules content in it as you think--and most of it has been outright declared to be "beta" or "trial" stuff.
Also not sure why you're talking about a "battlescribe app". It wouldn't matter one damn bit here.
OK, but again, Soup army, three books at least, plus the rule book, too much.
I always suggest that GW take the 14 or so pages of actual rules, put them in the army codex for free, sell pretty picture book on the side for lore hobbits.
But don't tell me I need to buy a $50 book that really only 10-20 pages of are actually rules, most of which is faq'd and outdated. It's one of the hardest things about getting new people into the hobby. Buying the books. And to be DEAD honest, the only reason I buy the books is so I can play at the FLGS without getting tossed because I cheated and downloaded them off the interwebs. You legit can't play at my store if you didn't buy the books, and the rep will call you on it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: OK, but again, Soup army, three books at least, plus the rule book, too much.
I always suggest that GW take the 14 or so pages of actual rules, put them in the army codex for free, sell pretty picture book on the side for lore hobbits.
But don't tell me I need to buy a $50 book that really only 10-20 pages of are actually rules, most of which is faq'd and outdated. It's one of the hardest things about getting new people into the hobby. Buying the books. And to be DEAD honest, the only reason I buy the books is so I can play at the FLGS without getting tossed because I cheated and downloaded them off the interwebs. You legit can't play at my store if you didn't buy the books, and the rep will call you on it.
Sorry, but all I'm hearing is "I want to play soup but don't think I should have to buy all the books!".
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, Horseback riding, Helicopter flying, and Space jumping might be more expensive than 40k. But lets go into the math of 40k.
Models alone: $750 to $1k - Especially if you plan on having back up models incase you come across different types of armies. Three full troop squads of marines is at least 150, un painted.
Paint - This can vary depending on skill and army. If you are going black templars - $100 bucks. If you are going deathwatch or 1Ksons, 350? If you don't buy GW magic paints, 200.
Carrying cases - High side professional grade travel cases - 250. Cardboard box with bubblewrap: 50/
Tools - about 150 if you get every brush and snip.
BOOKS - 250.(Battlescribe = 0)
Travel costs - Vary, but there are no professional players, so you eat this. No sponsors in 40k.
So we get about 1500-2500. Not far off my original estimate. That is 2k points of ONE ARMY. My GW store guy made it easy. Points=Dollars. 2k point lists cost about 2k dollars.
That is not an amateur level investment.
not only does your estimate seem incredibly high (for example $100 starting off with paint???? im doing a simple scheme on my Necrons right now, $5 primer and 4 different paints that are like $2 each.... a beginner doesn't need $100 in paint watch some of the miniac youtube vids on starting the hobby cheap)
But seriously im curious of a single hobby that you could actually get into cheaper than 40k
You can buy a 2000 point army on craigs list or ebay for like $300-$400 and strip it and buy everything else you need for like $50. There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard
You can spend quite a bit on birdseed and over winter they'll gobble it down fast! Granted its not a big upfront cost, but over time it can add up - as can some good books on birding and binoculars or a scope.
And that's the thing, few people get into 40K with the full intention of building a 2K competitive army right out of the door. Most steadily grow their armies with purchases here and there. On that front it can be quite cheap; esp today with GW pushing things like Killteam. One box of models, blade, clippers, brush, paint set and you're easily in for well under £100. Expand that with a few more models here and there and you can easily be on your way to 500 and 1K points.
A good few other hobbies can require more upfront cost to get into and some require far less. There's always variation; its jsut that Warhammer has a bad reputation for itself which isn't as deserving. Heck even if you compare it to a lot of other models and toys its not "that" expensive. Even Lego kits are darn pricey these days; Meccanno probably is (its sort of vanished most places) and Hornby is on the pricey side too in comparison (and even shares a lot of costs if you get into custom terrain making_)
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Did anyone see the article on BoLS about cheating at tournies? One of the points was about Castellan cheating in regards to House rules, and their detachments. Basically this seems to have resulted from a top 8 finalist having a bit of a tizzy when he got called out on it. But I can't find the specifics?
Did anyone watch the feed and see what they were referencing? I need to review to see if it was a honest mistake or if it was infact cheating. To be honest, shouldn't this sort of thing be handled clearly in the army list reviews? If you walk up to a game, with x unit, and don't know the rules, isn't that on the player?
I don't want to name the player, for interest of shaming. But I think you can likely find it off a search of the googles or at least reviewing the article on BoLS.
This is secondhand, but I was told by a friend I drove with who followed all the final tables that - firstly - the guy you're referencing was kind of a jerk about his opponent making a minor mistake and not allowing him to undo it. Something to the tune of his opponent starting his shooting phase and accidentally skipping his psychic phase, and not allowing him to go back to the psychic phase.
His opponent accepted his mistake, and continued on.
Later, the guy you mentioned advanced with a Castellan (and used Order of Companions, a 3 CP stratagem I think) out of a super-heavy auxiliary detachment whose house lets you advance and fire weapons without penalty. My friend said that you only get house benefits if you take 3 super heavies in a detachment, and that simple auxiliary detachments don't confer house benefits. That's a pretty damned subtle difference in my book.
However.........this meant that the guy in the article advanced his Castellan but couldn't shoot with it. And his opponent wasn't feeling too gracious about mulligans.
In the end, the judges were called and allowed to refund the guy his CP for the wasted stratagem, but wouldn't let him un-advance his castellan, because it was mistake. And he was kind of pissed about it.
To me, that was a golden example of don't be a dick about rules - because you never know when you'll need a mulligan too. I mean, enforce the rules, but if someone skipped over something that isn't going to make a huge difference, I let them go back and do it.
And I get that at high levels of play, you really should know your rules and be prepared for people to know them too. But this is still just a game, and a pretty complicated one at that, and playing for 8 hours a day for 3 days in a row can tend to confuse anyone.
Hell, my friend said that on day 2, they had too many people who were undefeated, so the bottom 8 of the final 12 or so had to play ANOTHER round from like 9pm to midnight to get them down to just 8 players. Ugh.
Galas wrote: The easies way to know if somebody is legitimately forgetting rules is by how many times those rules he forgots benefit him or his opponent.
I was watching the final round of my friend play an ork player (My army is orks), and the warboss was doing the brutal but kunning + killa klaw + fist of gork to neutralize my friend's knights. It's a good combo.
Now, I was keeping quiet other than friendly banter (how do you like smasha guns, that relic SAG is pretty decent, etc). But I did notice the ork player was giving his warboss an extra attack. I checked the index to make sure, then politely told him that warbosses only have 4 attacks, not 5. He responded with 'Attack squig!', and I said 'uhhhhhhhhhh, that's not what attack squigs do anymore', and I saw his eyes get wide a bit.
I legitimately thought that was an 100% honest mistake, but my friend was a bit miffed about it. He thought he could have won that final game (and the $100) if the warboss hadn't gotten the extra attack over 4 rounds of combat or so.
He did call a judge, who basically said they couldn't do anything but yellow card the ork player.
I have know a good bunch of "Oh I'm sorry I forgot" kind of cheaters that casually only forgot rules when they beneffit himself.
At least for me the difference is pretty obvious. Is harder when it only happens once in a game, but if you can see that player playing a couple of games then it becomes clear.
I'm lucky enough that my brain remembers rules easily, so it's pretty common for me to know my opponents' rules better than they do, especially in casual games. It's usually pretty clear when someone is forgetting rules on purpose or legitimately, if anything most special rules are beneficial so there is a skew towards forgetfulness being harmful rather than beneficial.
Asmodios wrote: There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard
Tell that to the people who buy Swarovski binoculars for birding
that's why I clarified in your backyard the scary thing is I have a friend whos into birdwatching and star gazing and he drops more on a set of binoculars or a telescope then you would spend on an entire army. Ive actually had this discussion in depth before and for the amount of hobby and how long your investment lasts i think 40k is one of the cheapest hobbies you can get into
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: OK, but again, Soup army, three books at least, plus the rule book, too much.
I always suggest that GW take the 14 or so pages of actual rules, put them in the army codex for free, sell pretty picture book on the side for lore hobbits.
But don't tell me I need to buy a $50 book that really only 10-20 pages of are actually rules, most of which is faq'd and outdated. It's one of the hardest things about getting new people into the hobby. Buying the books. And to be DEAD honest, the only reason I buy the books is so I can play at the FLGS without getting tossed because I cheated and downloaded them off the interwebs. You legit can't play at my store if you didn't buy the books, and the rep will call you on it.
Then don't play an army with allies. Very simple solution, huh?
I'm not keen on people using Battlescribe for putting lists together - the output format bugs me, for some reason - but I can accept it.
But on the day, at the event, you should have a physical copy of the rules for your army, along with the core rules. Relevant FAQs in a Pocket Display Book, for preference.
I guess this is one of those you have money or you don't, but I probably spend around £300~ per year, putting together around 1k points. At say £25 per month its a reasonable commitment, but not that much.
Asmodios wrote: ...But seriously im curious of a single hobby that you could actually get into cheaper than 40k
You can buy a 2000 point army on craigs list or ebay for like $300-$400 and strip it and buy everything else you need for like $50. There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard
You mean aside from every other wargame ever released?
Asmodios wrote: ...But seriously im curious of a single hobby that you could actually get into cheaper than 40k
You can buy a 2000 point army on craigs list or ebay for like $300-$400 and strip it and buy everything else you need for like $50. There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard
You mean aside from every other wargame ever released?
That doesn't count remember? People will use anything and everything to avoid comparing Warhammer to any other wargame. I expect the usual counters ("models look like gak", "not as good as GW", "not played here", etc.) to discredit this point.
Asmodios wrote: ...But seriously im curious of a single hobby that you could actually get into cheaper than 40k
You can buy a 2000 point army on craigs list or ebay for like $300-$400 and strip it and buy everything else you need for like $50. There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard
You mean aside from every other wargame ever released?
What other wargames are way cheaper than warhammer? I played WMHs for a while and it was just as expensive if not more so than 40k. I tried infinity for a while as well and it was a bit cheaper but only in the fact that you only needed 6ish models to play the game. The models themselves were just as expensive as 40k models though. Ive looked at a few other wargames as well and as far as model price comparison goes they are all priced relatively close. I am actually legitimately curious about this. I love finding new amazing looking models as I love the modeling painting aspect.
I guess having thought about this more, 40k is in line, cost wise, with a lot of the hobbies I've had in my life. I guess it's what you personally get out of it.
I apologize for wrongly saying 40k costs more than other hobbies.
That being said, I don't want to derail this thread, which was getting some good feedback about the idea of self-policing the hobby in light of all the cheating possibilities.
On topic:
The bloat of rules is part of what made late 7th edition unfun, and I agree with the premise of the article (in a way) that the more complicated the rules get, the easier it is to cheat either intentionally or otherwise. That part is basically on GW and their TO "advisors", but as far as the community goes the simplest response is to PUNISH CHEATERS. Period. People get mad when others "get away with stuff", add the current competitive e-sports push in 40K on top and you will produce the multi-week sprawling threads that Dakka has produced when these instances come up. You have clearly defined consequences for cheating, and you enforce them. There are obviously different degrees (misplayed a rule vs moving a model when it's not your turn, for example) but when cheating is obviously that then you've got to deal with it.
greyknight12 wrote: On topic:
The bloat of rules is part of what made late 7th edition unfun, and I agree with the premise of the article (in a way) that the more complicated the rules get, the easier it is to cheat either intentionally or otherwise. That part is basically on GW and their TO "advisors", but as far as the community goes the simplest response is to PUNISH CHEATERS. Period. People get mad when others "get away with stuff", add the current competitive e-sports push in 40K on top and you will produce the multi-week sprawling threads that Dakka has produced when these instances come up. You have clearly defined consequences for cheating, and you enforce them. There are obviously different degrees (misplayed a rule vs moving a model when it's not your turn, for example) but when cheating is obviously that then you've got to deal with it.
I partially disagree about 7th. It wasn't just that there were a lot of rules, it was that the rules were spread out across a vast number of different books and some of them were blatantly overpowered beyond any semblance of balance. You still can end up needing a lot of source material in 8th, especially compared to 5th, but it still only comes down to three books and a supplementary printout for most armies:
The Rulebook
The latest Chapter Approved
Your Codex
Relevant FAQs
Optional are:
The appropriate index
A Forge World index
The important thing here isn't the number of books, it's that this list of books can be applied to any army. If we compare to 7th edition rules bloat, you not only needed more books than this to run a monofaction army, it was difficult to keep track of the various source material for all those books. Multiple disparate supplement books with contradictory or overlapping rules made it difficult to know if your army was up to date, or if there were relevant rules that would effect your army that you didn't know about because they were in a supplement you hadn't heard about.
Big Mac wrote:If GW/we are trying to make this a T-sport sort of thing, then there are some major upgrades necessary to make it happen.
1) being a former competitive player and mostly a painter now I can’t stand watching the final at the LVO, as their armies looked bare minimum in term of painting requirements, I understand that most of us are not into the hobby side of things, but if the miniatures moving on the table look more like toys rather than gaming miniature=pro team wearing HS JV gear in the finals;
But how good should the painting be? I agree that armies at tournaments should not be oceans of grey (or whatever color the model's plastic is), but some people are just not good at painting. I personally am getting better but I have a long way to go before I can make my models look truly excellent. This is a game tournament, not an art show.
Big Mac wrote:If GW/we are trying to make this a T-sport sort of thing, then there are some major upgrades necessary to make it happen.
1) being a former competitive player and mostly a painter now I can’t stand watching the final at the LVO, as their armies looked bare minimum in term of painting requirements, I understand that most of us are not into the hobby side of things, but if the miniatures moving on the table look more like toys rather than gaming miniature=pro team wearing HS JV gear in the finals;
But how good should the painting be? I agree that armies at tournaments should not be oceans of grey (or whatever color the model's plastic is), but some people are just not good at painting. I personally am getting better but I have a long way to go before I can make my models look truly excellent. This is a game tournament, not an art show.
I’m just saying if we as a community wants to showcase our hobby as a T-sport our models cannot be at the standards was shown, I also posted that I get that most of us are not talented painters, there are ways around this, commission artists, getting a team together/sponsors like nascar, some member play the game in tourneys, some do the coaching/tactics, some do the painting, play testing potential lists, double/triple check rules to be legal, split the winnings base on % of work etc. Just getting the idea out there.
Big Mac wrote:If GW/we are trying to make this a T-sport sort of thing, then there are some major upgrades necessary to make it happen.
1) being a former competitive player and mostly a painter now I can’t stand watching the final at the LVO, as their armies looked bare minimum in term of painting requirements, I understand that most of us are not into the hobby side of things, but if the miniatures moving on the table look more like toys rather than gaming miniature=pro team wearing HS JV gear in the finals;
But how good should the painting be? I agree that armies at tournaments should not be oceans of grey (or whatever color the model's plastic is), but some people are just not good at painting. I personally am getting better but I have a long way to go before I can make my models look truly excellent. This is a game tournament, not an art show.
I’m just saying if we as a community wants to showcase our hobby as a T-sport our models cannot be at the standards was shown, I also posted that I get that most of us are not talented painters, there are ways around this, commission artists, getting a team together/sponsors like nascar, some member play the game in tourneys, some do the coaching/tactics, some do the painting, play testing potential lists, double/triple check rules to be legal, split the winnings base on % of work etc. Just getting the idea out there.
Finding Sponsors and splitting the winnings sound a bit crazy. What is the winning for your AVG tornament, is it even feasible for the biggist ones. Sponsorship and commission painting is a whole other thing, Money has to come from somewhere.
With GW changing the rules at a whim, Any Spnsorship would be hesitant to be putting money down. To say nothing of the painter that may suddenly need to paint up to a high quality 10 new units in a month.
For any of this to happen, i think the whole hobby would have to grow a lot. That would include the viewership by a lot.
So this is just another tournament, another cheater. How can anyone be shocked by this, you get a group of people together and put money/prizes on the line and you'll get a good 50% cheating in some way.
Big Mac wrote:If GW/we are trying to make this a T-sport sort of thing, then there are some major upgrades necessary to make it happen.
1) being a former competitive player and mostly a painter now I can’t stand watching the final at the LVO, as their armies looked bare minimum in term of painting requirements, I understand that most of us are not into the hobby side of things, but if the miniatures moving on the table look more like toys rather than gaming miniature=pro team wearing HS JV gear in the finals;
But how good should the painting be? I agree that armies at tournaments should not be oceans of grey (or whatever color the model's plastic is), but some people are just not good at painting. I personally am getting better but I have a long way to go before I can make my models look truly excellent. This is a game tournament, not an art show.
I’m just saying if we as a community wants to showcase our hobby as a T-sport our models cannot be at the standards was shown, I also posted that I get that most of us are not talented painters, there are ways around this, commission artists, getting a team together/sponsors like nascar, some member play the game in tourneys, some do the coaching/tactics, some do the painting, play testing potential lists, double/triple check rules to be legal, split the winnings base on % of work etc. Just getting the idea out there.
Finding Sponsors and splitting the winnings sound a bit crazy. What is the winning for your AVG tornament, is it even feasible for the biggist ones. Sponsorship and commission painting is a whole other thing, Money has to come from somewhere.
With GW changing the rules at a whim, Any Spnsorship would be hesitant to be putting money down. To say nothing of the painter that may suddenly need to paint up to a high quality 10 new units in a month.
For any of this to happen, i think the whole hobby would have to grow a lot. That would include the viewership by a lot.
I'm not sure the quality of the painting is such a big deal given that the stream made it almost impossible to see anything but the largest of models in most cases. I think the worst thing that could happen to 40k would be trying to turn it into an e-sport (or t-sport). Adding cash prizes to a game that's not fit for purpose as a tournament game is a recipe for disaster and I don't think there's enough money in the industry to sponsor people on the level that's being talked about here anyway.
The viewership for the LVO was pretty good but I'm not sure if there's much room for growth in that number and it wasn't anywhere near high enough to generate the sort of serious money that would be needed to make the event attractive to outside sponsors. In order to grow to that level there are some big technical issues to solve around how to best actually showcase 40k on a stream. I'm not even sure it's possible to do in such a way it would appeal to a more mainstream audience.
I think we are also forgetting a major component of cheating: Your opponent's understanding of your army's rules.
For instance, this thread alone indicates that if he were playing people one this thread, he would get away with it a lot of the time, because it's obscure. People didn't know it. Now, I bet if he was using Guard, and tried to give FRFSRF to his Knight, it would have been different.
A big part of what makes game prep so hard is not only knowing all the rules for your army, but also all the rules for your opponent. You don't just need YOUR army's codex, you are expected to know theirs as well, or spend half the time questioning every attack.
What makes this cheat so insidious is that he used it multiple times on multiple opponents, and very few knew about it. So is it my burden to have read and memorized the new GS codex in my next match, to prevent my opponent from mixing up Ambush and Underground types of reserves? Is it my job to police his rules?
Honestly what it shows is what most of us already know - that for major competitive events there need to be more Judges. Many competitive games at the pro end have one reff or judge or such per game. You can't easily cheat because someone impartial is overseeing every game.
If you also start to increase viewer numbers then that adds to it as well. It becomes a lot harder to cheat on rules if the game is being live-streamed to hundreds or thousands of viewers - many of which will know the game.
Couple that to a long term logging system that links up different events so that if player A is spotted doing the same or similar mistakes over and over or is seen to be making a lot in their favour this could work against them or might even void them entry into future events.
You don't even have to throw around the word "cheater" you can simply state that "due to the number and frequency of judge interventions we are revoking your right to participate in future 'insert name of event type' due to your inexperience."
If they tiered events you could block someone from a Level 3 or 4 event but let them compete in, say, a level 1 or 2 (ergo the entry level). Thus letting a person who is making repeat honest mistakes have the potential to earn back good scores and improve themselves and compete again.
I think one has to view it that cheating can be hard to spot; the rules are complicated and they are sometimes written in a very fuzzy language an that's before we get into rule interactions with each other and the fact that its very possible to remember the way a rule used to work and use it wrongly.
Increase the number of skilled judges; increase the viewership; introduce a method of logging and collating logs between events; established a tiered level of curtailing of entry with means to win back entry at a latter stage based on behaviour.
All that can come long before you have to start throwing the word cheater around.
Overread wrote: Honestly what it shows is what most of us already know - that for major competitive events there need to be more Judges. Many competitive games at the pro end have one reff or judge or such per game. You can't easily cheat because someone impartial is overseeing every game.
If you also start to increase viewer numbers then that adds to it as well. It becomes a lot harder to cheat on rules if the game is being live-streamed to hundreds or thousands of viewers - many of which will know the game.
Couple that to a long term logging system that links up different events so that if player A is spotted doing the same or similar mistakes over and over or is seen to be making a lot in their favour this could work against them or might even void them entry into future events.
You don't even have to throw around the word "cheater" you can simply state that "due to the number and frequency of judge interventions we are revoking your right to participate in future 'insert name of event type' due to your inexperience."
If they tiered events you could block someone from a Level 3 or 4 event but let them compete in, say, a level 1 or 2 (ergo the entry level). Thus letting a person who is making repeat honest mistakes have the potential to earn back good scores and improve themselves and compete again.
I think one has to view it that cheating can be hard to spot; the rules are complicated and they are sometimes written in a very fuzzy language an that's before we get into rule interactions with each other and the fact that its very possible to remember the way a rule used to work and use it wrongly.
Increase the number of skilled judges; increase the viewership; introduce a method of logging and collating logs between events; established a tiered level of curtailing of entry with means to win back entry at a latter stage based on behaviour.
All that can come long before you have to start throwing the word cheater around.
Your talking about a 700 player tournament. Your never going to get enough judges for that level of coverage. heck I would bet getting the bare minimum is a struggle for most tournaments.
Overread wrote: Honestly what it shows is what most of us already know - that for major competitive events there need to be more Judges. Many competitive games at the pro end have one reff or judge or such per game. You can't easily cheat because someone impartial is overseeing every game.
If you also start to increase viewer numbers then that adds to it as well. It becomes a lot harder to cheat on rules if the game is being live-streamed to hundreds or thousands of viewers - many of which will know the game.
Couple that to a long term logging system that links up different events so that if player A is spotted doing the same or similar mistakes over and over or is seen to be making a lot in their favour this could work against them or might even void them entry into future events.
You don't even have to throw around the word "cheater" you can simply state that "due to the number and frequency of judge interventions we are revoking your right to participate in future 'insert name of event type' due to your inexperience."
If they tiered events you could block someone from a Level 3 or 4 event but let them compete in, say, a level 1 or 2 (ergo the entry level). Thus letting a person who is making repeat honest mistakes have the potential to earn back good scores and improve themselves and compete again.
I think one has to view it that cheating can be hard to spot; the rules are complicated and they are sometimes written in a very fuzzy language an that's before we get into rule interactions with each other and the fact that its very possible to remember the way a rule used to work and use it wrongly.
Increase the number of skilled judges; increase the viewership; introduce a method of logging and collating logs between events; established a tiered level of curtailing of entry with means to win back entry at a latter stage based on behaviour.
All that can come long before you have to start throwing the word cheater around.
Your talking about a 700 player tournament. Your never going to get enough judges for that level of coverage. heck I would bet getting the bare minimum is a struggle for most tournaments.
dont have a tournament then. if you cannot find enough judges, maybe there should be less players allowed? Other "sports"( have a hard time calling 40k that) have a defined judge/referee to player ratio. if GW(you know, who make the game) would actually put together a tournament standard/packet and not leave it up to a 3rd party whom has changed the rules to suit themselves (so much is different that it's not really GW's 40k). kinda hard to balance something when everyone isn't playing same ruleset.
if there is such a problem with "cheating" then why would anyone want to play in a tourney? Until people can figure out what exactly constitutes "cheating" in 40k and set specific guidelines/punishment for it, there will continue to be cheaters. maybe they should look to create a judge's association where the definition of "cheating" and consequences are laid out in B&W. unfortunately they currently seem unable to have procedures and record keeping established to let everybody know whom is not playing the game with the best intentions.
it seems to me that ITC doesnt have a way to actually record, track & punish repeat offenders(at least seriously). All it should take is a couple of very public examples of cheating(o wait....that's what's happening) to make the "body politic" take it seriously.
now, my POV is tournaments for a game that is inherently subjective(not set up for competitive) shouldn't happen. but people want to see who's best at toy soldiers, so we have this happening almost every tournament.
Misremembering a rule or interactions once, isnt weird or even bad, but consistently(for own benefit), that's another story entirely. most of the time it's for my opponents benefit. I dont know how many times ive forgotten psychic phase, to shoot with something, etc..
until the players get fed up with as sholes who cheat & consequences actually have teeth, this will continue happening ad nausea.
as someone who never has wanted to tournament nor ever will, this situation is of the players/itc own making. a couple lifetime bans might change the "culture" of cheating.
Overread wrote: Honestly what it shows is what most of us already know - that for major competitive events there need to be more Judges. Many competitive games at the pro end have one reff or judge or such per game. You can't easily cheat because someone impartial is overseeing every game.
If you also start to increase viewer numbers then that adds to it as well. It becomes a lot harder to cheat on rules if the game is being live-streamed to hundreds or thousands of viewers - many of which will know the game.
Couple that to a long term logging system that links up different events so that if player A is spotted doing the same or similar mistakes over and over or is seen to be making a lot in their favour this could work against them or might even void them entry into future events.
You don't even have to throw around the word "cheater" you can simply state that "due to the number and frequency of judge interventions we are revoking your right to participate in future 'insert name of event type' due to your inexperience."
If they tiered events you could block someone from a Level 3 or 4 event but let them compete in, say, a level 1 or 2 (ergo the entry level). Thus letting a person who is making repeat honest mistakes have the potential to earn back good scores and improve themselves and compete again.
I think one has to view it that cheating can be hard to spot; the rules are complicated and they are sometimes written in a very fuzzy language an that's before we get into rule interactions with each other and the fact that its very possible to remember the way a rule used to work and use it wrongly.
Increase the number of skilled judges; increase the viewership; introduce a method of logging and collating logs between events; established a tiered level of curtailing of entry with means to win back entry at a latter stage based on behaviour.
All that can come long before you have to start throwing the word cheater around.
Your talking about a 700 player tournament. Your never going to get enough judges for that level of coverage. heck I would bet getting the bare minimum is a struggle for most tournaments.
dont have a tournament then. if you cannot find enough judges, maybe there should be less players allowed? Other "sports"( have a hard time calling 40k that) have a defined judge/referee to player ratio. if GW(you know, who make the game) would actually put together a tournament standard/packet and not leave it up to a 3rd party whom has changed the rules to suit themselves (so much is different that it's not really GW's 40k). kinda hard to balance something when everyone isn't playing same ruleset.
if there is such a problem with "cheating" then why would anyone want to play in a tourney? Until people can figure out what exactly constitutes "cheating" in 40k and set specific guidelines/punishment for it, there will continue to be cheaters. maybe they should look to create a judge's association where the definition of "cheating" and consequences are laid out in B&W. unfortunately they currently seem unable to have procedures and record keeping established to let everybody know whom is not playing the game with the best intentions.
it seems to me that ITC doesnt have a way to actually record, track & punish repeat offenders(at least seriously). All it should take is a couple of very public examples of cheating(o wait....that's what's happening) to make the "body politic" take it seriously.
now, my POV is tournaments for a game that is inherently subjective(not set up for competitive) shouldn't happen. but people want to see who's best at toy soldiers, so we have this happening almost every tournament.
Misremembering a rule or interactions once, isnt weird or even bad, but consistently(for own benefit), that's another story entirely. most of the time it's for my opponents benefit. I dont know how many times ive forgotten psychic phase, to shoot with something, etc..
until the players get fed up with as sholes who cheat & consequences actually have teeth, this will continue happening ad nausea.
as someone who never has wanted to tournament nor ever will, this situation is of the players/itc own making. a couple lifetime bans might change the "culture" of cheating.
Go ask the ~700 people who went to the LVO40k tournament if they would rather play, with the chance of a few people cheating but overall a wonderful weekend or if they would rather stay home next year because someone on the internet whined about people being able to cheat at a tournament I can bet you what 99.99% of them are going to say. And that includes the people who got cheated on.
What strikes me as odd is the summation of all the facts.
1. We dont like cheaters
2. Cheating is easily and cheaply fixed
3. The Rules are too convoluted to ensure easy and rapid judgement
In Summary - Cheating will never stop so don't even try to address it. WUT?
To be honest, the overwhelming majority of people who play this game NEVER go to any tournaments. They play with unpainted proxy models, and take pains to have a fair and welcoming environment.
If you believe the tourney players outnumber the casuals, I've got a bridge in Spain I'd like to sell you.
1. We dont like cheaters
2. Cheating is easily and cheaply fixed
3. The Rules are too convoluted to ensure easy and rapid judgement
In Summary - Cheating will never stop so don't even try to address it. WUT?
To be honest, the overwhelming majority of people who play this game NEVER go to any tournaments. They play with unpainted proxy models, and take pains to have a fair and welcoming environment.
If you believe the tourney players outnumber the casuals, I've got a bridge in Spain I'd like to sell you.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, Horseback riding, Helicopter flying, and Space jumping might be more expensive than 40k. But lets go into the math of 40k.
Models alone: $750 to $1k - Especially if you plan on having back up models incase you come across different types of armies. Three full troop squads of marines is at least 150, un painted.
Paint - This can vary depending on skill and army. If you are going black templars - $100 bucks. If you are going deathwatch or 1Ksons, 350? If you don't buy GW magic paints, 200.
Carrying cases - High side professional grade travel cases - 250. Cardboard box with bubblewrap: 50/
Tools - about 150 if you get every brush and snip.
BOOKS - 250.(Battlescribe = 0)
Travel costs - Vary, but there are no professional players, so you eat this. No sponsors in 40k.
So we get about 1500-2500. Not far off my original estimate. That is 2k points of ONE ARMY. My GW store guy made it easy. Points=Dollars. 2k point lists cost about 2k dollars.
That is not an amateur level investment.
not only does your estimate seem incredibly high (for example $100 starting off with paint???? im doing a simple scheme on my Necrons right now, $5 primer and 4 different paints that are like $2 each.... a beginner doesn't need $100 in paint watch some of the miniac youtube vids on starting the hobby cheap)
But seriously im curious of a single hobby that you could actually get into cheaper than 40k
You can buy a 2000 point army on craigs list or ebay for like $300-$400 and strip it and buy everything else you need for like $50. There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard
There is one piece missing in this equation:
SKILL=TIME=MONEY
Painting itself is a time consuming process. Developing the skill is a sort of an aggregating returns type of situation, so the cost goes down over time. A way to shortcut this is to buy the metric poop-ton of paints GW provides so you are not having to blend, thin, slow, etc. I painted pro full time for two years, and one of the lessons I learned is that you always have to choose between speed and quality with reference to buying supplies. 'Should I buy a $3 can of krylon flat black and basecoat these dudes by hand? (Cheaper out of pocket), or should I buy that fancy Army Painter colored primer for $15? (Cheaper on time).
The more skill you have, the more you can do with less. I'm a mid-level pro painter, and I can paint an acceptable tabletop quality Dark Angel using the three primaries, white, black, and a base metallic in a couple of hours. However, I've been painting for 25 years. Someone like Sam Lenz, who has been painting over a span of probably a decade less than me, but has put in far, far more actual hours than I have, can paint a damn near Golden Demon level model in an 8 hour day.
What I'm saying is, many gamers dont have the time or the inclination to spend that kind of effort over that amount of time to 'get gud' on painting. So, they elect to spend the extra money buying the premixed and sorted triads, tetrads, and pentads GW has, and can spend less time painting and more time gaming.
Cleaning and stripping ebay stuff is another tradeoff along the same vein. Not nearly as much time or skill needed, but it's the same sort of tradeoff on a smaller scale.
I constantly calculated how much I was making per hour concerning all of these factors, and it was a very eye opening process.
To conclude, in this hobby, you are juggling time and money. As a little thought experiment, the next time you paint a model, track how long it takes you in actual brush-on-plastic time. Then, figure out how much you would have made at work in that same amount of time. Your bank account has not changed, but you have still spent.
I love this hobby, as do we all, but we must be realistic in what it is actually costing us if we are to learn and grow from each other.
I think one thing that is being missed is that in most cases, these cheaters are already known cheaters, by which I mean it's the same names that come up constantly with these "lapses in judgment". Very few of them are first-time guys who happen to get to a top table and it's found out that something was wrong.
It needs to be tracked and dealt with harshly to send a message that ITC will not tolerate cheating of any kind. That's what is missing. FLG and co usually defend the cheaters by trying to make it out like they really aren't bad guys so people shouldn't attach the stigma of "cheating" on them.
Wayniac wrote: I think one thing that is being missed is that in most cases, these cheaters are already known cheaters. Very few of them are first-time guys who happen to get to a top table and it's found out that something was wrong.
It needs to be tracked and dealt with harshly to send a message that ITC will not tolerate cheating of any kind. That's what is missing. FLG and co usually defend the cheaters by trying to make it out like they really aren't bad guys so people shouldn't attach the stigma of "cheating" on them.
It’s ridiculous how much this happens, and this is also the case outside of gaming and in sports. Spades need to be called spades, and if prominent organisers don’t take care of it, it plants the seed for others to test the waters. Diving in soccer for example is rife and has been a long term problem, retrospective 10 game suspensions for players found to do it would very quickly stop it happening, as the players and their managers would not want to be banned that long due to serious performance implications which can lead to serious financial implications.
1 year suspension for repeated cheating. Lifetime ban if caught again after a return from suspension. Simple.
I'm not sure specifically what the punishment needs to be, but it should be automatic DQ from the event regardless and if it's a multiple time offender such as that Alex Harrison (?) guy then it needs to be a permaban and blacklist, otherwise it can be 3/6/9/12 month thing or something, not sure. But what normally happens is there will be drama over it and the TOs and/or FLG will go out of their way to deflect the internet accusations about it and even go so far as to say how everyone should forgive and forget.
Which may work fine if it's the first time (with the DQ from the event still in effect) but when you consistently see the same names show up in these accusations, the time for forgiveness is over.
I just think there needs to be a judge for each table... if there are too many tables for judges then reduce the number of tables.
However, I'm leery of people talking about lifetime bans so casually. I know how people are tired of the whole "oops I made a mistake" schtick, but sometimes it is GENUINELY a mistake and it is hard to tell the difference from that and intentional cheating. I can honestly say I've bumped models during a game, I've flubbed or forgotten rules that either cost me or won me the game, I've screwed up on my points calculations. These types of things should earn you an automatic DQ in the tournament fine, but this idea of a "reputation" system and a blacklist, or lifetime bans with "cheating background checks" is fething absurd. All tables should just be observed at all times, or at least recorded and that should solve the problem.
w1zard wrote: I just think there needs to be a judge for each table... if there are too many tables for judges then reduce the number of tables.
However, I'm leery of people talking about lifetime bans so casually. I know how people are tired of the whole "oops I made a mistake" schtick, but sometimes it is GENUINELY a mistake and it is hard to tell the difference from that and intentional cheating. I can honestly say I've bumped models during a game, I've flubbed or forgotten rules that either cost me or won me the game, I've screwed up on my points calculations. These types of things should earn you an automatic DQ in the tournament fine, but this idea of a "reputation" system and a blacklist, or lifetime bans with "cheating background checks" is fething absurd. All tables should just be observed at all times, or at least recorded and that should solve the problem.
Guess the problem is the less the rules seem to get enforced the more people are willing to make an exemple out of offenders.
Not Online!!! wrote: Guess the problem is the less the rules seem to get enforced the more people are willing to make an exemple out of offenders.
I mean we can execute a mixed group of innocent and guilty people in the town square all we want and call it "making an example of offenders" to deter future rulebreaking, but that isn't what it is... It's tyranny disguised as justice, and a way for angry people to vent their frustrations onto people who may not even deserve it in a vain effort toward enforcing the rules through fear, instead of channeling that anger into constructive ways that actually stop rulebreaking.
A judge or referee at every table is going to stop rulebreaking and cheating far better than any threat of "lifetime excommunication" from 40k ever will.
Not Online!!! wrote: Guess the problem is the less the rules seem to get enforced the more people are willing to make an exemple out of offenders.
I mean we can execute a mixed group of innocent and guilty people in the town square all we want and call it "making an example of offenders" to deter future rulebreaking, but that isn't what it is... It's tyranny disguised as justice, and a way for angry people to vent their frustrations onto people who may not even deserve it in a vain effort toward enforcing the rules through fear, instead of channeling that anger into constructive ways that actually stop rulebreaking.
A judge or referee at every table is going to stop rulebreaking and cheating far better than any threat of "lifetime excommunication" from 40k ever will.
Mind you i said people, not me, i don't agree with the sentiment, and a judge at every table would allready be a massive boon, heck 2 tables 1 judge would allready be massive imo.
Wait so you don't think that people who cheat/continually cheat should be punished? Now yeah "lifetime ban" is probably extreme for cheating (although I could see like 1-year ban). But they need some punishment to make it clear this is bullgak and won't be tolerated anymore.
w1zard wrote: I just think there needs to be a judge for each table... if there are too many tables for judges then reduce the number of tables.
However, I'm leery of people talking about lifetime bans so casually. I know how people are tired of the whole "oops I made a mistake" schtick, but sometimes it is GENUINELY a mistake and it is hard to tell the difference from that and intentional cheating. I can honestly say I've bumped models during a game, I've flubbed or forgotten rules that either cost me or won me the game, I've screwed up on my points calculations. These types of things should earn you an automatic DQ in the tournament fine, but this idea of a "reputation" system and a blacklist, or lifetime bans with "cheating background checks" is fething absurd. All tables should just be observed at all times, or at least recorded and that should solve the problem.
I don't think anyone is calling for a lifetime ban on a first offense. That's the kind of thing you reserve for the people who are caught cheating year in and year out. You start with an automatic DQ. If you catch them again, it's a 3-month ban. Next time it's a year. Escalating punishments are pretty standard in organized sports.
Wayniac wrote: Wait so you don't think that people who cheat/continually cheat should be punished? Now yeah "lifetime ban" is probably extreme for cheating (although I could see like 1-year ban). But they need some punishment to make it clear this is bullgak and won't be tolerated anymore.
No repeated offenders should get longer bans but instead of lifetime, years would do just fine imo.
w1zard wrote: I just think there needs to be a judge for each table... if there are too many tables for judges then reduce the number of tables.
However, I'm leery of people talking about lifetime bans so casually. I know how people are tired of the whole "oops I made a mistake" schtick, but sometimes it is GENUINELY a mistake and it is hard to tell the difference from that and intentional cheating. I can honestly say I've bumped models during a game, I've flubbed or forgotten rules that either cost me or won me the game, I've screwed up on my points calculations. These types of things should earn you an automatic DQ in the tournament fine, but this idea of a "reputation" system and a blacklist, or lifetime bans with "cheating background checks" is fething absurd. All tables should just be observed at all times, or at least recorded and that should solve the problem.
I would be very interested in actually learning what compensation a "judge" or TO receives. Because I'll be honest, if you threw models at me, I'd TO. But I am no where NEAR qualified to TO. That being said, there are three people at my FLG store who would be happy to TO who are relative experts in multiple armies.
Another question: are the TO's actually qualified experts, or are they just glorified book checkers? I doubt very much if there are a plethora of experts in every army, outside of the staff who come up with the rules. IF all we have are rule checkers then anyone can TO.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I would be very interested in actually learning what compensation a "judge" or TO receives. Because I'll be honest, if you threw models at me, I'd TO. But I am no where NEAR qualified to TO. That being said, there are three people at my FLG store who would be happy to TO who are relative experts in multiple armies.
Another question: are the TO's actually qualified experts, or are they just glorified book checkers? I doubt very much if there are a plethora of experts in every army, outside of the staff who come up with the rules. IF all we have are rule checkers then anyone can TO.
Once you have a decent grasp of the game anyone can be a judge. At most tournaments they are instructed to check the relevant rule and FAQ/Errata document and make a judgement. So all you're really doing is reading and enforcing the rule as you understand it. There's a little bit of nuance in some cases, but not much. The real problem is rounding up enough judges as most people who would be willing and able to do it will be taking part in the event itself.
Wayniac wrote: Wait so you don't think that people who cheat/continually cheat should be punished? Now yeah "lifetime ban" is probably extreme for cheating (although I could see like 1-year ban). But they need some punishment to make it clear this is bullgak and won't be tolerated anymore.
You're angry, and you are letting your anger dictate how you feel about the issue.
Sometimes it is easy to tell the difference between intentional cheating and a mistake, but most of the time it isn't. For example: A guy goes to his first tournament and makes a simple points calculation or wargear mistake on his list building, the judges catch it early and he is automatically DQed and given a warning, fair. The next tournament he goes to, his list is fine and he makes it all the way to the final where he mis-remembers the wording of a rule for one of his units, his opponent calls him out... does this guy deserve a lifetime ban (and to be branded a cheater by the entire 40k community) if both issues were genuine mistakes instead of intentional cheating? I really hope you don't think so.
These issues deserve automatic DQ whenever they are found I agree, but lifetime bans should be reserved for situations where the cheating is obvious and intentional, like loaded dice or something, and only after a similar situation has occurred at least once before.
Ordana wrote: So in your mind the biggest tournament in the US should be limited to 10 players maximum.
GL with that argument.
Or you know... they could just dig into their profit margin and hire more judges... or stagger the games if they don't have enough judges to cover a particular tournament round.
Aren't judges volunteers for the most part any way?
Not Online!!! wrote: You could implement a random lottery for the players that are not playing and then add them to tables.
Kinda like ancient athens.
Eh might get dicey... imagine a guy was paired as "observer" to a player who he just lost to... There would be accusations that he let the other player's "mistakes" go and focused only on the "mistakes" of the person he lost to.
Sometimes it is easy to tell the difference between intentional cheating and a mistake, but most of the time it isn't. For example: A guy goes to his first tournament and makes a simple points calculation or wargear mistake on his list building, the judges catch it early and he is automatically DQed and given a warning, fair. The next tournament he goes to, his list is fine and he makes it all the way to the final where he mis-remembers the wording of a rule for one of his units, his opponent calls him out... does this guy deserve a lifetime ban from 40K if both issues were genuine mistakes instead of intentional cheating? I really hope you don't think so.
These issues deserve automatic DQ whenever they are found I agree, but lifetime bans should be reserved for situations where the cheating is obvious and intentional, like loaded dice or something, and only after a similar situation has occurred at least once before.
Issues deserve fair punishments for them I agree. I also think that this is a complex game and its possible to get people in a tournament who don't know the rules as well as they might be able too; or who have bad habits and no intention of cheating. I think the tournaments need a means to filtrate people for the final games whilst also having a means to remove those who are displaying too many errors and problems with their game. In addition I think that some means of buy-back needs to be present. Instead of just random ban durations players should be able to earn-back their ability to compete. If the system were organised so that local and small tournaments could report results and collate them then a player could easily play good solid games at smaller or fringe events and earn points back toward being able to compete again. Essentially proving that they've learned their lesson.
IT actually doesn't even matter if they were cheating intentionally or not at the time they were issued the punishment because the buy-back would be proving that they are learning their lesson and changing their behaviour pattern. Remembering that some people cheat because they can, once enough barriers are in place they generally stop.
Of course some deserve long term or lifetime bans - weighted dice, abusive and extreme anti-social behaviour etc... - issues where there's little to no grey and where the behaviour is intolerable can most certainly get long and full term bans.
Also is that right that a 700 person - ergo 350 game event has way less than judges for even 1/4 of the games at the same time. Certainly that's a sign that the judging end needs better support - be it through redistribution of current finances; focus on investment prior to the game (ergo getting people who are skilled, able and willing to officiate) and perhaps also looking for additional revenue streams to help support that.
Not Online!!! wrote: You could implement a random lottery for the players that are not playing and then add them to tables.
Kinda like ancient athens.
Eh might get dicey... imagine a guy was paired as "observer" to a player who he just lost to... There would be accusations that he let the other player's "mistakes" go and focused only on the "mistakes" of the person he lost to.
Agreed, officials shouldn't be personally involved in the event. Furthermore I think officials need to be able to prove a basic level of competency and social skills. There's no point having a lottery and having people who might have hazy understanding of the rules (esp of other armies than their own) or people who have a lack in social skills* starting to officiate events.
*and lets be honest being a judge isn't just having basic social skills. You've got to be have a whole other subset of people management skills and communication skills. They've got to be able to easily understand and explain situations and rulings; to be able to communicate with players who might get difficult; to have the confidence to step in and contain a simple situation without fear etc... Even to people who don't lack in standard social skills its a very differetn ballgame when you make them an official.
Not Online!!! wrote: You could implement a random lottery for the players that are not playing and then add them to tables.
Kinda like ancient athens.
Eh might get dicey... imagine a guy was paired as "observer" to a player who he just lost to... There would be accusations that he let the other player's "mistakes" go and focused only on the "mistakes" of the person he lost to.
Overread wrote: IT actually doesn't even matter if they were cheating intentionally or not at the time they were issued the punishment because the buy-back would be proving that they are learning their lesson and changing their behaviour pattern. Remembering that some people cheat because they can, once enough barriers are in place they generally stop.
It does matter how you label it though, because we don't want to lump cheaters in with people who have just made a genuine mistake. Imagine mis-remembering or misinterpreting a rule at a tournament and get DQed, only to come back the next year and have people whispering behind your back about how you were DQed last year for cheating.
Overread wrote: IT actually doesn't even matter if they were cheating intentionally or not at the time they were issued the punishment because the buy-back would be proving that they are learning their lesson and changing their behaviour pattern. Remembering that some people cheat because they can, once enough barriers are in place they generally stop.
It does matter how you label it though, because we don't want to lump cheaters in with people who have just made a genuine mistake. Imagine mis-remembering or misinterpreting a rule at a tournament and get DQed, only to come back the next year and have people whispering behind your back about how you were DQed last year for cheating.
I fully agree. I would certainly expect the labels to have clear titles that would avoid the stigma of cheating. Cheating, I agree, should be a title reserved for situations where the evidence is very strong to almost impossible to counter. It's a stigma that can stick for ages and, in the online world we live in, can have unexpected repercussions well outside of the world of toy soldiers.
There's loads of ways it could be done, from simple word choices to perhaps even devising a crude "player level" system so that players can be moved up and down a scale. Even just a simplistic two or three layer system could be used to downgrade a player out of major events if they are shown to have multiple, for example, rule infractions from making mistakes. You've not punished them nor called them a cheater, simply classified them as not knowing the rules well enough to compete. Moving them to a lower tier which might have its own competitive series of events. The person isn't excluded, just categorised; not demonised and they've fully got the ability to move up the ladder.
A Foul is defined as an action taken by a player that violates the spirit of the game, the rules of the game, and/or the rules and guidelines set forth in this document. Fouls can range in severity and generally fall within three categories, Verbal Warning, Yellow Card, and Red Card. If a player commits a Foul, they can be penalized in the following ways, according to the judge’s discretion. A judge is free to apply whatever penalties he/she feels is necessary.
- Multiple Verbal Warnings can result in a Yellow Card
- Yellow Cards are given for non-disqualifying offenses.
- A player may only accrue 2 Yellow Cards during an event. If they receive a third they receive a Red Card and a DQ.
- Red Cards are given for a disqualifying offense, or in the case of multiple Yellow Cards.
- If a player receives one or more Red Cards in an event they can be ejected from that event and future events at the Organizer's sole discretion.
Warning - A judge gives a verbal warning that the player’s behavior is not acceptable and that other penalties are imminent for continued infractions. A player receiving two warnings over the course of an event will be penalized. Multiple verbal warnings can result in a Yellow Card being issued at the judge's discretion.
Clock Enforcement (Yellow Card) - A judge may penalize a player by forcing the game to utilize the rules for a “Timed Game”. The judge sets the time for both players, and the result of the clock are binding for that game.
Loss of time (Yellow Card) - A judge may penalize a player’s clock by removing time from it as a result of deliberate slow-play, stalling tactics, or incorrectly stopping the game clock.
Loss of turn (Yellow Card) - A judge may end a player’s turn or phase should it become clear that through a foul or another misplay, that player has put his/her opponent at an extreme disadvantage or that the game-state can only be fairly corrected via this method.
Reset of turn (Yellow Card) - A judge may reset a player’s turn/phase, moving models back to their most likely and least disruptive positions should it become clear that through a foul or another misplay, that player has put his/her opponent at an extreme disadvantage or that the game-state can only be fairly corrected via this method. The penalized player is not awarded extra time.
Removal of models (Yellow Card) - A judge may remove models from the game if they were illegally equipped, over the points limit of the event, found to be modeled for advantage, or unacceptable by the event’s hobby standards. If models are removed, they may only be used again with a judge’s approval after the issue has been resolved.
Disqualification (game)(Red Card) - A judge may disqualify a player from his/her current game. That player receives 0 points for that game, a loss, and his/her opponent is scored as a Bye unless the opponent’s current score would be higher.
Disqualification (event) (Red Card) - A judge may disqualify a player from his/her current event. That player is immediately removed from the roster of active players, removed from the event venue, his/her current game is scored a 0, his/her current opponent is scored as a Tabeling unless the opponent’s current score would be higher. No ITC points are awarded for any games played during the event for the penalized player.
Ban (3/6/8/12 month) - For especially egregious or repeated Fouls and/or behaviors, a judge may request a ban for a player from the ITC for the specified time. While a player is banned, they may not attend Frontline Gaming sponsored events such as The Bay Area Open, The Las Vegas Open, or the SoCal open. While a player is banned, they will not accrue any ITC points during this time period. Note: Other ITC events may choose to adhere to this ban at their own discretion.
Overread wrote: There's loads of ways it could be done, from simple word choices to perhaps even devising a crude "player level" system so that players can be moved up and down a scale. Even just a simplistic two or three layer system could be used to downgrade a player out of major events if they are shown to have multiple, for example, rule infractions from making mistakes. You've not punished them nor called them a cheater, simply classified them as not knowing the rules well enough to compete. Moving them to a lower tier which might have its own competitive series of events. The person isn't excluded, just categorised; not demonised and they've fully got the ability to move up the ladder.
The introduction of a league or tier system for players (in terms of skill) would be pretty neat, although there needs to be a community push in order for such a thing to happen.
But, in general I am in opposition to all "one strike and you're out" punishment systems, and systems involving "reputation monitoring" or "sportsmanship background checks" because it is not only ripe for abuse, but because of its inherently authoritarian nature. The novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was a warning, not a guidebook. Presumption of innocence should be the hallmark of any fair justice system, even a justice system for monitoring conduct for a tabletop game.
looking at how other competitive sports do this, e.g snooker.
my understanding is that earlier rounds, which are seldom on the telly, don't have a ref at each table, but do have some floating about - the players are basically watching each other.
these days you could stick a camera to record each game in case of disputes easily enough.
then when you get to the later rounds, last 16 etc, there is a ref at each table.
translate to 40k, if you have the usual swiss pairing setting, have floating referees early on, but then say for the last couple of rounds have the top scoring players games with someone on the table, or near it, arrange where such games are to facilitate this. by the time you get to say the last two games watching them shouldn't be hard, with floating referees for the rest.
yes you may well miss intentional rules bending or honest mistakes in early rounds or in lower ranking games, but the top levels should be 'better'.
would have thought the hard bit is the referees needing a working knowledge of all the factions special rules, and easy access to a complete library - most sports rulebooks are a lot smaller than 40k, and usually have a lot more 'common sense' running through them
1. We dont like cheaters
2. Cheating is easily and cheaply fixed
3. The Rules are too convoluted to ensure easy and rapid judgement
So how do you do the 2 without also punishing too harshly for people for honest mistakes which happen in 40k all the time? With all the suggestions for lifetime bans the moment somebody plays against rules that's harder than it appears.
1. We dont like cheaters
2. Cheating is easily and cheaply fixed
3. The Rules are too convoluted to ensure easy and rapid judgement
So how do you do the 2 without also punishing too harshly for people for honest mistakes which happen in 40k all the time? With all the suggestions for lifetime bans the moment somebody plays against rules that's harder than it appears.
How to punish mistakes/cheats I would look towards how MTG handles it as an example.
First wrong is a warning, second is a game loss. 3e is DQ.
Honest mistakes happen, and this way you can make a mistake (or 2 if you dont care about standings) but at the end of the day you are responsible for knowing your rules when you go to a tournament.
As I see it, there is one major issue to tackle if you want to tighten up the game. While there is a recomended Code of Conduct, there is no single governing body over the overall tournament circuit. FLG runs a season and has a system of tracking points, but there is no formal system of tracking infractions outside of a tournament. Obviously you have the events that FLG runs, but between something like Adepticon, or ATC, you have no carry over to things like NOVA, BAO, Seigeworld, etc.
Until there is a system that carries over, a player can push the limits at one tournament, and then start fresh at another.
It shouldn't be that hard to implement through the BCP app and points tracking systems FLG already have in place. Use the current CoC. Verbal warnings are non-persistant, they are a "hey everyone makes mistakes, clean it up" warning. Yellow Cards do persist for a period of time, three months off the top of my head. Two yellow cards and and you get a red card. A red card persists for two years (doesn't matter if it was earned at an event or through persistent yellow cards) and is an automatic three month ban which also turns off points tracking for the same period of time, and produces a flag in the app when a player signs up for an event.Two red cards and you are shut down for 6 months, three is a year. At this point you are flagged permanently as a problem player and each yellow card is an instant red card. Obviously you can tweak all of that for what is fair but effective, but it would be a great step forward.
1. We dont like cheaters
2. Cheating is easily and cheaply fixed
3. The Rules are too convoluted to ensure easy and rapid judgement
So how do you do the 2 without also punishing too harshly for people for honest mistakes which happen in 40k all the time? With all the suggestions for lifetime bans the moment somebody plays against rules that's harder than it appears.
How to punish mistakes/cheats I would look towards how MTG handles it as an example.
First wrong is a warning, second is a game loss. 3e is DQ.
Honest mistakes happen, and this way you can make a mistake (or 2 if you dont care about standings) but at the end of the day you are responsible for knowing your rules when you go to a tournament.
Magic also has a lot of cards designed around how the rules interact, and how they punish rules mistakes. Cards with "May do thing, rather than Do thing" where done when the rules for such where harsh, now they are not punished as harsh for a mistake like that, so there are less cards coming with "May do thing" as it makes the game smoother.
The same reason they consider shuffling the deck as very narrow design space, It takes Time to shuffle a deck. So they leave it for powerful effect or as side effects to give a player some advantage. Honestly Games workshop could learn a lot if there devs simply play magic and try to understand it.
Asmodios wrote: ...But seriously im curious of a single hobby that you could actually get into cheaper than 40k
You can buy a 2000 point army on craigs list or ebay for like $300-$400 and strip it and buy everything else you need for like $50. There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard
You mean aside from every other wargame ever released?
What other wargames are way cheaper than warhammer? I played WMHs for a while and it was just as expensive if not more so than 40k. I tried infinity for a while as well and it was a bit cheaper but only in the fact that you only needed 6ish models to play the game. The models themselves were just as expensive as 40k models though. Ive looked at a few other wargames as well and as far as model price comparison goes they are all priced relatively close. I am actually legitimately curious about this. I love finding new amazing looking models as I love the modeling painting aspect.
Startup costs? PP will sell you this season's 50pt pre-built army for $150-200 new. CB will sell you a 300pt army pack for $90. The "cost to get started playing the game" is a very distinct number from "cost per model."
Startup costs? PP will sell you this season's 50pt pre-built army for $150-200 new. CB will sell you a 300pt army pack for $90. The "cost to get started playing the game" is a very distinct number from "cost per model."
CB's "300pt army pack" is also literally just one list. In a notable case(Corregidor Jurisdictional Command) set, they actually had to add a whole new Lieutenant option to make the box legally playable.
Startup costs? PP will sell you this season's 50pt pre-built army for $150-200 new. CB will sell you a 300pt army pack for $90. The "cost to get started playing the game" is a very distinct number from "cost per model."
CB's "300pt army pack" is also literally just one list. In a notable case(Corregidor Jurisdictional Command) set, they actually had to add a whole new Lieutenant option to make the box legally playable.
My threshold here is "minimum legal list" on the logic that if you spent $3-400 on secondhand Warhammer models on Ebay you wouldn't end up with a huge amount of choice, a particularly competitive selection, or more than one minimum legal list at 2,000pts.
If you want to change the discussion to what's required to compete at a tournament level I will note that the winning list at LVO was MSRP ~$820 US. If I went out and bought one each of every single kit containing models available to Corregidor that's ~$620 US. How many lists do you want to build?
Oh okay, lets pretend that it wasn't your decision not to stream "Player X" live at your LVO due to his reputation.
It's not just the players, it is you too.
What?
The info from the WarhammerTV commentators themselves during the tournament was that Alex didn't want to be on stream (understandable all things considered). And WarhammerTV's policy has always been that both players have to agree to be on cam before they stream their game. Top tables at tournaments in the past have been missed because people didn't want to be on cam.
Unless you have a better source for your statement your doing exactly what the blog you linked is talking about.
Ordana wrote: How to punish mistakes/cheats I would look towards how MTG handles it as an example.
First wrong is a warning, second is a game loss. 3e is DQ.
Honest mistakes happen, and this way you can make a mistake (or 2 if you dont care about standings) but at the end of the day you are responsible for knowing your rules when you go to a tournament.
The problem with this approach is that MTG has rules that actually function RAW and 40k doesn't. In MTG if there's a question about how two cards interact you can always get a clear answer by consulting how the core rules handle it because everything is typed and keyworded and every interaction between types is explicitly handled. And all of the rules for a particular card (outside of basic keywords that even newbies know) are right there on the card so there's no "oops, I forgot it was a 3 instead of a 4" or whatever. 40k has a lot more room for disagreement over how a rule is supposed to work and you have to do a lot more from memory since constantly looking up every stat line means slowing the game down too much. Turning mistakes into DQs and extended bans from the tournament community is ridiculous overkill, and because there's no way it's going to be consistently imposed across all games/players with so few judges available it's inevitably going to result in a lot of justifiably angry players.
Asmodios wrote: ...But seriously im curious of a single hobby that you could actually get into cheaper than 40k
You can buy a 2000 point army on craigs list or ebay for like $300-$400 and strip it and buy everything else you need for like $50. There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard
You mean aside from every other wargame ever released?
What other wargames are way cheaper than warhammer? I played WMHs for a while and it was just as expensive if not more so than 40k. I tried infinity for a while as well and it was a bit cheaper but only in the fact that you only needed 6ish models to play the game. The models themselves were just as expensive as 40k models though. Ive looked at a few other wargames as well and as far as model price comparison goes they are all priced relatively close. I am actually legitimately curious about this. I love finding new amazing looking models as I love the modeling painting aspect.
Basically, any other wargame you get a full army (either minimum size to start playing e.g. equivalent to 1000 points or sometimes more) for about what it costs you to get a SC Box and a codex with maybe one more unit from GW. However, you almost always see the same arguments to discount it:
* Cost per model is the same/similar (yet this isn't the same thing as "how much you need to spend to get started), therefore it's not a valid comparison
* Saying how the models don't look as good as GW's, therefore, it's not a valid comparison (usually seen with Mantic and sometimes PP)
* Say how the game/genre doesn't interest them but Warhammer does, therefore it's not a valid comparison (usually seen with historical games like Bolt Action)
* Say how nobody plays that game here but they play Warhammer, therefore it's not a valid comparison (usually seen with the less well-known games like Frostgrave)
AnomanderRake wrote: My threshold here is "minimum legal list" on the logic that if you spent $3-400 on secondhand Warhammer models on Ebay you wouldn't end up with a huge amount of choice, a particularly competitive selection, or more than one minimum legal list at 2,000pts.
If you want to change the discussion to what's required to compete at a tournament level I will note that the winning list at LVO was MSRP ~$820 US. If I went out and bought one each of every single kit containing models available to Corregidor that's ~$620 US. How many lists do you want to build?
That's a very skewed way of looking at it. You're assuming a full 2,000 point army for 40k, which is way beyond "minimum startup costs". If you're talking about a true minimum startup 40k army, in the 500 point range, even buying NIB means paying something in the $150-200 range (plus rules/paint/etc, which apply to both games). And going beyond that minimum startup cost the only real difference between 40k and other games is that 40k is a larger game than the skirmish games you're comparing it to and therefore requires more models. Compare it to other games of similar scale and the gap is much smaller.
But TBH this is all arguing over irrelevant differences. I don't care if it costs $0.50 or $0.75 to add an extra topping to my pizza, I just buy whatever I want because both prices are so low that they aren't worth thinking about. Same thing for miniatures. Compared to other adult hobbies, especially on a per-hour scale, miniatures gaming of any kind is cheap and the difference between various miniatures is barely worth paying attention to.
Ordana wrote: How to punish mistakes/cheats I would look towards how MTG handles it as an example.
First wrong is a warning, second is a game loss. 3e is DQ.
Honest mistakes happen, and this way you can make a mistake (or 2 if you dont care about standings) but at the end of the day you are responsible for knowing your rules when you go to a tournament.
The problem with this approach is that MTG has rules that actually function RAW and 40k doesn't. In MTG if there's a question about how two cards interact you can always get a clear answer by consulting how the core rules handle it because everything is typed and keyworded and every interaction between types is explicitly handled. And all of the rules for a particular card (outside of basic keywords that even newbies know) are right there on the card so there's no "oops, I forgot it was a 3 instead of a 4" or whatever. 40k has a lot more room for disagreement over how a rule is supposed to work and you have to do a lot more from memory since constantly looking up every stat line means slowing the game down too much. Turning mistakes into DQs and extended bans from the tournament community is ridiculous overkill, and because there's no way it's going to be consistently imposed across all games/players with so few judges available it's inevitably going to result in a lot of justifiably angry players.
How often do judges have to resolve rule mistakes at lower tables? To me it feels limited to the point where a 2 strike rule wouldn't even effect many people, if any at all in a nominal tournament. And if your playing top tables then you should know your rules and not be making multiple mistakes
If you can't manage to correctly play your army, maybe you shouldn't be playing at a tournament.
Stuff like "I didn't know my codex explicitly says I dont have House Traits in an Aux detachment" is on the player, not the game.
This isn't obscure stuff, Its right there in your codex.
Ordana wrote: How to punish mistakes/cheats I would look towards how MTG handles it as an example.
First wrong is a warning, second is a game loss. 3e is DQ.
Honest mistakes happen, and this way you can make a mistake (or 2 if you dont care about standings) but at the end of the day you are responsible for knowing your rules when you go to a tournament.
The problem with this approach is that MTG has rules that actually function RAW and 40k doesn't. In MTG if there's a question about how two cards interact you can always get a clear answer by consulting how the core rules handle it because everything is typed and keyworded and every interaction between types is explicitly handled. And all of the rules for a particular card (outside of basic keywords that even newbies know) are right there on the card so there's no "oops, I forgot it was a 3 instead of a 4" or whatever. 40k has a lot more room for disagreement over how a rule is supposed to work and you have to do a lot more from memory since constantly looking up every stat line means slowing the game down too much. Turning mistakes into DQs and extended bans from the tournament community is ridiculous overkill, and because there's no way it's going to be consistently imposed across all games/players with so few judges available it's inevitably going to result in a lot of justifiably angry players.
How often do judges have to resolve rule mistakes at lower tables? To me it feels limited to the point where a 2 strike rule wouldn't even effect many people, if any at all in a nominal tournament. And if your playing top tables then you should know your rules and not be making multiple mistakes
If you can't manage to correctly play your army, maybe you shouldn't be playing at a tournament.
Stuff like "I didn't know my codex explicitly says I dont have House Traits in an Aux detachment" is on the player, not the game.
This isn't obscure stuff, Its right there in your codex.
Stuff like that imho needs to be treated more harshly because it's right there. There's forgetting something in the order of activation or whatnot, and forgetting (or wilfully ignoring) rules right in your codex. At the very least you should expect tournament players, especially ones who are at the top tables, to know their own codex in and out. That sort of infraction should get a harsher penalty than say a disagreement over a rule or accidentally playing it incorrectly.
Ordana wrote: How often do judges have to resolve rule mistakes at lower tables? To me it feels limited to the point where a 2 strike rule wouldn't even effect many people, if any at all in a nominal tournament. And if your playing top tables then you should know your rules and not be making multiple mistakes
That's exactly the point! People who get those strikes and the permanent consequences they carry are going to be justifiably angry that other players who made similar mistakes are not getting punished for it.
Stuff like "I didn't know my codex explicitly says I dont have House Traits in an Aux detachment" is on the player, not the game.
It's on both. It's on the player for making the "mistake", especially since they've supposedly been corrected on it in the past. But it's also on the game, for making the rules a bloated mess with tons of these special-case exceptions to how the rules normally work. It's easy to miss something like that, or to remember a stat line wrong, etc, and in a tournament the time limit is strong pressure to play from memory instead of looking up rules to be sure.
Oh okay, lets pretend that it wasn't your decision not to stream "Player X" live at your LVO due to his reputation.
It's not just the players, it is you too.
Was there actually a mob angrily rampaging around the gaming hall at LVO or is the head judge at least as guilty of blowing things out of proportion as he claims some of the players were?
Just asking. Despite the picture I am assuming no mob was actually wielding pitchforks and torches.
It's on both. It's on the player for making the "mistake", especially since they've supposedly been corrected on it in the past. But it's also on the game, for making the rules a bloated mess with tons of these special-case exceptions to how the rules normally work. It's easy to miss something like that, or to remember a stat line wrong, etc, and in a tournament the time limit is strong pressure to play from memory instead of looking up rules to be sure.
If it was hidden away in some weird place then maybe - but when it is right there in the codex you are playing then I think not. Read your codex, its not hard.
When your opponent spots that you are playing your own rules wrong and corrects you the appropriate behaviour is to thank them for the lesson and probably to show a fair amount of embarrassment at being such a chump. Losing a game due to not knowing your own rules is on you as a player, take your lumps without complaint.
The inappropriate response is to throw a hissy fit, demand that the consequences of your mistake be reduced or eliminated etc.
Clearly the yellow/red card system that FLG are using is not working if they subsequently find that they have to take down the video for a game that was on stream but the game itself was permitted to continue. How can it be such a bad situation that you have to delete it from internet history but not a bad enough situation to hand the player a proper penalty that actually matters to them? Oh well, not much chance of it changing and FLG seem to be the only outfit able to put on events of that size so I think players all know what they are getting into if they attend by now.
happy_inquisitor wrote: If it was hidden away in some weird place then maybe - but when it is right there in the codex you are playing then I think not. Read your codex, its not hard.
Again, the problem is that the rules may be written down but they're inconsistent, bloated beyond all reason, and for practical purposes inaccessible during a game. IK have that restriction on LoW not gaining a faction bonus when taken in a single-model detachment, but Tau don't have that same restriction and would get the faction bonus as usual. Same situation, completely different rules, and no apparent reason why they work differently. That's a textbook example of a case where mistakes are likely to happen, and 180* opposed to the way MTG handles similar situations. So it's easy to say "know your codex" as a third party observer, but in practice 40k is a game where mistakes are common and encouraged by poor rule design.
When your opponent spots that you are playing your own rules wrong and corrects you the appropriate behaviour is to thank them for the lesson and probably to show a fair amount of embarrassment at being such a chump. Losing a game due to not knowing your own rules is on you as a player, take your lumps without complaint.
The inappropriate response is to throw a hissy fit, demand that the consequences of your mistake be reduced or eliminated etc.
Please do not build straw man arguments. In no way am I excusing or defending the player's behavior after the "mistake". It was completely inappropriate and should have resulted in a DQ and immediate removal from the event property. But that doesn't change the fact that 40k's rules are a mess and a MTG-style penalty system is a poor fit.
Again, the problem is that the rules may be written down but they're inconsistent, bloated beyond all reason, and for practical purposes inaccessible during a game. IK have that restriction on LoW not gaining a faction bonus when taken in a single-model detachment, but Tau don't have that same restriction and would get the faction bonus as usual. Same situation, completely different rules, and no apparent reason why they work differently. That's a textbook example of a case where mistakes are likely to happen, and 180* opposed to the way MTG handles similar situations. So it's easy to say "know your codex" as a third party observer, but in practice 40k is a game where mistakes are common and encouraged by poor rule design.
Not that I disagree with you on rules bloat, but to be fair I have the DG and CD codexes right next to me and both have the models in auxiliary detachments cannot use these stratagems restrictions on their relevant stratagem pages. The rule is not unique to IK and seems to be consistent across all books.
AnomanderRake wrote: My threshold here is "minimum legal list" on the logic that if you spent $3-400 on secondhand Warhammer models on Ebay you wouldn't end up with a huge amount of choice, a particularly competitive selection, or more than one minimum legal list at 2,000pts.
If you want to change the discussion to what's required to compete at a tournament level I will note that the winning list at LVO was MSRP ~$820 US. If I went out and bought one each of every single kit containing models available to Corregidor that's ~$620 US. How many lists do you want to build?
That's a very skewed way of looking at it. You're assuming a full 2,000 point army for 40k, which is way beyond "minimum startup costs". If you're talking about a true minimum startup 40k army, in the 500 point range, even buying NIB means paying something in the $150-200 range (plus rules/paint/etc, which apply to both games). And going beyond that minimum startup cost the only real difference between 40k and other games is that 40k is a larger game than the skirmish games you're comparing it to and therefore requires more models. Compare it to other games of similar scale and the gap is much smaller.
But TBH this is all arguing over irrelevant differences. I don't care if it costs $0.50 or $0.75 to add an extra topping to my pizza, I just buy whatever I want because both prices are so low that they aren't worth thinking about. Same thing for miniatures. Compared to other adult hobbies, especially on a per-hour scale, miniatures gaming of any kind is cheap and the difference between various miniatures is barely worth paying attention to.
I will observe that this discussion began because someone asked me if there were miniatures games cheaper than 40k.
I will further observe that every time someone moves the goalposts on how we're comparing 40k to any other miniatures game on the market the other game has come out ahead, as follows:
Cost to buy "some models" (as measured by what the developers think should be labeled "starter box", or by half of splitting a two-faction box with someone else): Warmachine/Infinity $40-45, 40k $80-100.
Cost to buy an army at a points level someone runs tournaments at: Infinity ~$90-130, Warmachine ~$150-250, 40k generally $400+
Cost to buy an army someone might actually field in a tournament: Infinity ~$150, Warmachine ~$300, 40k $800+
Cost to buy the rules for the game: Infinity $0, Warmachine $0 (or $9 if you want to use the app, or $18 if you want to use the app and want mercenaries), 40k $65 (Codex + latest Chapter Approved) plus another $25 yearly for the next Chapter Approved plus more if you want to field any allies of any kind
I understand that you're trying to compare Warhammer to something like skiing or modifying cars that's actually very expensive, but even if you live in a world where the difference between a wargame that costs ~$200 to take to a tournament and a wargame that costs $800+ to take to a tournament is pocket change comparable to an extra $0.25 to add another topping to your pizza I suspect you do understand that not everyone does.
Grimtuff wrote: Not that I disagree with you on rules bloat, but to be fair I have the DG and CD codexes right next to me and both have the models in auxiliary detachments cannot use these stratagems restrictions on their relevant stratagem pages. The rule is not unique to IK and seems to be consistent across all books.
EDIT- Tau do as well FWIW.
Auxiliary support detachment =/= superheavy auxiliary detachment. The first is any single non-LoW unit that costs -1 CP to take, the second is a single LoW with no CP cost/bonus. Which just demonstrates my point about the rules being unclear and excessively complicated.
Grimtuff wrote: Not that I disagree with you on rules bloat, but to be fair I have the DG and CD codexes right next to me and both have the models in auxiliary detachments cannot use these stratagems restrictions on their relevant stratagem pages. The rule is not unique to IK and seems to be consistent across all books.
EDIT- Tau do as well FWIW.
Auxiliary support detachment =/= superheavy auxiliary detachment. The first is any single non-LoW unit that costs -1 CP to take, the second is a single LoW with no CP cost/bonus. Which just demonstrates my point about the rules being unclear and excessively complicated.
Show me how IK can take anything other than a Superheavy detachment/superheavy auxiliary in their codex? They just changed the language to fit the context of the relevant codex.
AnomanderRake wrote: I will further observe that every time someone moves the goalposts on how we're comparing 40k to any other miniatures game on the market the other game has come out ahead, as follows:
Cost to buy "some models" (as measured by what the developers think should be labeled "starter box", or by half of splitting a two-faction box with someone else): Warmachine/Infinity $40-45, 40k $80-100.
Cost to buy an army at a points level someone runs tournaments at: Infinity ~$90-130, Warmachine ~$150-250, 40k generally $400+
Cost to buy an army someone might actually field in a tournament: Infinity ~$150, Warmachine ~$300, 40k $800+
Cost to buy the rules for the game: Infinity $0, Warmachine $0 (or $9 if you want to use the app, or $18 if you want to use the app and want mercenaries), 40k $65 (Codex + latest Chapter Approved) plus another $25 yearly for the next Chapter Approved plus more if you want to field any allies of any kind
I will further observe that every time someone makes this comparison it's between a 5-10 model skirmish game and a 200+ model army-scale game, people never try to compare 40k to games with a similar number of models on the table. Compare Kill Team, the 40k skirmish game, to those other games and you get the same $50-100 price range.
I understand that you're trying to compare Warhammer to something like skiing or modifying cars that's actually very expensive, but even if you live in a world where the difference between a wargame that costs ~$200 to take to a tournament and a wargame that costs $800+ to take to a tournament is pocket change comparable to an extra $0.25 to add another topping to your pizza I suspect you do understand that not everyone does.
But things like skiing or modifying cars aren't extremely expensive hobbies, they're reasonable things that most people with career-level jobs are able to do. And you don't even have to get into things at that price level, compared to even something like a dinner and a movie date 40k is coming out ahead when you consider cost per hour. Hell, even if you compare 40k to the cost of attending a tournament outside your local area the difference in army price quickly becomes irrelevant. Does it really matter if the army costs $300 more when you're spending $500-1000 to travel to an event? The total cost to me to attend an X-Wing tournament vs. a 40k tournament is really not something worth considering.
And yes, I know there are people who have jobs working for minimum wage and struggle to afford even basic living expenses. But those people probably aren't buying expensive miniatures of any kind or attending major tournaments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimtuff wrote: Show me how IK can take anything other than a Superheavy detachment/superheavy auxiliary in their codex? They just changed the language to fit the context of the relevant codex.
You're missing the point.
Everyone has a restriction on the "take any random unit" auxiliary support detachment. That's consistent across all factions, and it works fine.
Not all factions have the same restriction on the "take a single LoW" superheavy support detachment. Some (IK, IG) do not grant the faction bonus to a unit taken that way, some (Tau) do grant the faction bonus. That's inconsistent and creates a memory issue where, say, an Imperial and Tau player who is used to adding a single Tau LoW via superheavy support detachment and getting the faction bonus plays a game with their Imperial army and forgets that the rules work differently.
This is not a mere change of language to express the same concept, it's a detachment working in different ways depending on which codex you use and for no apparent reason. And the fact that we're even having this discussion, with you apparently not understanding that these are two separate detachments or that we're talking about regiment/house/sept/etc traits and not stratagems, is proof that the rules are badly written and encourage mistakes.
The problem with judges at an event like that and catching cheaters is that you need to either have the same judges ruling on later decision (e.g. the guy tries the same trick with his knight in a later game and gets called on it again) then it is obvious it is cheating. Is that realistic though? Probably not. So firstly a proper, objective way of recording infractions needs to be in place, then sanctions need to be taken and met. And they do need to be severe, because if they are light, people will chance their luck, going back to my soccer and diving analogy. If the punishment is weak, it won't solve the issue, and others will follow seeing it as a worthy risk for a performance enhancing benefit, which cheating is.
Oh okay, lets pretend that it wasn't your decision not to stream "Player X" live at your LVO due to his reputation.
It's not just the players, it is you too.
If you are a judge, and are then subjective against a player who has called you over to take action against another player who is cheating, then you are a terrible judge and should not be judging events.
You cannot get angry yourself, have a hissy fit and threaten sanctions against players highlighting issues to you because it is annoying you, that is being subjective and childish. You should solve the origional issue first, like banning the problem player, or putting a judge on them for every game is you want their entry money.
Just to be clear, when the Castellan advanced it technically could still fire its assault melta guns at -1. The stratagem was strategically misplayed BUT there was literally NO reason for the take back of the 3CP stratagem. None.
I watched Tabletactics recap of LVO and BBones said he verbally ended a turn, then realised he forgot to do something but the other player made him play as intended.
And here we have a player having a tantrum because they misplayed a turn and demanded a take back. See the standard we are letting poor players get away with?
Smirrors wrote: Just to be clear, when the Castellan advanced it technically could still fire its assault melta guns at -1. The stratagem was strategically misplayed BUT there was literally NO reason for the take back of the 3CP stratagem. None.
I watched Tabletactics recap of LVO and BBones said he verbally ended a turn, then realised he forgot to do something but the other player made him play as intended.
And here we have a player having a tantrum because they misplayed a turn and demanded a take back. See the standard we are letting poor players get away with?
There is also the issue that said player had probably been doing it all through the tournament (I don't know if this is true, just speculating).
My own feeling is that tournaments should have a sportsmanship rating. To be fair this has potential issues - for example the "come dine with me" problem, where if you give everyone terrible scores, you will be boosted up if everyone else scores you normally.
It is however easy to implement, and hopefully discourages people having tantrums - or generally engaging in aggressive that guy behavior. (Examples include "its cocked when its not the number I want, if it is then its fine".)
I guess it doesn't help people who cheat and are never caught - but frankly the idea that the LVO would employ 100~ judges to watch over say 3-4 tables a round probably isn't plausible.
Smirrors wrote: Just to be clear, when the Castellan advanced it technically could still fire its assault melta guns at -1. The stratagem was strategically misplayed BUT there was literally NO reason for the take back of the 3CP stratagem. None.
I watched Tabletactics recap of LVO and BBones said he verbally ended a turn, then realised he forgot to do something but the other player made him play as intended.
And here we have a player having a tantrum because they misplayed a turn and demanded a take back. See the standard we are letting poor players get away with?
There is also the issue that said player had probably been doing it all through the tournament (I don't know if this is true, just speculating).
That honestly can't be helped too much.
But this act is almost a precedent set whereby if someone doesnt know their own rules, a judge has allowed them to take back a mistake (perhaps due to player influence).
Other players are not allowed take backs, why was this player allowed to do it.
Couldn't the judges collaborate? Like if Judge A gets called to the table and finds some dubious rule, rules on it and later tells the other Judges "Hey, Bob did X rule and it seemed fishy. If any of you get called to his table and he tries that, he might be purposely cheating"
Something like that, so judges know to watch out for suspect players and if it happens more than once (especially after a judge has been called) they can treat it as an attempt to cheat.
Wayniac wrote: Couldn't the judges collaborate? Like if Judge A gets called to the table and finds some dubious rule, rules on it and later tells the other Judges "Hey, Bob did X rule and it seemed fishy. If any of you get called to his table and he tries that, he might be purposely cheating"
Something like that, so judges know to watch out for suspect players and if it happens more than once (especially after a judge has been called) they can treat it as an attempt to cheat.
There is incredibly little time to collaborate during a tournament. You'd need a tool to facilitate such a thing, which takes time to set up.
Oh okay, lets pretend that it wasn't your decision not to stream "Player X" live at your LVO due to his reputation.
It's not just the players, it is you too.
That's an...interesting approach to things for sure. Saying there was a mob mentality at the event when nobody else has pointed this out feels like they're doing exactly the thing they're advocating against. They also refuse to name names either of those who are part of the "mob" or those who were the targets of the mob. That leads to further useless and potentially inflammatory speculation and leaves me wondering what the point of that article is at all. At one point the author says people need to leave dealing with these situations to judges but even if some sort of mob mentality was evident at the LVO perhaps it's an indication of the players' dissatisfaction with how judges were dealing with infractions? Writing the article in the way the author has done seems like a classic deflection technique to me.
Wayniac wrote: Couldn't the judges collaborate? Like if Judge A gets called to the table and finds some dubious rule, rules on it and later tells the other Judges "Hey, Bob did X rule and it seemed fishy. If any of you get called to his table and he tries that, he might be purposely cheating"
Something like that, so judges know to watch out for suspect players and if it happens more than once (especially after a judge has been called) they can treat it as an attempt to cheat.
There is incredibly little time to collaborate during a tournament. You'd need a tool to facilitate such a thing, which takes time to set up.
That implies that there aren't enough judges for the event or that the system itself requires too many judges due to how badly it's designed. I've played in and witnessed large tournaments for a variety of other games and I can't think of a single one that didn't have enough judges for the number of players present, and in every single case I think the number of judges was in single figures even when the number of players was well into the hundreds. If there's one thing that the increasing size of 40k tournaments has shown, I think it's that bigger isn't always better and there is perhaps a practical maximum number of players we should be looking at if you want to run a 40k tournament. Unfortunately the "bigger is better" mentality makes that unlikely to happen.
Wayniac wrote: Couldn't the judges collaborate? Like if Judge A gets called to the table and finds some dubious rule, rules on it and later tells the other Judges "Hey, Bob did X rule and it seemed fishy. If any of you get called to his table and he tries that, he might be purposely cheating"
Something like that, so judges know to watch out for suspect players and if it happens more than once (especially after a judge has been called) they can treat it as an attempt to cheat.
There is incredibly little time to collaborate during a tournament. You'd need a tool to facilitate such a thing, which takes time to set up.
A few minutes of time to exchange notes in between rounds should be possible for a judge team at a big tournament.
I don’t know how many judges were at the LVO, but, I’m guessing the figure “wasn’t enough”. Overall, I’ve found the amount of judges at most events hit or miss, and, when taking into account those in the US and the ones in the UK I can’t get to, I feel like it is more miss than hit.
As for a system for the judges, well, I personally think the best way to go would be to add it into the TO section of BCP. Having something in place that allows a judge to select the table and player in question on the app and add a background note only visible to the TOs on their version of the app. If another judge gets called to their table later on in the event they’ll be able to see the note of what happened before and thus make a new, more informed, decision. Also, with limited judges, it can sometimes be hard to remember what was said in the past, especially if you’re having to make a lot of interventions.
Also, it’d then further help the faq cause. If the same “mistake” takes place several times over several people in 1, or more events, then that would be something to raise with GW for clarification as something clearly is going wrong in that given situation.
Kdash wrote: I don’t know how many judges were at the LVO, but, I’m guessing the figure “wasn’t enough”. Overall, I’ve found the amount of judges at most events hit or miss, and, when taking into account those in the US and the ones in the UK I can’t get to, I feel like it is more miss than hit.
As for a system for the judges, well, I personally think the best way to go would be to add it into the TO section of BCP. Having something in place that allows a judge to select the table and player in question on the app and add a background note only visible to the TOs on their version of the app. If another judge gets called to their table later on in the event they’ll be able to see the note of what happened before and thus make a new, more informed, decision. Also, with limited judges, it can sometimes be hard to remember what was said in the past, especially if you’re having to make a lot of interventions.
Also, it’d then further help the faq cause. If the same “mistake” takes place several times over several people in 1, or more events, then that would be something to raise with GW for clarification as something clearly is going wrong in that given situation.
This is the right way to go about it, but implementation of it needs to be considered. Judge needs to go to the table, make a ruling and importantly be given time to make the note before moving on. If the judge gets into a 'I'll just go sort this out first' mentality, the notes in some cases will not be recorded. In which case, there probably needs to be rolling judges, so a judge can come back to a central desk and do the required admin, whilst another judge is then active until they need not be.
All things would not have to be recorded, and you can focus on recording certain players if they are dubious rather than every person for every ruling.
Finally, I just want to refer back to how absolutely horrendous the attitude of the judge in that article is. That is absolutely not okay and is part of the problem.
Tyel wrote: ...but frankly the idea that the LVO would employ 100~ judges to watch over say 3-4 tables a round probably isn't plausible.
Why? Aren't judges mostly volunteers? There shouldn't be a financial issue with bringing on more judges, and I'm sure there are tons of people who would want to do that and be able to survive the vetting process.
How about 50 judges/tables and 200 players, and have the first tournament round be staggered.
There is plenty of ways to make it work. Part of the problem is the expectation that there should be over 700 participants in the tournament... which is frankly kind of ridiculous. Tournaments should be smaller and have entrance requirements... lower tier players should have to work their way up from lower league tournaments first.
Tyel wrote: ...but frankly the idea that the LVO would employ 100~ judges to watch over say 3-4 tables a round probably isn't plausible.
Why? Aren't judges mostly volunteers? There shouldn't be a financial issue with bringing on more judges, and I'm sure there are tons of people who would want to do that and be able to survive the vetting process.
How about 50 judges/tables and 200 players, and have the first tournament round be staggered.
There is plenty of ways to make it work. Part of the problem is the expectation that there should be over 700 participants in the tournament... which is frankly kind of ridiculous. Tournaments should be smaller and have entrance requirements... lower tier players should have to work their way up from lower league tournaments first.
So you have scores of knowledgeable judges willing to give up their weekend for no pay? And also be in the area you're playing, but not in the tournament?
Tyel wrote: ...but frankly the idea that the LVO would employ 100~ judges to watch over say 3-4 tables a round probably isn't plausible.
Why? Aren't judges mostly volunteers? There shouldn't be a financial issue with bringing on more judges, and I'm sure there are tons of people who would want to do that and be able to survive the vetting process.
How about 50 judges/tables and 200 players, and have the first tournament round be staggered.
There is plenty of ways to make it work. Part of the problem is the expectation that there should be over 700 participants in the tournament... which is frankly kind of ridiculous. Tournaments should be smaller and have entrance requirements... lower tier players should have to work their way up from lower league tournaments first.
Yeah dude, let's just get those couple hundred judges who volunteer to travel to vegas for free, stay in a hotel they pay for, all for the good of the game.
Not only that, but let's also stagger lots of entry events all over the US that people now need to be obligated to travel to, so they can gain entrance to a huge secondary or tertiary event they can they travel to again, and at this point those same judges can volunteer again and get everything squared away.
Tyel wrote: ...but frankly the idea that the LVO would employ 100~ judges to watch over say 3-4 tables a round probably isn't plausible.
Why? Aren't judges mostly volunteers? There shouldn't be a financial issue with bringing on more judges, and I'm sure there are tons of people who would want to do that and be able to survive the vetting process.
How about 50 judges/tables and 200 players, and have the first tournament round be staggered.
There is plenty of ways to make it work. Part of the problem is the expectation that there should be over 700 participants in the tournament... which is frankly kind of ridiculous. Tournaments should be smaller and have entrance requirements... lower tier players should have to work their way up from lower league tournaments first.
Yeah dude, let's just get those couple hundred judges who volunteer to travel to vegas for free, stay in a hotel they pay for, all for the good of the game.
Not only that, but let's also stagger lots of entry events all over the US that people now need to be obligated to travel to, so they can gain entrance to a huge secondary or tertiary event they can they travel to again, and at this point those same judges can volunteer again and get everything squared away.
Super easy we can all do it!!!
then maybe the tournament should have less players in it. or maybe they should make it more attractive for volunteers. dont know how this would be accomplished but someone @ ITC should start factoring in an acceptable judge:player ratio when planning a tournament.
Now I understand that the more players there are, the more $€£¥ they make. but if instances of cheating are happening over and over and are now becoming more public, they should look into tightening up their own admissions requirements. maybe big tournaments should be invitational (or similar) style of entry. where you have to be specifically ranked high enuff or something like it. Or have regional qualifiers that you must participate in to be eligible for bigger stuff.
I do think that the 3 major problems with how the events are run begin & end with organizers.
1. Not enuff judges/lack of communication between them.
2. Too many entrants.
3. No lasting punishment for active cheaters.
There are not enough people playing this game to start worrying about "regional qualifiers". We want as many people as possible to turn up at a tournament because that represents a great advert for the game. Sometimes there are screw ups (looking at you London tournament in the Olympic Stadium last year) but the LVO seems to get bigger every year. This would suggest people are having a great time, regardless of a handful of cheaters.
Anyone could theoretically host some invitational round robin of the top 16 players in the world for the forums to digest - but that would be a bit rubbish.
I hate to compare this to E-sports, but here goes:
If you want to compete as SF5 Capcom cup, or EVO, you need to have enough player points to make it into pools. The way you earn player points is competing and finishing in top 8 at locals. Those locals are all reporting the finishes to the head gaming circut, so at Capcom cup they can look, and say you have enough points to compete in Pools.
We have no established system in the 40k world for tracking locals or tournament placings. Its never even been tried. Because it's SUCH a niche hobby, there aren't enough Tournaments. Hell, for just SMASH or SF5, there are literally hundreds of locals every year. Those locals are funded primarily out of bars, or hobby centers. Just players, 1 TV, and some sticks.
If FLGs held actual accredited points tournies every year, it could create a basis for evaluating who should and shouldn't be at tournaments. Then there would be no need for traveling. Every state has at least one Warhammer store or affiliated store. Who's to say they can't old a tournament? Warhammer could send promo stuff.
Still, it comes down to judges. From what I am reading, judges as a whole in this hobby are not only under qualified, but under trained. This MIGHT also be a great place to train up judges or people who want to become judges.
Thoughts?
PS - Cheaters could be addressed and black listed at locals, thus preventing their advancement. For instance, if we start fresh, Alex Morrison gets a warning. Right off the bat for the past. Any future "mistakes" warrant a flag on his record, and forfeiture of all points for 1 year.
Aye a unified system that had a means to test and approve local judges to run tournaments at the local end could easily feedback into a national (or at least regional/state for USA) competition. That would cut down the number of entrants for a major game by making it into the top players from a selection already pre-chosen by prior games.
They can still run as many games, just have more casual tables and lower tier/daily competitions and other events.
The problem is that Warhammer has never done this partly because GW has never wanted to. Such systems require people in stable positions to run and set them up and they require initial investment and some spark to push them through and GW has never wanted to really do that way with their product.
Meanwhile I think fans sort of try to, but it only ever ends up local or gets bogged down in debate or just never gets off the ground. Then whoever is spear-heading it gets distracted with "real life" and drift away and it loses momentum.
Why do we want to make 40K into an E-sports equivalent? (whatever E-sports is...)
I do not think that 40K is meant to be played with a judge hovering over the table. I play in local 40K tournaments (four a year or so) and I certainly don't want a judge at the table. When the earth was cooling I went to a national Grand Tournament (1998 IIRC) - there were a few GW judges available to handle questions but none came up for me over five games. It was cool to have Jervis come by and ask about how the game was going, but he certainly wasn't there to judge. Its a game meant to played by like-minded people who navigate the gaming experience - somethings mistakes are made. If I meet somebody at a tourney who seems dodgy I will deal with it - perhaps simply by getting over it. I am not sure why people who were not at an event get so lathered up about second hand reports of shady happenings that have no real impact on them? Perhaps the fighting on-line is so vicious because the stakes are so low...
Why should LVO massively change the nature of the event? As it has been growing it would seem to be a successful event. I think its great that something like 700 people put aside a weekend and flew across the continent to get their 40K on. In Vegas no less!
Perhaps having live-streams of games has added a group of folks with no actual stake in the game in question but who have a window and a voice to shout their displeasure. What ever happened to what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?
We have no established system in the 40k world for tracking locals or tournament placings. Its never even been tried. Because it's SUCH a niche hobby, there aren't enough Tournaments. Hell, for just SMASH or SF5, there are literally hundreds of locals every year. Those locals are funded primarily out of bars, or hobby centers. Just players, 1 TV, and some sticks.
ITC does exactly this. Locals record their tournaments all the time.
There were over 2,100 entries into BCP for Feb 18 to Feb 19 (some are dummy listings). There are surely thousands more not under ITC.
Tyel wrote: ...but frankly the idea that the LVO would employ 100~ judges to watch over say 3-4 tables a round probably isn't plausible.
Why? Aren't judges mostly volunteers? There shouldn't be a financial issue with bringing on more judges, and I'm sure there are tons of people who would want to do that and be able to survive the vetting process.
How about 50 judges/tables and 200 players, and have the first tournament round be staggered.
There is plenty of ways to make it work. Part of the problem is the expectation that there should be over 700 participants in the tournament... which is frankly kind of ridiculous. Tournaments should be smaller and have entrance requirements... lower tier players should have to work their way up from lower league tournaments first.
Uuh it is financial issue. Where you think you are going to find toes of people willing to go on their expekse to volunteer judging some miniature tournament for free? Getting 100 paid judges wouldn't be automatic snap thing(and would be likely rather expensive. Does vegas have 100 qualified judges who wouldn't be playing themselves? If they come outside you would need to factor in travel and hotel budget...1000 might not be enough per judge...) Let alone free
Cephalobeard wrote: Yeah dude, let's just get those couple hundred judges who volunteer to travel to vegas for free, stay in a hotel they pay for, all for the good of the game.
Not only that, but let's also stagger lots of entry events all over the US that people now need to be obligated to travel to, so they can gain entrance to a huge secondary or tertiary event they can they travel to again, and at this point those same judges can volunteer again and get everything squared away.
Super easy we can all do it!!!
IMO The only realistic solution to the issue involves there needing to be more judges, less players, or a combination of the two. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that a 40k tournament is fundamentally un-policable?
tneva82 wrote: Getting 100 paid judges wouldn't be automatic snap thing(and would be likely rather expensive. Does vegas have 100 qualified judges who wouldn't be playing themselves? If they come outside you would need to factor in travel and hotel budget...1000 might not be enough per judge...) Let alone free
I'm sure that if the people running these tournaments got together and were willing to dig into their profit margins a bit, they could make it work. Paying for an adequate amount of judges and referees is the purview of any real sport or sporting league.
Do either of you have any better ideas at how to combat cheating besides catching an odd player who may not have even been intentionally cheating and mounting his head on a pike as a warning to the others?
I'm sure that if the people running these tournaments got together and were willing to dig into their profit margins a bit, they could make it work. Paying for an adequate amount of judges and referees is the purview of any real sport or sporting league.
Do either of you have any better ideas at how to combat cheating besides catching an odd player who may not have even been intentionally cheating and mounting his head on a pike as a warning to the others?
Okay let's say 100 judges. Let's pay them 200 for 3 day work(rather underpaid especially if days take longer than 8 hours which 40k is almost certain). 2 hotel nights. Not sure how expensive it's at Vegas but here it would easily be another 200. Then travel fees. Let's say you are lucky and get it for say 60(so def no need for airplanes). That's 36k. Think there was like 600 players in the tournament? So add up 60 per player to the price. Weren't the tickets like 60-80 to begin with? Cutting that sum from existing ticket is pipe dream. Remember terrain fees, rent etc. And frankly I very much doubt 360 per judge is actually anywhere near enough(also add in taxes etc)
And 40k IS NOT A SPORT! It's a bloody hobby and small one at that. There's no real money involved. The LVO ticket prices are already high relatively speaking but low compared to actual sport. There's no commercials in it. Hell the game itself is 100% unsuitable as sport.
Don't think of it as sport. That way madness lie. It's not sport. Expecting it to work like sport isn't going to feasible. Or at least if you do prepare to pay like 500 for the tickets.
You are looking at this from entirely wrong base assumption. No wonder you are so off.
Anything can be made in to a sport. If players are paid, it automaticly becomes a professional sport. The only metric is how professional something is, and normaly this is proportional to the money.
Anything can be made in to a sport. If players are paid, it automaticly becomes a professional sport. The only metric is how professional something is, and normaly this is proportional to the money.
tneva82 wrote: Don't think of it as sport. That way madness lie. It's not sport. Expecting it to work like sport isn't going to feasible. Or at least if you do prepare to pay like 500 for the tickets.
I mean if 40k isn't meant to be taken that seriously, then maybe there shouldn't be national tournaments or official leagues? Only local tournaments.
If you are going to have a national tournament, you have to do it right... that means adequate amounts of judges, adequate tables, adequate food and facilities. If any one of those cannot be done then the tournament shouldn't even be taking place because it's not feasible.
If the ticket prices need to be 500$ in order to get a decent amount of judges then maybe the ticket prices need to be 500$.
Anything can be made in to a sport. If players are paid, it automaticly becomes a professional sport. The only metric is how professional something is, and normaly this is proportional to the money.
This is incorrect. However the definition of sport is probably different for different continents/countries. For a sport to class as a sport in the UK, and I'm paraphrasing here it has to involve a form of physical activity that can help to improve physical fitness as well as aid mental wellbeing, amongst some other criteria.
Warhammer is not a sport lads and ladies, it never will be. That does not mean that if there is super growth in future we may not end up with professional players, but they won't be sports people, they will be professional tabletop wargamers.
Anything can be made in to a sport. If players are paid, it automaticly becomes a professional sport. The only metric is how professional something is, and normaly this is proportional to the money.
This is incorrect. However the definition of sport is probably different for different continents/countries. For a sport to class as a sport in the UK, and I'm paraphrasing here it has to involve a form of physical activity that can help to improve physical fitness as well as aid mental wellbeing, amongst some other criteria.
Warhammer is not a sport lads and ladies, it never will be. That does not mean that if there is super growth in future we may not end up with professional players, but they won't be sports people, they will be professional tabletop wargamers.
The reason things like this are classified under sports, is that there are already laws that deal with sports. It saves a lot of time and money than having to deal with them as a separate thing, when in most cases they would use the same words with the change being gaming.
In the end, to get good at it you do what most people at a professional level for a sport would do. Why not a sport in one sense, they are in others and the word fits quite well.
You can call them what ever you want, But it may all be covered under sport in the future out of necessity.
The problem is the rules. Tighter, better game rules remove the need for so many judges. X-Wing and MtG both have tournaments with over 200 players on a fairly regular basis and neither of those systems requires a huge number of judges. In fact, MtG mandates 6 judges for a 200+ player tournament. Why? Because the rules are much tighter, which makes all these little half-cheating strategies much less likely and blatant, outright cheating very, very difficult. As far as X-Wing in concerned, there are far, far fewer controversies in that game than in 40k and I don't know why with any certainty, but I think it partly comes down to the community itself but also the rules being much harder to abuse.
I don't think 40k is fundamentally un-policable but I suspect at the numbers the LVO attracts it's practically un-policable. You just aren't going to get the required number of judges to attend to achieve anything like the player:judge ratio you need to properly enforce the rules fairly across all tables. I think there are only two ways to change this. Either you need to crack down very hard on people found to be cheating in order to deter those who might want to risk it, which runs the risk of false positives. Or you reduce your numbers to a more manageable level, which I don't think is going to happen because the whoile point of most of these events seems to be to be as big as possible.
Sports and esports that have official standings have fixed rules, always. Football will always be football, no matter how many seasons pass. FIFA 19 will play like FIFA 18 will play like FIFA 2000. Magic can change editions, but blue will always be blue and do blue things. Chess will... yeah.
Then in comes 40k, a game whose publisher changes the rules three times per year, the sense of balance is nonexistent, has zero playtesting before publishing and has such a huge margin for error or cheating it's not even funny. When a tenth of an inch on a table with no inch markings is enough to change the outcome of a whole game, it's impossible to have a sport out of it. It's like playing chess, having your white bishop barely touch a black square and now suddenly it's a black bishop.
Slipspace wrote: The problem is the rules. Tighter, better game rules remove the need for so many judges. X-Wing and MtG both have tournaments with over 200 players on a fairly regular basis and neither of those systems requires a huge number of judges. In fact, MtG mandates 6 judges for a 200+ player tournament. Why? Because the rules are much tighter, which makes all these little half-cheating strategies much less likely and blatant, outright cheating very, very difficult. As far as X-Wing in concerned, there are far, far fewer controversies in that game than in 40k and I don't know why with any certainty, but I think it partly comes down to the community itself but also the rules being much harder to abuse.
I don't think 40k is fundamentally un-policable but I suspect at the numbers the LVO attracts it's practically un-policable. You just aren't going to get the required number of judges to attend to achieve anything like the player:judge ratio you need to properly enforce the rules fairly across all tables. I think there are only two ways to change this. Either you need to crack down very hard on people found to be cheating in order to deter those who might want to risk it, which runs the risk of false positives. Or you reduce your numbers to a more manageable level, which I don't think is going to happen because the whoile point of most of these events seems to be to be as big as possible.
+9001 to all of this.
Either you have a judge at every table full time AND each judge has an expert working knowledge of the armies he/ she is judging, OR you comp the bloaty-ass rules so heavily that it becomes a derivative of 40k rather than the game itself. Competetive Warhams can't work any other way in the current climate.
Slipspace wrote: The problem is the rules. Tighter, better game rules remove the need for so many judges. X-Wing and MtG both have tournaments with over 200 players on a fairly regular basis and neither of those systems requires a huge number of judges. In fact, MtG mandates 6 judges for a 200+ player tournament. Why? Because the rules are much tighter, which makes all these little half-cheating strategies much less likely and blatant, outright cheating very, very difficult.
WotC is constantly nerfing and straight up banning any card combos that they deem "OP". Before I stopped playing, I had 4 decks that became completely unplayable due to their frequently updated ban list. (current list here - https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/banned-restricted)
This is how they keep their judge requirements so low, if a card or combo starts showing up a lot in the top games, they restrict or ban it. Some players go out of their way to find the "Broken Combos". And people can cheat at MtG much easier than most would believe, Sideboard abuse, card counting, and deck stacking are major problems in their tournies.
40k likely has a bunch of those same types, but GW is less likely to drop a banhammer on those broken combos, as we have already seen.
To be fair, all the people mentioning MTG as a standard, they have rampant cheating, card counting, set decks, and frequent banned players. Just look up MTG cheating on youtube where they video record the cheating for evidence.
As I see it, there are only two options if anyone wants to actually confront this.
1. More judges of better quality
or
2. Tighter rules that prevent ambiguity.
Both are outside the realm of feasibility GW doesn't want to give up the cash cow that is rules bloat, and they don't want to pay for judges that don't bring a return.
Ok, but from what we are being told here, you can't even put w40k cheaters in US on youtube, because they may just not allow themselfs to be filmed, enhancing the chance of not being caught.
The English language is superb for writing rules, laws and contracts, as it's a very direct language. Yet we still have cases thrown out or lost on mere technicalities in actual courts.
If someone is determined to Rules Lawyer or provided shonky interpretations of rules, they'll find a way. And that's not unique to situations where there's something at stake - even something as ephemeral as bragging rights for a victory.
MTG does often ban cards. But that's again just a mercenary step. They want people buying boxes of boosters to find those cards - either to use, or for their secondary market value. It's all money for WOTC pockets. And when they ban them, something else becomes the Filthy Combo. Rinse and repeat, repeat and rinse. Especially rinse the pockets of the players.
Of course, MTG has the bigger problem of cash prizes actually worth a damn, something I feel corrupts games entirely.
Any language has interpretation issues, however I think its perfectly possible to have a complex game where more rules are clearly written; the language standardized and the overall structure neatly set out to defeat most ambiguous interpretations. Coupled to a fast FAQ/Errata turn around
GW can do a lot better than they already are that is without a doubt.
You think castellans or IG or Inari were left unchanged not because they sell really well? At the same time I doubt WotC care a lot about stuff that sell, neither does GW. They killed a whole game, they themselfs broke by bad rules and horrible army construction mechanisms.
Am not sure that english isn't a very direct language. On page 2 people explained to me they can't use someones name to avoid social and court problems. Ton of languages like serbian for example, where no one has problems with being super direct about what they think.
I always thought, Warma/hordes had a good and competitive system (Mk II including the Steamroller things)...
But, honestly, I don't think, it's possible to put the 40k ruleset in such a tight frame. It's a much bigger rule complex, with all the factions, sub-factions and allie shenanigans...
I really do think the underlying problem is ITC/FLG wanting to turn 40k into a sports-like thing with world championships, large monetary prizes and "celebrity recognition". That's the first problem. Anything which goes that route becomes incredibly toxic because you get people who aren't invested in the game just want to be the next e-celebrity and get paid to "play games all day".
Karol wrote: Ok, but from what we are being told here, you can't even put w40k cheaters in US on youtube, because they may just not allow themselfs to be filmed, enhancing the chance of not being caught.
You think "cheaters" should be publically and internarionally named and shamed? Get a grip folks it's a nothing tournament for a nothing hobby. The worst that should happen is a bit of local mockery for being sad enough to do that. Definitely not worth the potential repercussions when you invokethe crazed wrath of nerd culture.
Karol wrote: Ok, but from what we are being told here, you can't even put w40k cheaters in US on youtube, because they may just not allow themselfs to be filmed, enhancing the chance of not being caught.
You think "cheaters" should be publically and internarionally named and shamed? Get a grip folks it's a nothing tournament for a nothing hobby. The worst that should happen is a bit of local mockery for being sad enough to do that. Definitely not worth the potential repercussions when you invokethe crazed wrath of nerd culture.
Why are you posting then? If it's not important to you, then don't complain about how it shouldn't be important to others.
They should absolutely be named and shamed. Remember, the only way for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.
By protecting them, you're allowing them to continue to do their behavior. Pretty much every single major 40k tournament has had cheating/drama around it. Where do you take a stand and put a stop to it?
Karol wrote: Ok, but from what we are being told here, you can't even put w40k cheaters in US on youtube, because they may just not allow themselfs to be filmed, enhancing the chance of not being caught.
You think "cheaters" should be publically and internarionally named and shamed? Get a grip folks it's a nothing tournament for a nothing hobby. The worst that should happen is a bit of local mockery for being sad enough to do that. Definitely not worth the potential repercussions when you invokethe crazed wrath of nerd culture.
Depends on how much money is involved. They said this about Esports and a lot of those people continued to take drugs even when the prizes hit the millions.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: To be fair, all the people mentioning MTG as a standard, they have rampant cheating, card counting, set decks, and frequent banned players. Just look up MTG cheating on youtube where they video record the cheating for evidence.
I was hoping someone would bring that up. You know what else they have? A pretty good record of dealing with people found to be cheating (not perfect, but nothing ever is). That comes down to 2 things: clear, unequivocal rules and enforceable codes of conduct; and the willingness to enfore those rules and codes of conduct.
I'd also like to take a moment to agree with Wayniac when he says the biggest problem is trying to turn 40k into something it was never designed to be and is really, really not good at, which is a tournament game. When I see the winner at the LVO standing there with a cheque for $4k I wince at the idea of trying to turn 40k into something resembling professional competition.
Karol wrote: Ok, but from what we are being told here, you can't even put w40k cheaters in US on youtube, because they may just not allow themselfs to be filmed, enhancing the chance of not being caught.
You think "cheaters" should be publically and internarionally named and shamed? Get a grip folks it's a nothing tournament for a nothing hobby. The worst that should happen is a bit of local mockery for being sad enough to do that. Definitely not worth the potential repercussions when you invokethe crazed wrath of nerd culture.
yes, because if people see that people at the very top do something they start doing it too. if people see that people at the top tables get off with cheating, they will cheat too. Now if people know that getting caught means everyone even playing other games will know, they will not cheat or they have to get really good at it, people over all cheat less. IMO much better then people being afraid to use the name of a known cheater, or their knowing they have it easier, because the main mechanics of being on video is not going to effect them, because they will just say no.
Get a grip folks it's a nothing tournament for a nothing hobby.
Right now. I hope that when a good e-sports starts working world wide, the game will improve. Right now GW can always use the stupid argument that if their rules are bad people should just rewrite them themselfs. That is like someone selling cars that don't work, tell people that their product is OK, if you fix it yourself.
E-sports is here. EVO has cash prizes in the millions. DOTA teams still get incentive deals in the millions. Before he beat up his girlfriend, Infiltration was the lead Korean gamer, on several titles, routinely pulling in over 2 million in prizes, deals, etc. That's a lot just to play videogames.
But 40k isn't that. No one is willing to pay $40 just to watch people play 40k. No one is paying $100 just to get into the stadium where 40k is being played, just to watch it on a closer screen.
No one is running cash death matches. No one is starting TV shows based around it. 40k twitch is a joke and sucks. There are no charismatic player icons of 40k.
And before someone chimes in with Warhammer TV, please, don't. That is just going to be adds for GW and more boring ass bat reps between the top army and the army made of pinecones and glue.
Miniwargaming had a small thing going, and their lead was somewhat charismatic. However, they recently went behind a paywall. Which is what one does when they want people to see their content.
You know what 40k needs? A Morrocan(Sp?) Football announcer covering games.
"Player sets up his team in teleporter, but wait, he's throwing dice, HES CHARGING, WILL HE MAKE IT? HE DID! CHAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGEEEEE!!!!"
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: E-sports is here. EVO has cash prizes in the millions. DOTA teams still get incentive deals in the millions. Before he beat up his girlfriend, Infiltration was the lead Korean gamer, on several titles, routinely pulling in over 2 million in prizes, deals, etc. That's a lot just to play videogames.
But 40k isn't that. No one is willing to pay $40 just to watch people play 40k. No one is paying $100 just to get into the stadium where 40k is being played, just to watch it on a closer screen.
No one is running cash death matches. No one is starting TV shows based around it. 40k twitch is a joke and sucks. There are no charismatic player icons of 40k.
And before someone chimes in with Warhammer TV, please, don't. That is just going to be adds for GW and more boring ass bat reps between the top army and the army made of pinecones and glue.
Miniwargaming had a small thing going, and their lead was somewhat charismatic. However, they recently went behind a paywall. Which is what one does when they want people to see their content.
You know what 40k needs? A Morrocan(Sp?) Football announcer covering games.
"Player sets up his team in teleporter, but wait, he's throwing dice, HES CHARGING, WILL HE MAKE IT? HE DID! CHAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGEEEEE!!!!"
40K doesn't need to be Starcraft. I can envision no future where Warhammer has sponsorships. It simply is not a game that can translate without strong prior knowledge of the game. Starcraft is at least exciting to watch gak blow up.
Karol wrote: Ok, but from what we are being told here, you can't even put w40k cheaters in US on youtube, because they may just not allow themselfs to be filmed, enhancing the chance of not being caught.
You think "cheaters" should be publically and internarionally named and shamed? Get a grip folks it's a nothing tournament for a nothing hobby. The worst that should happen is a bit of local mockery for being sad enough to do that. Definitely not worth the potential repercussions when you invokethe crazed wrath of nerd culture.
One mans nothing hobby is another mans dream lifestyle. People can like different things for different reasons and yes cheaters should be shut down. If they are willing to cheat at something like this they are willing to cheat at other things too and should not be trusted.
Wayniac wrote: They should absolutely be named and shamed. Remember, the only way for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.
By protecting them, you're allowing them to continue to do their behavior. Pretty much every single major 40k tournament has had cheating/drama around it. Where do you take a stand and put a stop to it?
So your Crusade has moved into the enemies list phase. What are your plans for Dakka since it seems to be a major component of these dramas?
40K doesn't need to be Starcraft. I can envision no future where Warhammer has sponsorships. It simply is not a game that can translate without strong prior knowledge of the game. Starcraft is at least exciting to watch gak blow up.
40k already has sponsorships. Nick Rose was sponsored, I can't remember which painting company did it. But it was why he took Orks to the LVO.
Karol wrote: Ok, but from what we are being told here, you can't even put w40k cheaters in US on youtube, because they may just not allow themselfs to be filmed, enhancing the chance of not being caught.
You think "cheaters" should be publically and internarionally named and shamed? Get a grip folks it's a nothing tournament for a nothing hobby. The worst that should happen is a bit of local mockery for being sad enough to do that. Definitely not worth the potential repercussions when you invokethe crazed wrath of nerd culture.
One mans nothing hobby is another mans dream lifestyle. People can like different things for different reasons and yes cheaters should be shut down. If they are willing to cheat at something like this they are willing to cheat at other things too and should not be trusted.
I agree. The question seems to be who gets to decide the punishment, the TO or the internet.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If he was mistaken, fine. What about the previous warnings and "mistakes"? Also, losing your cool about it, while denying your opponent a redo, while demanding one, and then screaming so loud it's picked up on another game's mics, isn't symbolic of a "good player". It's symbolic of a whiney entitled brat who got called on his cheap moves and couldn't handle being told he's wrong.
Have to agree here. If he was being sportsmanlike earlier, I'd have been on his side, but his actions do not reflect well on him.
tneva82 wrote: Don't think of it as sport. That way madness lie. It's not sport. Expecting it to work like sport isn't going to feasible. Or at least if you do prepare to pay like 500 for the tickets.
I mean if 40k isn't meant to be taken that seriously, then maybe there shouldn't be national tournaments or official leagues? Only local tournaments.
If you are going to have a national tournament, you have to do it right... that means adequate amounts of judges, adequate tables, adequate food and facilities. If any one of those cannot be done then the tournament shouldn't even be taking place because it's not feasible.
If the ticket prices need to be 500$ in order to get a decent amount of judges then maybe the ticket prices need to be 500$.
Or maybe you just need to not care so much...Seriously, hundreds of people attend these "national" level events and have a blast on their gaming vacation. So that should be taken away from people because you think it needs to be run like a sport? This is and always will be the disconnect between organizers and the internet pundits who have a prescribed idea about "what the game needs to be"
Most organizers are interested in providing the best experience for the most number of people. Not in creating a esport with refereed matches, or qualifying events. Perhaps if you or others want that you need to create your own "pro" circuit with sponsored players, trained paid judges etc instead of telling people they are having "bad wrong fun" and that events should not exist unless they meet your standards.
OF note - there is no "national" tournament, or official league. There is the ITC, a fan run body that ranks players, and an ITC championship which decides on the champion of the ITC. They could very well design any standards for winning that they choose to, it isn't GW official, nor does it have the money to run a nationwide official tournament league.
FWIW I have no problem on people calling out "cheaters", and if enough people care maybe big events will lose attendance. But that does not seem like something that is important to enough attendees to this point to have made a difference, and until it does I don't see why large events should make any changes beyond catching cheaters when it is brought to their attention. They have far better things to spend money and time on then on making a more competitive environment, and it is the internet that puts so much stock on these events and their best general, not most players in attendance.
Sponsorships and trying to e-sport 40k is part of the issue. Things like Nights at the Game Table (ran by the guy who sponsors Nick Nanvanti) is part of the problem. ITC offering 4k+ in prize money is part of the problem.
Trying to make 40k like starcraft, DOTA, COD is wrong and has no business here, it will ruin the hobby. It's already ruining the hobby. People are treating this like a sport/career and not a hobby. It's missing the entire point of it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: E-sports is here. EVO has cash prizes in the millions. DOTA teams still get incentive deals in the millions. Before he beat up his girlfriend, Infiltration was the lead Korean gamer, on several titles, routinely pulling in over 2 million in prizes, deals, etc. That's a lot just to play videogames.
But 40k isn't that. No one is willing to pay $40 just to watch people play 40k. No one is paying $100 just to get into the stadium where 40k is being played, just to watch it on a closer screen.
No one is running cash death matches. No one is starting TV shows based around it. 40k twitch is a joke and sucks. There are no charismatic player icons of 40k.
And before someone chimes in with Warhammer TV, please, don't. That is just going to be adds for GW and more boring ass bat reps between the top army and the army made of pinecones and glue.
Miniwargaming had a small thing going, and their lead was somewhat charismatic. However, they recently went behind a paywall. Which is what one does when they want people to see their content.
You know what 40k needs? A Morrocan(Sp?) Football announcer covering games.
"Player sets up his team in teleporter, but wait, he's throwing dice, HES CHARGING, WILL HE MAKE IT? HE DID! CHAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGEEEEE!!!!"
40K doesn't need to be Starcraft. I can envision no future where Warhammer has sponsorships. It simply is not a game that can translate without strong prior knowledge of the game. Starcraft is at least exciting to watch gak blow up.
Funny thing - After Blizzard bought out GW, they allowed GW to maintain it's assets and do what it does. But they made SC as a literal rip off of 40k. Think about it. You have Spacemarines, Eldar, and Zerg as factions, Eldar have these "Dragoons" where they take old warriors an put them in battle coffins. Do I need to go on here? Starcraft is 40k in videogame format. They just called it starcraft to get around copyright rules. And because it was all under the same company, no one complained. If you look at Sigmar it has striking resemblance to Warcraft 3....
Not attacking you or anything, I just love how people say 40k doesn't need to be starcraft. Except it is. Blizzard just made it profitable. I mean, actually profitable. It's not even comparable.
Wayniac wrote: Sponsorships and trying to e-sport 40k is part of the issue. Things like Nights at the Game Table (ran by the guy who sponsors Nick Nanvanti) is part of the problem. ITC offering 4k+ in prize money is part of the problem.
Trying to make 40k like starcraft, DOTA, COD is wrong and has no business here, it will ruin the hobby. It's already ruining the hobby. People are treating this like a sport/career and not a hobby. It's missing the entire point of it.
Please pre-face your opinions as opinions.
The hobby isn't "ruined" by a long stretch. In fact, its healthier now than it ever was before, with more people playing and GW finally getting around to updating their model line with very good looking models.
Having "competitive" 40k does nothing to hurt the hobby except for mabey making some people feel disconnected from some other players who are interested in being competitive. At the end of the day, it is a hobby and you make of it what you want to make out of it. You don't have to attend tournaments, and even if you do, you don't have to try to win them to feel validated or even have fun. Play the game how you want. Don't try to make others play how you want.
I mean, we've always had both cheaters and obnoxious manipulative rules lawyers in the hobby, "e"-sports or not. I don't mind people who play it as a sport, as long as they aren't donkey-caves about it.
Funny thing - After Blizzard bought out GW, they allowed GW to maintain it's assets and do what it does. But they made SC as a literal rip off of 40k. Think about it. You have Spacemarines, Eldar, and Zerg as factions, Eldar have these "Dragoons" where they take old warriors an put them in battle coffins. Do I need to go on here? Starcraft is 40k in videogame format. They just called it starcraft to get around copyright rules. And because it was all under the same company, no one complained. If you look at Sigmar it has striking resemblance to Warcraft 3....
Not attacking you or anything, I just love how people say 40k doesn't need to be starcraft. Except it is. Blizzard just made it profitable. I mean, actually profitable. It's not even comparable.
Oh I'm aware of the history. There's just a huge gap between action on a table over 2.5 to 3 hours and a 30 minute SC match.
I'm also confused, given that at no point did Blizzard ever own Games Workshop in any form whatsoever. Do they mean paid off rather than bought out? But I don't think there was ever a lawsuit or settlement over anything between the two.
Wayniac wrote: Sponsorships and trying to e-sport 40k is part of the issue. Things like Nights at the Game Table (ran by the guy who sponsors Nick Nanvanti) is part of the problem. ITC offering 4k+ in prize money is part of the problem.
Trying to make 40k like starcraft, DOTA, COD is wrong and has no business here, it will ruin the hobby. It's already ruining the hobby. People are treating this like a sport/career and not a hobby. It's missing the entire point of it.
Please pre-face your opinions as opinions.
The hobby isn't "ruined" by a long stretch. In fact, its healthier now than it ever was before, with more people playing and GW finally getting around to updating their model line with very good looking models.
Having "competitive" 40k does nothing to hurt the hobby except for mabey making some people feel disconnected from some other players who are interested in being competitive. At the end of the day, it is a hobby and you make of it what you want to make out of it. You don't have to attend tournaments, and even if you do, you don't have to try to win them to feel validated or even have fun. Play the game how you want. Don't try to make others play how you want.
Many people do want competitive 40k.
Which is fine, and the hobby is far from ruined, until those people beat the drum until they price the casual tournament goer out of attending, that will be what really hurts the hobby. Those big events are what a lot of people love about the hobby, and to have people frequently parrot "well if x cannot happen, maybe y tournament should not exist" is a toxic mindset.
Blizzard and GW joined up to make Warhammer as a computer game, but they split before it was finished. Blizzard decided to keep going ahead anyway and changed a few things and made Warcraft 1.
Thereafter they mostly split however Stacraft was Warcraft in Space pretty much like 40K was Fantasy in space. It's also rather clear that they sort of pinched ideas from each other all the time.
Heck the first generation of Raveners looked VERY much like Hydralisks (and one can argue that with the thorax mounted weapon the current generation ones have they are even closer to a similar style of model).
That said when it comes to profit whilst Starcraft makes a lot, it makes nothing like as much as World of Warcraft. SC2 also makes a load off their competitive scene; but Bliz were somewhat lucky in that they wound up with S.Korea basically addicted to original Starcraft for many years.
I'm also confused, given that at no point did Blizzard ever own Games Workshop in any form whatsoever. Do they mean paid off rather than bought out? But I don't think there was ever a lawsuit or settlement over anything between the two.
There is some fantasy about how Blizzard would have asked GW to make a licensed game but was refused and thus made Warcraft. But I never saw any kind of proof of that. And warcraft is quite removed from warhammer imho ("they both have orks !!").
Did blizzard get inspired by 40K races when designing starcraft though ? Maybe.
But anyway, starcraft & 40k don't share anything at all from a game point of view, outside of blowing stuff up. Nor do they share the same goals. One is a vessel to sell more stuff, the other was "just" a game (SC2 is a bit more than "just a game" though).
Melissia wrote: Undoubtedly inspired, but at the same time, GW wasn't THAT creative; Tyranids were based on Starship Troopers and the Aliens franchise, IIRC.
I think the analogy between 40k and esports is flawed.
Many of us would like 40k to play like a clean esport game. Unfortunately, in reality, esport games all have their own endless cyclical balance issues and 40k was never meant to be that and isn't built to support it.
More to the point, tabletop games just doesn't work the same way. Games take too long for most people to have fun watching or play fast enough for a real mass audience televised/streamed event, there's way too much imagery left to the imagination for the audience, way too much randomness, you cant record data the same way or with as many data points, the variations and factions are far more variable and expansive, it requires far more setup and preparation, and entails a significantly higher expense to get into beyond just "buy the game for $60".
We need to accept that competitive 40k is not going to be an esport, and fundamentally is a very poor platform for a competitive tournament game, and that tournaments are always going to involve a significant element of "who is best at breaking the game".
That is not to say that people shouldnt run tournaments or take valuable lessons from them or esports, but lets acknowledge 40k for what it is. It is not, and probably never will be, a serious competitive game in the vein of an esport or Magic.
I think the game is too complicated to catch everything or rules. The best thing you can do is catch trends and then punish the people who trend.
People make mistakes. For example, at SoCal I played Kenny (Long War) and used overrun incorrectly (didn't get enough practice and did'nt take a competitive army.
I didn't realize it till the stream pointed it out. One of the casters, comes over to the table and tells me about it. I stop the game and explain to Kenny and go. What do you want to do? I can forfeit; I made a mistake. Kenny graciously said, let it go on.
But what happens. I made a mistake and now people are banned forever? I think LVO code of conduct goes down the right path for this. This game has too many inconsistent rules, and too many interpretations though to make it a tight game where you could have rules interactions. It really does need a stack mechanic for example like magic did.
In the end I agree with what Vaktathi is saying. That said, can GW get 40k there to an esport? Sure, maybe? but its going to be a rough start till some of these big things are addressed.
Darkwynn wrote: I think the game is too complicated to catch everything or rules. The best thing you can do is catch trends and then punish the people who trend.
People make mistakes.
At the same time, the guy involved was being a dick to his opponent and a hypocrite regarding his own mistakes. He had denied his opponent a redo, but expected one for himself, and loudly lost his temper over it to the point of it disrupting other nearby games. There's a difference between making a mistake, and being a self-centered jerk.
Vaktathi wrote: I think the analogy between 40k and esports is flawed.
Many of us would like 40k to play like a clean esport game. Unfortunately, in reality, esport games all have their own endless cyclical balance issues and 40k was never meant to be that and isn't built to support it.
More to the point, tabletop games just doesn't work the same way. Games take too long for most people to have fun watching or play fast enough for a real mass audience televised/streamed event, there's way too much imagery left to the imagination for the audience, way too much randomness, you cant record data the same way or with as many data points, the variations and factions are far more variable and expansive, it requires far more setup and preparation, and entails a significantly higher expense to get into beyond just "buy the game for $60".
We need to accept that competitive 40k is not going to be an esport, and fundamentally is a very poor platform for a competitive tournament game, and that tournaments are always going to involve a significant element of "who is best at breaking the game".
That is not to say that people shouldnt run tournaments or take valuable lessons from them or esports, but lets acknowledge 40k for what it is. It is not, and probably never will be, a serious competitive game in the vein of an esport or Magic.
Announcer 1: That's right Jim! Nick has been rolling average his entire career! He's batting a full 500 on his 4+ rolls.
Announcer 2: Amazing! Let's see if he can pull off this morale test!
Announcer 1: A 5! THE CROWD GOES WILD! NICK HAS DONE IT AGAIN FOLKS! ANOTHER 4+ IN THE BAG!
Wayniac wrote: They should absolutely be named and shamed. Remember, the only way for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.
By protecting them, you're allowing them to continue to do their behavior. Pretty much every single major 40k tournament has had cheating/drama around it. Where do you take a stand and put a stop to it?
The problem with stigmatizing people is that it doesn't stop the behavior in question, all it does it make people hide it better. This has been proven across numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies.
If you want to stop a behavior you have to make it difficult to do the behavior and get away with it. Being ultra-hard on people that you do manage to catch in order to serve "as an example" does almost nothing for deterrence. It also really, REALLY sucks for innocent people that happen to be falsely accused.
Let me give an example: People speeding along freeways is an issue. Which method do you think will stop people from speeding the most?
A. Exactly one person per day, somewhere in the country is caught speeding and put to death in front of a firing squad.
B. There are enough police around that there is a 75+% chance you will get caught if you speed and given a 300$ fine.
Vaktathi wrote: I think the analogy between 40k and esports is flawed.
Many of us would like 40k to play like a clean esport game. Unfortunately, in reality, esport games all have their own endless cyclical balance issues and 40k was never meant to be that and isn't built to support it.
More to the point, tabletop games just doesn't work the same way. Games take too long for most people to have fun watching or play fast enough for a real mass audience televised/streamed event, there's way too much imagery left to the imagination for the audience, way too much randomness, you cant record data the same way or with as many data points, the variations and factions are far more variable and expansive, it requires far more setup and preparation, and entails a significantly higher expense to get into beyond just "buy the game for $60".
We need to accept that competitive 40k is not going to be an esport, and fundamentally is a very poor platform for a competitive tournament game, and that tournaments are always going to involve a significant element of "who is best at breaking the game".
That is not to say that people shouldnt run tournaments or take valuable lessons from them or esports, but lets acknowledge 40k for what it is. It is not, and probably never will be, a serious competitive game in the vein of an esport or Magic.
Announcer 1: That's right Jim! Nick has been rolling average his entire career! He's batting a full 500 on his 4+ rolls.
Announcer 2: Amazing! Let's see if he can pull off this morale test!
Announcer 1: A 5! THE CROWD GOES WILD! NICK HAS DONE IT AGAIN FOLKS! ANOTHER 4+ IN THE BAG!
Vaktathi wrote: I think the analogy between 40k and esports is flawed.
Many of us would like 40k to play like a clean esport game. Unfortunately, in reality, esport games all have their own endless cyclical balance issues and 40k was never meant to be that and isn't built to support it.
More to the point, tabletop games just doesn't work the same way. Games take too long for most people to have fun watching or play fast enough for a real mass audience televised/streamed event, there's way too much imagery left to the imagination for the audience, way too much randomness, you cant record data the same way or with as many data points, the variations and factions are far more variable and expansive, it requires far more setup and preparation, and entails a significantly higher expense to get into beyond just "buy the game for $60".
We need to accept that competitive 40k is not going to be an esport, and fundamentally is a very poor platform for a competitive tournament game, and that tournaments are always going to involve a significant element of "who is best at breaking the game".
That is not to say that people shouldnt run tournaments or take valuable lessons from them or esports, but lets acknowledge 40k for what it is. It is not, and probably never will be, a serious competitive game in the vein of an esport or Magic.
Announcer 1: That's right Jim! Nick has been rolling average his entire career! He's batting a full 500 on his 4+ rolls.
Announcer 2: Amazing! Let's see if he can pull off this morale test!
Announcer 1: A 5! THE CROWD GOES WILD! NICK HAS DONE IT AGAIN FOLKS! ANOTHER 4+ IN THE BAG!
Needs WWE style color commentary.
Bah gawd king! This game is a real slobberknocker!
I think the firing squad and your numbers make that a tough call. Death is a pretty big deterrent for a lot of people, but the general idea that more policing is more effective in lowering speeds. For instance if you really wanted to curb speeding, equip all cars with GPS, and calculate fines based on the GPS speed results.
The problem with that when it comes to 40k is that it simply is not feasible to be option B in that example. There are rarely enough judges available to watch every second of every match, even fewer who would know every rule to catch any mistake. People in the hobby in general would much rather play in events than judge events, so incentives would need to be offered to get people to judge and those incentives simply aren't available in most cases.
Prior to having kids I used to TO local events and even a small GT. But at that time i could play all the time. If you asked me to TO now I would turn you down, I have limited time to play and when I can get that time away I want to enjoy my hobby not be an official. This is even more true at larger events. People traveling to those events want to partake in the event not be a judge. Occasionally in cases where it is not a weekend long tournament people will work one event if say admission to the convention is comped, and then play in others, but that doesn't work for things like the LVO championships.
I do find it kind of odd that the Las Vegas Open did not deal with cheaters "Vegas Style".
Having been …. interviewed... by casino security, I can tell you it can be intimidating.
For the record, I was not cheating, I was too drunk to card count.
Breng77 wrote: I think the firing squad and your numbers make that a tough call. Death is a pretty big deterrent for a lot of people
And exactly ONE person per day in the entire country dies from it out of how many that speed?
Statistically, you take a bigger risk of dying in a car crash every day when you drive to work than to be that one unlucky person. That isn't going to stop anyone from speeding, it will just make them deny it to the moon and back if accused of it.
Also, the death penalty doesn't deter anyone, also scientifically proven in peer-reviewed studies. When California abolished the death penalty in the 1970s the murder rates didn't change at all. When the death penalty was re-instituted in the early 1990s the murder rate once again didn't change at all.
Believe it or not I am actually for Capital punishment, but to say that it has a "deterrence effect" is scientifically incorrect.
helgrenze wrote: I do find it kind of odd that the Las Vegas Open did not deal with cheaters "Vegas Style".
Having been …. interviewed... by casino security, I can tell you it can be intimidating.
For the record, I was not cheating, I was too drunk to card count.
By the way, card counting isn't cheating, and isn't illegal. Casinos can still technically throw you out for it though because it is private property and they can do whatever the feth they want, but it is not "cheating" in any sense of the word.
Breng77 wrote: I think the firing squad and your numbers make that a tough call. Death is a pretty big deterrent for a lot of people
And exactly ONE person per day in the entire country dies from it out of how many that speed?
Statistically, you take a bigger risk of dying in a car crash every day when you drive to work than to be that one unlucky person. That isn't going to stop anyone from speeding, it will just make them deny it to the moon and back if accused of it.
Also, the death penalty doesn't deter anyone, also scientifically proven in peer-reviewed studies. When California abolished the death penalty in the 1970s the murder rates didn't change at all. When the death penalty was re-instituted in the early 1990s the murder rate once again didn't change at all.
Believe it or not I am actually for Capital punishment, but to say that it has a "deterrence effect" is scientifically incorrect.
helgrenze wrote: I do find it kind of odd that the Las Vegas Open did not deal with cheaters "Vegas Style".
Having been …. interviewed... by casino security, I can tell you it can be intimidating.
For the record, I was not cheating, I was too drunk to card count.
By the way, card counting isn't cheating, and isn't illegal. Casinos can still technically throw you out for it though because it is private property and they can do whatever the feth they want, but it is not "cheating" in any sense of the word.
Can we stop with the defenses on this forum of cheating?
1. It's mistakes (begging the question)
2. The ref didn't call it (Shifting the blame)
3. Everyone is doing it (Shifting the blame)
4. It's on the opponent to call it out (Victim blaming)
5. The rules are too complicated! (Strawman)
AND NOW - CARD COUNTING IS NOT ILLEGAL. IT ISN'T CHEATING. Okay, there is no rule against it at a casino. But at a MTG table, it's considered cheating and here's why. It's evidence of deck stacking.
Just stop. If you (Royal you) need to cheat to win a stupid game, you (Royal again) are a pathetic person.
w1zard wrote: Let me give an example: People speeding along freeways is an issue. Which method do you think will stop people from speeding the most?
A. Exactly one person per day, somewhere in the country is caught speeding and put to death in front of a firing squad.
B. There are enough police around that there is a 75+% chance you will get caught if you speed and given a 300$ fine.
Death, of course. You can ignore a $300 fine, the chance of execution by firing squad if you're the unlucky person is a lot more of a deterrent. The reason people speed is that the chance of getting caught is negligible and the fine is even less significant. So you just drive 10+ mph over the "limit" all the time and pay a $300 tax every few years as the price of owning a car. Or, to translate to 40k terms, people will cheat when they're unlikely to get caught and even if they are the worst that will happen is they get a game loss in an event and people rush to defend them over how it was obviously a mistake. People will be much less likely to cheat if getting caught cheating means a permanent ban from 40k and never getting to play again.
w1zard wrote: Let me give an example: People speeding along freeways is an issue. Which method do you think will stop people from speeding the most?
A. Exactly one person per day, somewhere in the country is caught speeding and put to death in front of a firing squad.
B. There are enough police around that there is a 75+% chance you will get caught if you speed and given a 300$ fine.
Death, of course. You can ignore a $300 fine, the chance of execution by firing squad if you're the unlucky person is a lot more of a deterrent. The reason people speed is that the chance of getting caught is negligible and the fine is even less significant. So you just drive 10+ mph over the "limit" all the time and pay a $300 tax every few years as the price of owning a car. Or, to translate to 40k terms, people will cheat when they're unlikely to get caught and even if they are the worst that will happen is they get a game loss in an event and people rush to defend them over how it was obviously a mistake. People will be much less likely to cheat if getting caught cheating means a permanent ban from 40k and never getting to play again.
The above needs a combination of the two. Putting aside that a lot of people can't deal with a 300 dollar fine, it comes down to getting caught. Whether the punishment is a dollar or death, if I don't feel like i'm going to be caught or if the reward for cheating is worth the risk, people will be tempted.
The main issue with 40k is there isn't really a central database like we have for actual crimes.
Some really dumb suggestions here. LVO has come and gone and it wasnt that bad that you need that many changes as some are hinting at. There is a handful of suspect players, you only need a couple extra volunteers to keep an eye on their match.
What BCP could do is allow for suspect players to be marked and the tables they play on could be grouped in an area where a couple judges can be on standby.
There will be those who will push the rules as far as they can, even out right cheat, if any/all the following are met...
1. If the prize is considerably more that covering the cost of getting to the event.
2. If the event is part of a series
3. If the series of events pay prize money exceeding a few quid for covering travel, food and accommodation.
With a lack of governing body, there is little that can be done beyond a day to day / event by event eye on alleged and accused cheats. At the moment, there is a rule set (or two) used by several events, sometimes changed to suit each event, the TO and judges are not directly connected with those writing the rules. The next events in a series could use different modified rules, and the slate is wiped clean for many cheats.
IF a governing body was set up, they would have to set and update rules, train and authorise judges, keep a list of top players, including wins/loses and rules infringements by them. They would also accredit each event in a series. This is how nearly all 'sports' do it, some you can not take part in for longer than a couple of weeks until you are registered with the governing body.
I fail to see how pointing out that lifetime banning people to set an example isn't going to solve the cheating problem is "defending cheating".
Peregrine wrote: Death, of course. You can ignore a $300 fine, the chance of execution by firing squad if you're the unlucky person is a lot more of a deterrent. The reason people speed is that the chance of getting caught is negligible and the fine is even less significant. So you just drive 10+ mph over the "limit" all the time and pay a $300 tax every few years as the price of owning a car. Or, to translate to 40k terms, people will cheat when they're unlikely to get caught and even if they are the worst that will happen is they get a game loss in an event and people rush to defend them over how it was obviously a mistake. People will be much less likely to cheat if getting caught cheating means a permanent ban from 40k and never getting to play again.
Do you even read?
What part of 75+% chance of getting caught and a $300 dollar fine don't you understand?
Deterrence is more efficiently caused by certainty of getting caught, rather than harsh punishments for being caught.
You could make the punishment for every crime death and all you would get is a bunch of dead people, and active criminals who are REALLY good at hiding what they do. You want to stop cheating in 40k? Put a referee at every table to make it that much harder to cheat. But lifetime banning someone for bumping a model or forgetting a rule at a tournament (which may or may not have been intentional) will do nothing to deter active cheaters whilst being unjust toward people who make genuine mistakes.
Deterrents only work on people who are unlikely to break the rule in the first place. Prisons are filled with people who thought they could get away with it or didn't think about it at all.
A couple of thoughts from someone who has helped run larger (100+ player) MTG events - though from the position of data input, not Judge.
- The big thing that MTG has going for it as a game to make judging easy is the comprehensive rules document. It is not a small document (the current PDF weighs in at 225 pages), but it spells out as clearly as possible anything you need to deal with any rules interaction. GW rules are not written this clearly, and they'd need a technical writer on staff to produce anything similar. Equally, you're not meant to try to use the CRD to actually play an average game, merely look up a specific interaction.
- MTG Judges wander the floor during a round (as well as doing deck and decklist checks), and can throw warnings out for things they spot in passing. As a general rule, these don't really have an effect during an event. I'm not sure if these warnings are looked at at a higher level.
- A game loss in MTG is not the same as a game loss in 40k. The equivalent there would be a match loss, which is used for larger offences. As I'm not a judge, and it has been a little while since I helped with an event, I can't remember what falls into each category.
- Before you can be an official judge, you need to pass a written exam. For you to judge at larger events, such as a Pro Tour, you have to achieve a higher judge level. THis is to help with standardisation of interpretation and enforcement, so there should be little disagreement between judges of how something should be judged. Without a CRD, I'm not sure if you could implement this sort of evaluation into 40k, due to how wooly the wording is.
Crimson Devil wrote: Deterrents only work on people who are unlikely to break the rule in the first place. Prisons are filled with people who thought they could get away with it or didn't think about it at all.
good, you shouldn't want people that don't think playing w40k or who think they can get away with something. A strickt set of rules always helps, there is a ton of people who don't cheat, but if they see people play lets say with intent and not with RAW rules at the top tables, they may think it is ok for them to do that too. If the same players know that playing like that will bring consequences both in game and for their tournament placing, they will just not do it, because it is not worth it.
The argument is that a higher likelihood of being caught committing an offence is more of a deterrent to offending than high penalties with a negligible rate of convictions. Something that is I think observable even without postulating the death penalty for speeding. In the UK there are several motoring offenses ("moving violations", I believe?) that can result in removal of your right to drive. That includes egregious and/or repeated speeding, using a mobile phone while driving, crashing into someone (I got 3 points for "driving without due care and attention"; 12 points is a driving ban) or even not driving in the left lane (furthest from the median for the foreigners) when it's free. They're routinely flouted because there's hardly any traffic cops about. The exception is speeding through areas with speed cameras, because you're more likely to get caught.
There's no point saying you'll get a lifetime ban and years of abuse from the online peanut gallery for forgetting a rule buried in an errata document, but only having one judge in an event of 200 games, because you'll likely not get caught.
Breng77 wrote: I think the firing squad and your numbers make that a tough call. Death is a pretty big deterrent for a lot of people
And exactly ONE person per day in the entire country dies from it out of how many that speed?
Statistically, you take a bigger risk of dying in a car crash every day when you drive to work than to be that one unlucky person. That isn't going to stop anyone from speeding, it will just make them deny it to the moon and back if accused of it.
Also, the death penalty doesn't deter anyone, also scientifically proven in peer-reviewed studies. When California abolished the death penalty in the 1970s the murder rates didn't change at all. When the death penalty was re-instituted in the early 1990s the murder rate once again didn't change at all.
Believe it or not I am actually for Capital punishment, but to say that it has a "deterrence effect" is scientifically incorrect .
I am against capital punishment but to say it has no deference effect is incorrect. The issue is it does not deter the things it gets used for. If death was the penalty for speeding, as currently policed (not one person per day). Very few people would speed. The entire thing is a risk reward problem. If it was only ever one person per day then maybe people still speed, but I’d say 30% get caught and killed. People would be deterred more so than a fine at say 60% of people. One issue economically with fines is that they only deter some people. If i’m Jeff Bezos I don’t care about the $300. So you are correct in saying the chance of getting caught is what matters most, but how high that rate of catching needs to be to deter people is dependent on the consequence. So in the case of cheating if the punishment is harsh your catch rate can be lower.
I don't know how we got so of track, but I think my original question has been answered. We all care about cheating in 40k, but because there is no clear path forward for dealing with the issue, and the governing body doesn't see profit in it, it will never change.
Dysartes wrote: A couple of thoughts from someone who has helped run larger (100+ player) MTG events - though from the position of data input, not Judge.
- The big thing that MTG has going for it as a game to make judging easy is the comprehensive rules document. It is not a small document (the current PDF weighs in at 225 pages), but it spells out as clearly as possible anything you need to deal with any rules interaction. GW rules are not written this clearly, and they'd need a technical writer on staff to produce anything similar. Equally, you're not meant to try to use the CRD to actually play an average game, merely look up a specific interaction.
- MTG Judges wander the floor during a round (as well as doing deck and decklist checks), and can throw warnings out for things they spot in passing. As a general rule, these don't really have an effect during an event. I'm not sure if these warnings are looked at at a higher level.
- A game loss in MTG is not the same as a game loss in 40k. The equivalent there would be a match loss, which is used for larger offences. As I'm not a judge, and it has been a little while since I helped with an event, I can't remember what falls into each category.
- Before you can be an official judge, you need to pass a written exam. For you to judge at larger events, such as a Pro Tour, you have to achieve a higher judge level. THis is to help with standardisation of interpretation and enforcement, so there should be little disagreement between judges of how something should be judged. Without a CRD, I'm not sure if you could implement this sort of evaluation into 40k, due to how wooly the wording is.
They have a CRD because someone sat down and wrote one.
There are more than 50 people credited with the creation of that document, mainly due to the sheer number of auxiliary rules that came with each new iteration of that game. The rules interactions in MtG are much more complex than in 40k, depending on which type of game you are playing, which editions, and which of the 30+ sets are being used.
While the basic rules do not change, the rule interactions between sets does, thus creating a need for a CRD.
40k basic rules also do not change, and the rules interactions tend to be fairly simple. The Dataslates were created to help players 'remember' the rules for their armies (afaik) by making them easier to access. The FAQ and Eratta deal with interactions they didn't realize was an issue at first.
However if someone Wants a CRD for 40k, maybe they should start collecting and collating all the required data?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I don't know how we got so of track, but I think my original question has been answered. We all care about cheating in 40k, but because there is no clear path forward for dealing with the issue, and the governing body doesn't see profit in it, it will never change.
I care about being cheated, but feel it is incumbent upon myself to not get cheated. I think the external expectation of someone else to catch the cheaters and deal with them is why there is no solution. If players were better at questioning rules they find off, or more knowledgeable ability it the rules it would be the most likely thing to cause improvement. As was stated the likelyhood of being caught is the biggest deterrent. So if players routinely held their opponents accountable to playing by the rules, and judges dealt with disagreements and egregious violations, that would be the best solution overall. The expectation of players that someone else should call out their opponent is the largest reason. As is the faulty expectation that your opponent knows their rules better than you do.
Odd question: to anyone who has participated in a 40k Major,
After your army list is "approved" and deemed legal, and you head off to your table, what is stopping someone from altering the list? Are they stamped in some format? What is the policing of lists like, and how are they scrutinized?
The reason I ask is some of the sites I am reading say the ref's reviewing the lists don't always do their diligence.
After your army list is "approved" and deemed legal, and you head off to your table, what is stopping someone from altering the list? Are they stamped in some format? What is the policing of lists like, and how are they scrutinized?
The reason I ask is some of the sites I am reading say the ref's reviewing the lists don't always do their diligence.
Typically you share a copy of your list with the other player. You bring enough so they can keep a copy (or I take a picture).
In my experience there is no check to verify that you brought what you told the organizers you were going to bring, which usually isn't a big deal as long as it's a legal list.
After your army list is "approved" and deemed legal, and you head off to your table, what is stopping someone from altering the list? Are they stamped in some format? What is the policing of lists like, and how are they scrutinized?
The reason I ask is some of the sites I am reading say the ref's reviewing the lists don't always do their diligence.
Generally, the lists are all on BCP or some other system (Down Under Pairings, google drive doc etc). But yes, generally, it's also considered "good practice" to share a copy of your list with your opponent and then run through it and answer any questions.
That said, i guess someone could potentially upload a new list onto BCP halfway through an event (never tried it so don't know if it is possible...) Then, in that case it'd be super hard to catch, unless you'd looked over all the lists before hand and had your own copies.
Right, my point is, if you were to suddently make minute changes in a list, 9 guardsman become 8 in each squad, or 6 SMs become 5, thats a big points difference. Suddenly there is an extra X unit, and it's a legal list.
It seems more and more like there is less and less oversight, and what is there is completely inept and uncaring.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Right, my point is, if you were to suddently make minute changes in a list, 9 guardsman become 8 in each squad, or 6 SMs become 5, thats a big points difference. Suddenly there is an extra X unit, and it's a legal list.
It seems more and more like there is less and less oversight, and what is there is completely inept and uncaring.
No - I think you're missing how difficult all that is.
What stops them from changing their list the next round? And the next? And the next? It's literally not possible.
The real solution is people here need to stop acting like there is some seedy underbelly of Warhammer, accept that people are mostly good, but they also make mistakes.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Right, my point is, if you were to suddently make minute changes in a list, 9 guardsman become 8 in each squad, or 6 SMs become 5, thats a big points difference. Suddenly there is an extra X unit, and it's a legal list.
It seems more and more like there is less and less oversight, and what is there is completely inept and uncaring.
There is no check because its utterly impractical do so. You can't go and check every players list being the same from what they entered at the start of the tournament during every round after they deployed.
LVO locked lists after they resolved submission issues and I used the BCP format as my reference for my opponent's list. Certainly an approach larger events can look at as it creates a locked reference point.
After your army list is "approved" and deemed legal, and you head off to your table, what is stopping someone from altering the list? Are they stamped in some format? What is the policing of lists like, and how are they scrutinized?
The reason I ask is some of the sites I am reading say the ref's reviewing the lists don't always do their diligence.
Typically we go through our lists before the game starts.
The lists are available in BCP and you can have that open and follow along. It doesn't take long to read a list and then verify it.
The tricky part is wargear. Because so much is optional, it's easy for people to claim they have upgrades they didn't pay for. For example, Team Happy using a Plasma Pistol they didn't pay for, because it was on the model. This is also why most events enforce WYSIWYG.
At the end of the day 40k depends on a social contract - you're not going to cheat me, and i'm not going to cheat you.
There is a reason Team Happy does consistently well and they're also renowned cheaters. People wouldn't cheat if it didn't work. Although it's been my experience that people cheat not by claiming to have extra things or fuddling around with their lists, but by bending or lying about rules.
I think a lot of the discussion in this thread has been focused on the wrong issue. I'm aware that in a game as complex as 40k, it's tough to know every rule, and that makes it hard to catch people cheating. My issue is why are people who are known to be cheaters with multiple repeat incidents still allowed to compete?
EnTyme wrote: I think a lot of the discussion in this thread has been focused on the wrong issue. I'm aware that in a game as complex as 40k, it's tough to know every rule, and that makes it hard to catch people cheating. My issue is why are people who are known to be cheaters with multiple repeat incidents still allowed to compete?
Because tournaments are separate events led by separate people without any form of overarching body.
Impressive just to carry that much models! That's then what 8000+ pts...IF anybody has picture of that cart please share 
himself over by what he did last year.
