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

Looking for some input here, as I don't run many tournaments, and it's not a topic I've seen brought up before.

In the ordinary course of a game where I am an observer (tournament or not), I do not ever comment on tactics, and do not volunteer comments on rules. If a player wants to ask a non-participant about a rule, I feel okay answering.

But as a TO, if I observe a rule being broken (assume unintentionally - wargames are complex beasties), I feel obligated to say something and correct the problem, even if neither player asks, or knows that there is a problem. (I still don't comment on tactics.)

Sound about right?

I actually try to avoid commenting at all - the only reason for this is that it's not necessarily fair to the rest of the field if you have an observant judge only helping one random person.

That said, we'll have "referees" at every table for the NOVA Invitational (as an example), to defuse potential dramalama over cash prizes, and to ensure that no incidental cheating occurs (i.e. measuring 7" and getting away with it).


I certainly would never comment on tactics, or volunteer rules comments and the like ... and think that is a given.

For the most part, any reply of mine is built around the notional approach of fairness above all else ... everyone gets the same treatment and playing field ... so as a judge, I avoid commenting or observing too closely (b/c that always tempts me to help errors be corrected).


As far as not being a TO ... I agree with asking a non-participant a rule and helping out ... it's not like it's "wrong" if you get the rule right. Obviously contributing and getting it wrong would be rather catastrophic.

In a tournament setting, I don't make any sideline comments that might be tactical advice or reminding a player to use an ability. I will point out something that is against the rules though, especially so if I was a TO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
then again in our tournaments there's only one TO so everyone kind of polices eachother.

IMO

You should not be an 'active' participant in the game and should avoid making rules calls unless specifically asked because there are 100's of gray areas.

I think what you DO want to do is make sure the games are scored fairly at the end and make sure that no participant is shilling for his opponent or that someone is trying to get over on an inexperienced player.

Of course if you see someone out and and 'cheating' then you can politely inject yourself into the conversation and sort it out before it explodes either in the local shop or here in internet drama land.

I will not make any comment on tactics, but I will point out rules issues that come up. I feel that is a suitably impartial thing, and I REALLY don't want to hear later on how this guy should have won because his opponent was using rules wrong and cheating.

As a player, I try not to get involved in a competitive game unless asked, although I sometimes have to bite my tongue.

As a TO, I do normally feel compelled to correct a rule being misplayed if I see it.

While MVBrandt has a point that there is perhaps an argument to be made that every table should have similar access to proactive rules corrections for fairness, I think the value of people playing correctly by the rules as much as possible is sufficient to outweigh considerations that every table should ideally have access to such help. The default expecation is that people know the rules; so I'm going to assume that most of the tables are not screwing up at any given moment, and if I happen to be be near one that is, I'm going to correct it to the best of my ability. This helps the tournament as a whole adhere better to the rules, especially if it happens in a round before the final one, as the player/s who learned the proper process can carry that knowledge forward into later rounds and share it with their opponents.

For rules corrections, as a TO I only interject if its obviously against the rules and I am sure of the correct rule -- I wouldn't try and interject on some grey area of the rules unless specifically asked.

Then again I've never been the TO of an 80+ person event, so there's less likely to be some sort of unfair advantage given to one table.

This helps the tournament as a whole adhere better to the rules, especially if it happens in a round before the final one, as the player/s who learned the proper process can carry that knowledge forward into later rounds and share it with their opponents.

Great point and to expand, if this is a tournament catering to your local player base -- correcting not only improves the tournament but your local player base as well.

I have not run a tournament, but when it comes to rules and noticing mistakes I think there's two different types of rules - rulebook rules, and codex rules - and that mistakes should be handled differently if you notice them.

If two players are mistaken on a rulebook rule and they're both going along with it my assumption is they both know the rulebook well (or should) and if they don't ask, well ok.

If one player is playing a rule from their codex incorrectly and the other player is too dumb or nice or intimidated to ask them to see the rule, I tend to want to point it out as being incorrect, because I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to know their opponents codexes perfectly. I also tend to assume that a player should know their codex well, so if they're getting a rule incorrect and it's conferring them an advantage I consider it effectively cheating, innocent or not. To me it's a lot closer to moving 7" than it is to making a mistake on a rulebook rule.

I do agree with MVBrandt that it's not fair if you or someone else isn't paying equal attention to all of the other games and finding those mistakes. If you don't have sportsmanship scoring which would make people not want to question rules (oh no I might get dinged!) then maybe it's just important to emphasize beforehand to players that if you don't know your opponents codex well enough, always ask for references. Obviously players should do this anyway, but there's a lot of factors that prevent it (short on time, newness to tournaments, etc).

You should ALWAYS correct rules violations as the TO. Failure to do so is to give tacit approval to it.

If you let it go and you are standing there, then in another game the same thing happens but the other guy calls out the right rule the person can say "the judge was there last time and it was okay".

Tactics, never never never.

Somnicide wrote:You should ALWAYS correct rules violations as the TO. Failure to do so is to give tacit approval to it.

If you let it go and you are standing there, then in another game the same thing happens but the other guy calls out the right rule the person can say "the judge was there last time and it was okay".

Tactics, never never never.

QFT

If the TO is watching cheating or rules played wrong and doesn't react, it becomes much harder for the other player to call the cheating/rules issue too. "The jugde is watching and he seems okay with it, guess I was wrong then"

I would consider it to be part of the role of the TO as umpire to point out obvious mistakes in the rules.

Tactics is a completely separate thing and should never be commented on.

Thanks for the responses so far. Interesting spread of opinions - I'm particularly interested by MVBrandt's input, as it seems so contrary from what I expect as a player. My own perspective is more in-line with Somnicide & Mannahnin's thoughts, I think.

As a player, I also expect the TO to correct rules being played incorrectly- or if the TO is delegating that task to referees, for them to do it.

MVBrandt, I'm not sure if what you're saying is coming from running a large event and having lots of other people answering rules questions. If so, it makes sense in some ways... but I can't imagine at a smaller event the TO not keeping people straight on the rules.

Also, didn't you make the ruling in DoP's (quarter- or semi-?) final game at the Nova Open last year about deffrollas not being allowed to tank shock and keep moving (I'm probably butchering it here, but it should ring a bell if it was your ruling). Was that an exception, then, since there were so few players left? I'm not sure where the distinction is for you between where you would make a ruling or where you wouldn't, and I also find the response very intruiging.

We referee'd all the final games at the Open last year, preventing "cheaty" measurements, improper rules usage, etc.


I think there are legitimate points made to "intervention" on rules issues ... and I don't think I or anyone would suggest quietly watching as a TO or judge while opponents simply get a rule wrong, or blatantly cheat ... but if you're not formally ref'ing a game, things like questionable move distance, pivoting, etc., is stuff you shouldn't probably get involved in, b/c it's a very invasive thing to get "right."

I don't mean to equivocate, but it's a very difficult question to answer in generalities.

It sounds like you're distinguishing between being a TO and a referee/judge- but I would think at most smaller venues, there is only one person for both...

Generally speaking as a TO I let players sort things out themselves unless I'm solicited for a rules call.

The reason for this is that it's impossible to be at every game at once. I cannot rule on all games proactively because I can't be everywhere at once. I must react to players calling me over.

For a "finals" match or whatever maybe I'll be more proactive in my rulings. But in any typical tourney game the more I keep my mouth shut the better it is for everyone involved.

Generally, I tend not to involve myself in the small minutia of the game. Possibly someone moves 6.5" while I'm watching, or does any number of small bits like a pivot or los wrong, I'm not concerned, unless it looks like blatant cheating. Both players are ok with it, I stay out of it.

If it's a rule from a codex or rulebook, and I see it being played wrong, I intercede. Otherwise I'm giving tacit approval to the mistake. I don't know how many times I hear later on how "so and so did this wrong and it cost me the game". If I can correct one of those before it happens, I figure it's part of the job.

This assumes of course, that part of my job as a TO is to be a rules judge. If my job for the day was table assignments and serving lunch, then I should keep my mouth shut. The difference between TO or staff, and Rules Judge.

If a TO sees a flagrant rules violation then he or she must intervene. Silence is acquiesence. As a player if i see flagrant abuse I intervene (e.g. the time I heard a nid player claim an extended synapse range). If someone has a problem being called on cheating, i mean a mistake, they can GFTS.

mikhaila - Generally, I tend not to involve myself in the small minutia of the game. Possibly someone moves 6.5" while I'm watching, or does any number of small bits like a pivot or los wrong, I'm not concerned, unless it looks like blatant cheating. Both players are ok with it, I stay out of it.

If it's a rule from a codex or rulebook, and I see it being played wrong, I intercede. Otherwise I'm giving tacit approval to the mistake. I don't know how many times I hear later on how "so and so did this wrong and it cost me the game". If I can correct one of those before it happens, I figure it's part of the job.

This assumes of course, that part of my job as a TO is to be a rules judge. If my job for the day was table assignments and serving lunch, then I should keep my mouth shut. The difference between TO or staff, and Rules Judge.

Very valid points all.

And that is where I must point something out - moving 6.5 " is a flagrant breaking of the rule(If move in this particular game is legally 6"). But let's face it experienced Gamers - there are alot of 'ethical' behaviors that are excused, eg small movement 'buffs'. The difference between a Craptacular TO, and a great one, is the ability to handle the complexity of a 2 person Dynamic, in a competitive scenario.

Or basically - how good/when you should intervene in a 'rules violation' would depend on every nuance of said situation, with Plastic Toys(....oh ok....Minatures... ) and dice the only constant.

Would also be a good indication of how TO's should/would/do handle this situation based on returning players for subsequent Tourneys.


Mind if I give an example"(And Mikhaila - not belittling or in any way having a go at previous post - agree with it 100% - I would be exactly the same ! )

Devil's advocate story - TFG in local area shows up, as he has signed up at the FLGS for the 1500pt 40K Hurrathon.

1st game - he faces someone who has been invited for the game by a local, and not familiar with social/gaming people in area.

TFG gets first turn, and does his thing. Johnno(Me/TO) walks past, and sees TFG moving his Termies 5" on a 4" run...doesn't seem like such a big deal, till the next turn, when said Termies then charge FNGs(Friendly New Guy) command squad, and literally tables him..

And just to top it off, you can see the FNG(Friendly New Guy) grimacing with the urge to say something, but just not that into actual confrontation....

2nd Game - TFG is in next bracket up, and faces a local, who has thumped him in any number of games over time, and received a thumping as well - but TFG knows it will be a tough one.

Local goes first, and according to TFG - "Moved 7" man... that's not cool - look - I'll show you blah blah more gak etc"... ( Now FNG is giving you a pointed look from across the next table over - 1 rank down)

So anyhoo.....do I simply not remember seeing the exactly same issue being repeated in this game as the last? Isn't it sweet justice the his(TFG) Mephiston got charged by a Sanguinor Lunatic?? Is there a grey area here that concerns anyone else? Would my impartiality be sufficient?

/end hypothetical

I just have a problem knowing where I would stand on the next decision. To all those who have judged at Tourneys - I salute you!

All situations are so diverse, hard to say one way or the other. Another good indication of TO character is how many people come up to you afterwords, shake your hand and say "Thanks man - didn't win, but had a blast! Thanks for having us."

I am going to be organizing an Apoc Tourney at Ipswich this year - and when I saw Janthkins thread - it immediately piqued my interest.

One thing that always annoyed me playing at any rate, was getting a ruling when you need one. TO / Umpire off chatting 3 tables over, or blah blah who knows what.

I will be handing out 2 blue cards( Passive color ) to each table. If there is a rules decision needed - the player who wants clarification holds up a blue card - easy to see from anywhere in room. If both players want a rules clarification - primarily two judges, 1 for each player, and a mutal decision by both would be reached.

Numbers are always a factor - but I too would look forward to insight from experienced TO's here on Dakka!

Yeah, you're going to get different answers from everyone.

After planning the NOVA for months ahead of time, working my butt off on promo and design and planning and organizing, I generally get "Forced" into socializing, playing nice, saying hello to people, etc. for most of the event by my staff. So you're not likely to see me involving myself in a rules dispute for a variety of reasons, not least of which is my rules judges take that over.

I think if you see absurdly blatant cheating upon some rank newb, or if you see something that's an obvious "both of them simply don't know any better," that's one thing ... but as a TO or non-participant observer I think you generally want to avoid being too involved without player request.

Rules Judge etiquette is a different matter ... you should probably, however, ensure that it's well-publicized, WHATEVER the etiquette may be.

olympia wrote:If a TO sees a flagrant rules violation then he or she must intervene. Silence is acquiesence. As a player if i see flagrant abuse I intervene (e.g. the time I heard a nid player claim an extended synapse range). If someone has a problem being called on cheating, i mean a mistake, they can GFTS.

Proper etiquette is to call over a judge. Is that what you mean by intervening? If so that's great.

If by intervening you mean personally correcting someone's play in the middle of a tourney game and you're just another player or spectator that's inappropriate because you might be "correcting" one player but not another and that's generally unsporting.

As a TO, I would encourage staff intervening for big mistakes/cheating.

Many times you do not need to be aggressive and can approach it as helping teach the game you are representing.


As a player on the table next to what is going on or as a spectator, I encourage absolute silence and they should not interfere at all. I think it should be in the hands of the players on that table and the staff.

If you know that a TO will not make a call unless called upon you might as well cheat as much as you can get away with.

Kevin Nash wrote:

olympia wrote:If a TO sees a flagrant rules violation then he or she must intervene. Silence is acquiesence. As a player if i see flagrant abuse I intervene (e.g. the time I heard a nid player claim an extended synapse range). If someone has a problem being called on cheating, i mean a mistake, they can GFTS.

Proper etiquette is to call over a judge. Is that what you mean by intervening? If so that's great.

If by intervening you mean personally correcting someone's play in the middle of a tourney game and you're just another player or spectator that's inappropriate because you might be "correcting" one player but not another and that's generally unsporting.

If the players aren't calling over a judge, and you as a spectator are...well, you end up in the same place, correcting one player and not another, because the judge will make his ruling and leave. Also, I'm not sure why you'd assume someone might be correcting one player and not another. Obviously you may know one codex very well and the other not at all, so you don't notice rules violations from the other codex. But which is worse, being cheated by someone in a game...or being called out by a spectator for cheating? I really can't see how the former is automatically better.

I've been on every side of this - I've cheated in a game because I misread the codex and didn't consult it during the game and my opponent didn't question it. I've agreed to a rule interpretation that I had never heard of because I was playing an experienced player and it turned out they were wrong. I've moved a dude 6.5", and had opponents who were pretty loose with their moving as well where I didn't say anything and it bit me later. I'm sure everyone in this thread has experienced all of this two. I think, from a players perspective, I'd be happy to be corrected by a Judge, and happy to be prompted to look it up by a spectator (but not just told specifically that something was wrong...just something like "I'm not sure that's how the rule works, you should look it up or call a judge). I wouldn't feel it was unfair that no one was noticing the same stuff on other tables. And I'd agree with the sentiment that if you don't like being corrected when you're actually wrong and gaining an advantage from it...don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

I'm torn on movement issues, unless they're blatant. Rules are rules, and measuring front-back is straight up cheating, but a lot of movement problems in the game are less concrete (how do vehicles move?!) or at least more often mistaken.

lambadomy wrote:

Kevin Nash wrote:

olympia wrote:If a TO sees a flagrant rules violation then he or she must intervene. Silence is acquiesence. As a player if i see flagrant abuse I intervene (e.g. the time I heard a nid player claim an extended synapse range). If someone has a problem being called on cheating, i mean a mistake, they can GFTS.

Proper etiquette is to call over a judge. Is that what you mean by intervening? If so that's great.

If by intervening you mean personally correcting someone's play in the middle of a tourney game and you're just another player or spectator that's inappropriate because you might be "correcting" one player but not another and that's generally unsporting.

If the players aren't calling over a judge, and you as a spectator are...well, you end up in the same place, correcting one player and not another, because the judge will make his ruling and leave. Also, I'm not sure why you'd assume someone might be correcting one player and not another. Obviously you may know one codex very well and the other not at all, so you don't notice rules violations from the other codex. But which is worse, being cheated by someone in a game...or being called out by a spectator for cheating? I really can't see how the former is automatically better.

I've been on every side of this - I've cheated in a game because I misread the codex and didn't consult it during the game and my opponent didn't question it. I've agreed to a rule interpretation that I had never heard of because I was playing an experienced player and it turned out they were wrong. I've moved a dude 6.5", and had opponents who were pretty loose with their moving as well where I didn't say anything and it bit me later. I'm sure everyone in this thread has experienced all of this two. I think, from a players perspective, I'd be happy to be corrected by a Judge, and happy to be prompted to look it up by a spectator (but not just told specifically that something was wrong...just something like "I'm not sure that's how the rule works, you should look it up or call a judge). I wouldn't feel it was unfair that no one was noticing the same stuff on other tables. And I'd agree with the sentiment that if you don't like being corrected when you're actually wrong and gaining an advantage from it...don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

I'm torn on movement issues, unless they're blatant. Rules are rules, and measuring front-back is straight up cheating, but a lot of movement problems in the game are less concrete (how do vehicles move?!) or at least more often mistaken.

You don't end up in the same place. Calling over a judge is a calling over an impartial arbiter to observe and make rules decisions if necessary. Commenting or kibitzing a game as a spectator could be construed as cheating even if your intentions are meant to be helpful. You might be providing information to player A that he didn't otherwise know. You might be mistaken in your information about a rules call and inadvertently causing the game to stall or result in slower play. You might just be a distraction to one or both players.

If as a spectator you see a rules issue or cheating or anything you disapprove of you should a) not comment on it and b) immediately go get a judge and explain what you saw and encourage the judge to monitor the game.

Note this applies to unsolicited help only. If players want to ask you questions as a spectator and you can provide answers that's a bit different. So long as both players are OK with that. It's not a hard and fast rule on any of this stuff by the way, but speaking from experience in any tournament setting having spectators making comments on games, even in the interest of enforcing the rules can be a slippery slope that can get out of control. As a general rule spectators should not talk about games. It can snowball into greater problems. If there are rules infractions it is always best to notify a judge and go from there.

I completely agree with your take on this, I just think that the moment you've called the judge over, you're effectively correcting one player and not the other, unless you get lucky and the other player makes another mistake while the judge is watching.

Kevin Nash wrote:Note this applies to unsolicited help only. If players want to ask you questions as a spectator and you can provide answers that's a bit different. So long as both players are OK with that.

In the small tournies I've played in, this was quite common- i.e., we know someone is great with rules for fantasy, so we use them as a quick check / confirmation, and if needed take the next step of looking it up or calling over the TO.

Something along the lines of, "Hey, rule x works like this, right?" Ideally, no one would need to do this- but it's a complex game and people are going to be unsure about things, and looking it up can delay the game even more. If there's someone both players don't mind checking with, I see it as a benefit to the game, helping speed things up.

However, I agree that unsolicited help is really aggravating as a player... even in friendly games. I had someone watching over my shoulder who had the movement rules wrong, and kept "corecting" me incorrectly . It was maddening! On the other hand, there's another person who knows his rules well that will chip in with things we're uncertain about, and it's greatly appreciated.

Pretty much this is all about context imho, there's not a hard and fast "Do it or don't do it" every time. It really depends on the circumstances, but I think most people would agree that unsolicited rules interpretations in a tourney from bystanders isn't a good idea.

lambadomy wrote:I completely agree with your take on this, I just think that the moment you've called the judge over, you're effectively correcting one player and not the other, unless you get lucky and the other player makes another mistake while the judge is watching.

True, but the idea is that it's now being handled by an impartial person instead of someone who might have bias. It's not perfect but it's preferable to Player A having to sit there and get lawyered not only by his opponent but his opponent's best friend standing right next to him.

If you are passing by a game and you hear an Ork player claim that his mob of 10 boyz is fearless there is no need for an impartial person. The ork player is simply wrong and should be corrected promptly.

Agreed.