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.

quentra wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

quentra wrote:
Yeah Breng, no tournaments above 30 players should exist, or they shouldn't advertise themselves as tournaments. Calling an unjudged casual game a tournament is just downright deceptive.

Yes because throwing the baby out with the bath water is clearly the best decision. My favorite part of all these threads is watching people who've never organized a 10 man event, much less a a larger scale 200+ player event talk about what tournaments should do and if they can't then they just quit trying all together.

My favorite part of this thread is where people defend cheating because they can't figure out a better way to host events, and claim that a better way cannot in principle exist. I've hosted DnD games at cons, hearthstone tournaments at bars...Granted, never a wargame, but I'd love to see you DM 3 tables of 6 people each simultaneously of 3.5ed DnD. I have some idea of what it takes to organize something, and what my limits are.

yeah, none of that experience is relevant to whether you could effectively judge (and not miss a single mistake) on more than 1 table at a time in 40k. At which point even 30 players takes 15 people to ref each table. Good luck finding that many people that want to spend a day watching games for free, who are experts at all rules in the game.

I think you would be lucky to find 1 person who knows the game well enough to be effective given all the rules. They need to know the base rules, chapter approved, all faqs, all codices and indices and have them all committed to memory. OR the game needs a much longer playtime because that judge will need to question and see every single rule as it is played if he doesn't know it. Afterall, we cannot allow mistakes to happen.

You know why you wouldn't need to worry about being cheated, most people don't cheat, and if you suspect you are being cheated, call the judge and he will look into it.

quentra wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

quentra wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:


But they are tournaments - by definition as a matter of fact. Per websters a tournament is a series of contests between a number of competitors, who compete for an overall prize. Regardless of if you think they're fair or not they meet the criteria of a tournament.

Ah, I suppose I'm at fault for assuming that tournaments in 40k should generate fair and unbiased results.

Correct, you've injected your own bias into the definition. A 40k tournament cannot generate fair and unbiased results because players of varying skills use armies of varying power levels in variable scenarios (which are often specific to the given event and reflect the biases of the organizer).

I...I'm not sure what to say to that. Bravo!

I mean clearly you were aware that various events already had various scenarios that favored certain types of armies or certain specific builds, and I hope you were aware that the various books GW produce aren't all on a level playing field. Understanding those 2 facts should alone give you the insight that any given tournament is going to create inherently biased results. Even higher levels of competition such as professional sports still have mistakes and errors with paid judges and staff.

The issue is not that people make mistakes. The issue is that they don't try in the first place. As I've mentioned earlier, mistakes are acceptable. I recognize they happen and forgive them. In my opinion, however, that's no excuse to not even try. It's like answering 0 questions on a math test because there was one you knew you couldn't get right.

No one is asking the tournament judges not to make mistakes or errors. (Or if they are, that's dumb.) What they really want is for them to give it even a modicum of effort.

(Caveat: If semantics is an issue, we could have them take this effort while also upgrading their name to "referee")

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The issue is not that people make mistakes. The issue is that they don't try in the first place. As I've mentioned earlier, mistakes are acceptable. I recognize they happen and forgive them. In my opinion, however, that's no excuse to not even try. It's like answering 0 questions on a math test because there was one you knew you couldn't get right.

No one is asking the tournament judges not to make mistakes or errors. (Or if they are, that's dumb.) What they really want is for them to give it even a modicum of effort.

(Caveat: If semantics is an issue, we could have them take this effort while also upgrading their name to "referee")

Sure and the judge in question made an error in how he addressed the situation, of that there is no doubt. If he wasn't comfortable interjecting he should have made it clear that because he didn't see the misplay he didn't want to stop the game as opposed to using the language regarding the integrity of the game. As it stands however what he did was indefensible because he neither made clear why he chose not to intervene nor did he intervene. I have no issue with a judge not intervening on something he did not see, but he needs to be clear that that is his standard of judgement.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The issue is not that people make mistakes. The issue is that they don't try in the first place. As I've mentioned earlier, mistakes are acceptable. I recognize they happen and forgive them. In my opinion, however, that's no excuse to not even try. It's like answering 0 questions on a math test because there was one you knew you couldn't get right.

No one is asking the tournament judges not to make mistakes or errors. (Or if they are, that's dumb.) What they really want is for them to give it even a modicum of effort.

(Caveat: If semantics is an issue, we could have them take this effort while also upgrading their name to "referee")

Sure and the judge in question made an error in how he addressed the situation, of that there is no doubt. If he wasn't comfortable interjecting he should have made it clear that because he didn't see the misplay he didn't want to stop the game as opposed to using the language regarding the integrity of the game. As it stands however what he did was indefensible because he neither made clear why he chose not to intervene nor did he intervene. I have no issue with a judge not intervening on something he did not see, but he needs to be clear that that is his standard of judgement.

Yes, there's that in this specific situation. But other people also seem to claim that it is never the role of the judge to intervene, even if he/she sees something, unless it is brought to his/her attention by one of the players.

This, I have a fundamental disagreement with. I never expect the judges to catch everything, but if simply seeing something amiss meant the judges intervene, then anyone intending to intentionally cheat may not do so when judges are nearby. It's the same reason police cars sit where they can easily be seen: not to actually get people, but to make traffic in general slow down for fear of being gotten.

The issue is that excepting maybe the top table(or so)it is not possible to referee a 40k tournament. There is not enough manpower. Now maybe events will start reffing top tables, or streamed tables to "hide" the mistakes that happen throughout, it just means fewer judges available to everyone else. So it comes down to the players to catch rules mistakes, and involve judges as needed, and will be that way for the majority of us at any event we attend. So the questions are: is do we care more if the top tables are mistake free vs any other table? and/or do we want judges to interject if they see rules errors as they happen to be observing a game?

I think that the top table judge could happen at larger events, maybe even the top 4 tables on an event like LVO to ensure the winning player makes few to no mistakes once in the final bracket.


I think the passer by correction of rules needs to be handled with care. What if the players played a rule one way, that they both agreed on earlier in the game in favor of one player. Then a judge happens by, and sees the error, and corrects the current happening in favor of the other player? Is this fair or should the players have played it as previously agreed, because it is fair to treat both players the same way? I would be fine with the judge point out the correct rule in that case, but leaving having the players resolve it as previously agreed. That way they don't make mistakes going forward, but also don't apply the rules to only one party.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue is that excepting maybe the top table(or so)it is not possible to referee a 40k tournament. There is not enough manpower. Now maybe events will start reffing top tables, or streamed tables to "hide" the mistakes that happen throughout, it just means fewer judges available to everyone else. So it comes down to the players to catch rules mistakes, and involve judges as needed, and will be that way for the majority of us at any event we attend. So the questions are: is do we care more if the top tables are mistake free vs any other table? and/or do we want judges to interject if they see rules errors as they happen to be observing a game?

I think that the top table judge could happen at larger events, maybe even the top 4 tables on an event like LVO to ensure the winning player makes few to no mistakes once in the final bracket.


I think the passer by correction of rules needs to be handled with care. What if the players played a rule one way, that they both agreed on earlier in the game in favor of one player. Then a judge happens by, and sees the error, and corrects the current happening in favor of the other player? Is this fair or should the players have played it as previously agreed, because it is fair to treat both players the same way? I would be fine with the judge point out the correct rule in that case, but leaving having the players resolve it as previously agreed. That way they don't make mistakes going forward, but also don't apply the rules to only one party.

Presumably, you'd want everyone at the tournament playing by the same rules. If I somehow got my opponent to agree to play my Keeper of Secrets as Zarakynel, The Bringer of Torments, because we thought it would be cool, that doesn't make it okay that I suddenly have 400 more points in my list than I did in other games.

If two players agree to play the game a certain way, but that way is not by the rules, then it's not really a tournament. It'd be like if two teams in a basketball tournament decided to allow "traveling" during their game.

I actually don't really care if all players in an event play by the exact same rules because that is not what actually happens. I think it is all close but say for instance 2 players both thought that deepstrike was more than 8" away (bad example but just for the sake of argument). They play players 1s turn deepstriking 8" away, and when player 2 starts deepstriking the judge comes over and sees it, and says no it is 9" away. What do you do? Disqualify player 1? Restart the game? Allow player 1 to have the advantage because it already happen, but force player 2 to play it right? Let player 2 finish his current deepstrikes and ask that they play correctly going forward, and note to yourself to keep tabs on those players in the next round?

My opinion as a judge would be the 3rd.

Or to use a "real world" example. IN Alex Vs Tony, if Tony had allowed Alex to move his other models, should a judge stop Alex and end his movement phase? Those are the rules after all.

I would say no, I would say that if Alex disputed Tony the judge should back him up by saying those are the rules, he should not force Tony to not allow Alex to move his models.

The basket ball example only holds up if one of 2 things are true

1.) There is a no ref involved in that tournament.

2.) There are refs in 40k.

Otherwise there is no situation in which one team has been allowed to travel for their possession and then the other team is forced to dribble.

For what it is worth though, I would not care about those teams agreeing not to dribble in a tourney with no ref. They still need to beat other teams that might force them to dribble and not agree.

As for your opponent letting you play 400 points up, that is on them, why does it matter to anyone else? I suppose on the top table it could matter because it might be like throwing the game, but no rules exist to prevent someone from throwing a game now. I could make it to the top table of adepticon and shake my opponents hand and concede.

quentra wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

quentra wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:


But they are tournaments - by definition as a matter of fact. Per websters a tournament is a series of contests between a number of competitors, who compete for an overall prize. Regardless of if you think they're fair or not they meet the criteria of a tournament.

Ah, I suppose I'm at fault for assuming that tournaments in 40k should generate fair and unbiased results.

Correct, you've injected your own bias into the definition. A 40k tournament cannot generate fair and unbiased results because players of varying skills use armies of varying power levels in variable scenarios (which are often specific to the given event and reflect the biases of the organizer).

I...I'm not sure what to say to that. Bravo!

The proper response is "of course it can, variables just mean it's harder for us to independently VERIFY if the result is fair and unbiased, that doesn't mean it ISN'T".

And people think judged games are more tournamenty because it adds a layer of seriousness over the whole affair. Judges occasionally making bad calls (as Breng points out in a strawman) doesn't change that. Two guys boxing each other with only their left hands and after putting their hands in pillows obviously aren't trying as hard as Foreman and Ali were.

Breng77 wrote:

Uneven curing of definitional unfairness is by definition unfair.

I get what you mean but it's not unfair by definition, you're a tad crossed there.

Look at it this way, if a ref only called legitimate fouls on one side of a game, is that fair or unfair?

Bad example. We're not saying the judge should take the audience at its word, but he should at least go ask the players and then make an informed call.

Crowds may or may not be impartial and thus even if point out legitimate rules issues cannot be counted on to do so evenly.

Sure, but that doesn't absolve a judge of the duty to look into it.

If not done evenly the practice is the definition of unfair.

It's unfair if the judge treats it differently depending on the player, not if the crowd does.

You seem to think that less rules played incorrectly is somehow more fair, when that simply isn't the case.

Of course it is. Are there occasionally imbalances in the rules? Sure, but that's for balancing to figure out later. Mistakes in the rules are always unfair when left uncaught.

It is only the case when reducing the errors is applied impartially by a ref, not potentially skewed to one side. The crowd has no place in adjudicating fair play in a game.

See above responses. Snip!

The thing you and others have expressed support for is requiring games to never have errors, and if errors are caught they must always be punished severely so they don't happen again.

Well, no, you're crossing posters. I specifically said punishment needs to be proportional and reducing errors is good. I never spoke of requirements, just doing our best.

The problem is that they will happen again, or will only decrease because players will stop attending events because of harsh punishment for making them, or because refs have been assigned to every table to prevent them from happening. I know which one I think is more likely to happen.

This is a nice trip down speculation and narrowed perspective lane but I'm not sure it's of any merit. Arguments along this line just turn into na-uh/ya-huh.

fair enough, I will state that magic requires quite a bit less money to chase the meta than I would say 40k does, and or at least less effort in time (you can play what 5-10 games of magic easily in the time it takes for one 40k game for practice, you don't need to paint your cards etc (or pay someone else to do so).

When I at least tried to make a tournament ready deck (though I didn't go anywhere), it was about $20 per card. Average deck has 60 cards. Every 3 months or so 1/3 of your deck, ish, becomes illegal for tournament play. It adds up.

sure I can if I am comparing the type of commitment people make to a hobby, I'd be surprised if most 40k players play more than 5 hours a week, with top guys maybe hitting 10-15 if they go to local tournaments. I would wager most pro-gamers play quite a bit more than that in an average week. I could be wrong, but seems likely.

They're also different games with different inputs. 40k is a LOT more about list building than playing, for example.

So judging by your join date you are pretty new to the scene.

Yes and no. Newer to 40k. Started in Fantasy like 15 years ago.

This insular group that you harp on so much did exactly what I am saying I see no one from this "esport" group doing, seeing something they want to change and doing it.

See my previous post. They'll get there if they aren't squashed first.

I'm not sure when you joined but I assume that maybe it was after GW basically tried to squash (far more actively than anything you cite) the competitive scene. They were the ones that harped on 40k not being competitive, stopped running events, supporting local event, made terrible missions, never faq'd anything etc. So people that wanted a "competitive" scene stepped up, created events from nothing and grew them into the majors/GTs of today.

I'm aware. That was a different time and different management though. Apples to oranges. Blizzard originally tried to stop all competition too. They even contemplated suing KESPA to shut down the juggernaut e-sports scene in South Korea. They were vehemently against it. Companies change.

Marketing of top players in the blogsphere isn't new it has been happening for a long time, nothing about it has changed, except some of the names.

And the frequency. It's one of many factors I listed.

You talk about resistance to change for older gamers, none I know are resistant to change, they are resistant to being made to be the ones to make those changes. People like you come on after events and rail on these events when mistakes happen, and they don't respond the way you want them to, you accuse them of deception, and tear down the tons of work they do, because you want something else.

You're projecting, hard. They're asking these groups to live up to their own words and advertisement. They're asking these people to be honest. That's never too much to ask of anyone and the knee-jerk reaction from them is a self-defense response so they don't have to acknowledge they were pretending to be something they're not (intentionally or no). I've seen actual commercial companies get buried in lawsuits for the same thing. The response isn't "well go build your own pizza place" it's to correct the marketing of your pizza.

Well guess what, they don't owe you anything, you want something else build it. You talk about relatively new to the scene? How new, a month?, 6 months? 2 years? I started running tournaments at my local shop maybe 2 years into my competitive gaming history, I knew plenty of people who did it earlier than me. So what is stopping these people from doing it? Someone already runs the events? The community at their store doesn't want to change? Maybe.

They owe everyone honesty. That's a fundamental truism everywhere.

Most of what I hear from people is "I shouldn't have to do it, it should just be that way." maybe that is not how you feel, but it is a common excuse. "I want to play I don't want to run events, so someone who is already doing it needs to change their ways."

That's nice, not my position not relevant. Based on your posts in this thread though, you're likely confusing what they're saying. They're not asking the current big TO's to change, they're asking them to be honest.

Does that seem reasonable to you? To put all the impetus on people that already fought and built something to risk their event to change things for a crowd that may or may not attend?

Does it seem reasonable to be honest? Yes. Yes it does.

As to you inventing this esport crowd and my view being skewed by my insular group. I'm not even talking about top players, or anything, I rarely talk to or see what you define as the brohammer group, I don't have time to go to big events these days. Do I know some top players as acquaintances, Sure I do. But I don't play with them basically ever, I rarely talk to them. So my not seeing these esports people outside dakka is mostly small stores and tournaments.

That's great, but the connection isn't lost cause it's old.

My local area has lots of new players, none of them complain about how the store runs events, and these events don't even have a judge at all. 85% or more are super casual, don't even play tournaments, will never go to NOVA or Adepticon, don't watch 40k streams of events etc. The last 15% might go to one of these events, but most will just play local events.

And both the advertisement and expectations of your local events are radically different than the big leagues. Hence why I say the problem is one of expectations and advertisement.

So when you say that half the vocal user base is "militant-causual", you are probably right, but that is an under representation of the casual/militant casual crowd IME, not an over representation.

I'm only talking about forum users. None of us have anywhere near enough data to speak to non-forum users. You'd need a random sampling of every region and demographic with about 2,000-3,500 responses for that.

That isn't to say 40k could not evolve into an esport, but to be fair that is a lot harder to pull off without a ton of money than it was for video games, you are selling to a smaller audience with a harder to watch product.

And yet GW will try. Alea iacta est.

Has streaming helped get people visualizing the game. Sure but that has been a thing on and off since 5th ed. It isn't new, it is just better quality now. Who started it? Those same "insular" old hats you think are "destroying the competitive spirit"

Because they're trying to be competitive venues, but only when it's convenient or easy for them. They're not willing to actually make the jump all the way. Hence the deception.

As for my mismatched perceptions, maybe, but you are guilty of that as well when it comes to tournaments, your perception is that most people that attend them are super serious about winning, and feel cheated when someone makes a mistake on the top tables. My assertion is that 90+% don't care what happens on the top tables, they are there for fun.

That is not my perception at all. My perception is that there is a group of players, of some unknown number, that GW is trying to grow, that are seeking serious competition. They are running into an old guard that was only faux-competitive and clashes are ensuing.

I think the only way for "esport" 40k to happen won't be through convention tournaments, it will need to be through teams and leagues, where there are fewer games happening at any one time, allowing for reffing, streaming of all top players, and tighter standards. OR maybe at an invite only event with fewer games to judge. Big events will never be able to pull it off, it is too hard to get it right, and DQing someone on the top table for a mistake on a regular basis will do more to kill the following than anything. Honestly other than the big following, I think 40k is one of the worse minis games for streaming and watching.

And that's a great trip down opinion lane again. As the scene grows, they'll have the resources to do it at larger events just fine. It just takes time, patience and honesty.

They only matter insofar as people keep expecting judges to be something they are not intended to be and a large reason they aren't is because it isn't feasible for them to be that.

This is your subjective definition of judge against someone else's subjective definition. They are called judges. Judges are:

a person who decides the results of a competition or watches for infractions of the rules.

So they need to watch for infractions. That's active, not passive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

quentra wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

quentra wrote:
Yeah Breng, no tournaments above 30 players should exist, or they shouldn't advertise themselves as tournaments. Calling an unjudged casual game a tournament is just downright deceptive.

Yes because throwing the baby out with the bath water is clearly the best decision. My favorite part of all these threads is watching people who've never organized a 10 man event, much less a a larger scale 200+ player event talk about what tournaments should do and if they can't then they just quit trying all together.

My favorite part of this thread is where people defend cheating because they can't figure out a better way to host events, and claim that a better way cannot in principle exist. I've hosted DnD games at cons, hearthstone tournaments at bars...Granted, never a wargame, but I'd love to see you DM 3 tables of 6 people each simultaneously of 3.5ed DnD. I have some idea of what it takes to organize something, and what my limits are.

You, I like you.

The way I'd handle that situation if I were the judge is:
"Both of you are stupid, play by the rules. Restart the game. If you go beyond round time, game over, and you both lose. Whoever proposed you outright break the rules of the game you're at a competitive tournament to play should be ashamed of himself. This isn't your mother's basement. Have some respect for your fellow competitors."

In Alex vs Tony, I'd've never let the game get to that point. Alex's "deep strikers first" movement phase was a direct reaction to Tony's slowplaying. The slowplaying should have been stopped long before it began affecting the opponent's behavior.

As for your reply to my basketball example:
1) Right, this is how things are now.
2) There should be refs in 40k. If there's not enough to staff every table (and I recognize this problem), there still should be some attempt at trying.

And yes, they "might" have to play other teams that force them to dribble. Or they might not. Or they might play against a team which agrees to count layups as 5 points, or a team that agrees to play soccer instead. At what point does it stop being a "Basketball" tournament if you're not playing by the rules of basketball?

If judges start stopping games for misplays you'll get even less turns than you do now. Every game is loaded with misplays.

 Marmatag wrote:
If judges start stopping games for misplays you'll get even less turns than you do now. Every game is loaded with misplays.

It should only be stopped if it would unfairly advantage one player to change the ruling midgame. That's not true of every misplay (my reply was a direct response to the "if both opponents play this way" example).

Furthermore... yes, what you say is true. Which is why competitive 40k is a joke. I've heard other people say "casuals shouldn't participate in tournaments", especially in the "chess-clocks" thread. So presumably, if you can't keep your rules straight, then you shouldn't be at a tournament.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
If judges start stopping games for misplays you'll get even less turns than you do now. Every game is loaded with misplays.

It should only be stopped if it would unfairly advantage one player to change the ruling midgame. That's not true of every misplay (my reply was a direct response to the "if both opponents play this way" example).

Furthermore... yes, what you say is true. Which is why competitive 40k is a joke. I've heard other people say "casuals shouldn't participate in tournaments", especially in the "chess-clocks" thread. So presumably, if you can't keep your rules straight, then you shouldn't be at a tournament.

I agree with much of what is said here.

I recently had someone lambaste me after a win because of how much time i spent involving judges. Of course, I only call the judges over major things that will impact the game, and also, I was correct in every single instance.

I find myself moving more and more away from competitive 40k. I'm stuck in that middle zone, where i'm solid enough at list building and wargames to where i can compete in and win tournaments, but also really despise the attitude that comes along with competitive 40k players by in large. In a general sense, there's always at least one negative experience or "that guy" at every event. I'm sick of it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The way I'd handle that situation if I were the judge is:
"Both of you are stupid, play by the rules. Restart the game. If you go beyond round time, game over, and you both lose. Whoever proposed you outright break the rules of the game you're at a competitive tournament to play should be ashamed of himself. This isn't your mother's basement. Have some respect for your fellow competitors."

In Alex vs Tony, I'd've never let the game get to that point. Alex's "deep strikers first" movement phase was a direct reaction to Tony's slowplaying. The slowplaying should have been stopped long before it began affecting the opponent's behavior.

As for your reply to my basketball example:
1) Right, this is how things are now.
2) There should be refs in 40k. If there's not enough to staff every table (and I recognize this problem), there still should be some attempt at trying.

And yes, they "might" have to play other teams that force them to dribble. Or they might not. Or they might play against a team which agrees to count layups as 5 points, or a team that agrees to play soccer instead. At what point does it stop being a "Basketball" tournament if you're not playing by the rules of basketball?

So 2 players playing a rule wrong is disrespectful now? And stupid? I said it was a bad example, but plenty of rules mistakes could be made that effect both players (earlier in 8th I saw players not shooting a character because another model was closer and out of LOS, which at the time did not matter for targeting. They both played the rule this way and thought it was right, all game. I noticed it on the final turn on the stream, and it cost one player the game. If I were the judge when they were talking over the last turn, have said. "No you can totally shoot that guy?" Even though earlier in the game it was played otherwise, that is the judge deciding the game for the players. Neither of whom questioned the rule. Or should I DQ both of them because they in no way could replay the whole game. That idea of a penalty borders on ridiculous. I would mention it to them after the game that they had played the rule wrong and I would expect them to play it differently going forward.

As for Alex v Tony, what if we took slowplay out of that question. But the same mistake happen, should the judge allow players to allow for "take backs" or should they enforce what most people considered poor sportsmanship?

Reemule wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
So the judge was really just another observer?

No but the rules from the con are fairly clear. It was the players fault to see this, to bring it to the other players attention, to attempt to fix the situation, then summon a judge to deal with the issue.

Might not be the best path, but it is what adepticon has in place.

If you don't like it, run your own con with different rules.

So what’s the purpose of the judge? It’s a head scratcher.

Breng77 wrote:
So 2 players playing a rule wrong is disrespectful now? And stupid? I said it was a bad example, but plenty of rules mistakes could be made that effect both players (earlier in 8th I saw players not shooting a character because another model was closer and out of LOS, which at the time did not matter for targeting. They both played the rule this way and thought it was right, all game. I noticed it on the final turn on the stream, and it cost one player the game. If I were the judge when they were talking over the last turn, have said. "No you can totally shoot that guy?" Even though earlier in the game it was played otherwise, that is the judge deciding the game for the players. Neither of whom questioned the rule. Or should I DQ both of them because they in no way could replay the whole game. That idea of a penalty borders on ridiculous. I would mention it to them after the game that they had played the rule wrong and I would expect them to play it differently going forward.

As for Alex v Tony, what if we took slowplay out of that question. But the same mistake happen, should the judge allow players to allow for "take backs" or should they enforce what most people considered poor sportsmanship.

It's as disrespectful and stupid as determining the victor of a basketball game by letting the teams play soccer instead, if they both agreed. If I was a player on one of the other teams, and was under the impression I had to play actual basketball to win the tournament, I'd be incensed that "because the players agreed" they could simply just allow traveling for their game, or play soccer, or expand the play area to the size of a football field, or whatever other dumb rules change they agreed on.

And if you took the slowplay out of the discussion, I think Alex wouldn't deploy his deep-strikers first. Tony wasn't wrong because he followed the rules, he was wrong because he was responsible for the problem in the first place. He essentially "gotcha'd" his opponent into making a mistake, by slowplaying (which is against the rules). So it's a moot point to say "what if the slowplay was gone."

If the slowplay was gone, Alex is a good enough player to know not to deploy his deep-strikers first. If he had a lapse of judgement and did so anyways, Tony wouldn't be wrong to call him on it.

EDIT:
Hell, if me and my opponent agree, could we play our game at 4,000 points instead? After all, we agreed, and if neither of us brings it to a judge, it's not his place to step in, right? How about if we both agree to change our lists for that one game? Or both agree to play a mission from Chapter Approved instead of the tournament rulebook? A judge couldn't say "wtf are you doing? Stop that!" because he can't interfere unless there is a dispute?

Next time, I'm scouring all the missions available to see which ones give the most points, and playing those. "Max 21 points for the objectives for this mission? Man, my opponent and I agreed to play <Chapter Approved mission> at 4000 points each instead and he got 56 points, I got 48. We agreed, so there was no rules disputes, so you judges can't step in. Oh, what are you gonna do, make us restart the game?"

Audustum wrote:


You, I like you.

Thank you, I thought I was going crazy there for a moment.

The initial post was a bit hard to follow - was it the Psyker had a peril of the warp happen and the player rather than give the model its mortal wounds just quietly moved on?

The_Real_Chris wrote:
The initial post was a bit hard to follow - was it the Psyker had a peril of the warp happen and the player rather than give the model its mortal wounds just quietly moved on?

What happened is that a psyker died from a perils, which normally results in them exploding and inflicting d3 mortal wounds on nearby units. A "nearby unit" was a 2-wound-remaining Daemon Prince (which is one of the most powerful models in the Chaos arsenal at the moment). 66% of the time, that d3 mortal wounds from Ahriman detonating nearby would have killed the Daemon Prince, significantly altering the gamestate. This "explosion" after perils was either missed or deliberately and tacitly passed over, probably the former.

Audustum wrote:

quentra wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

quentra wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:


But they are tournaments - by definition as a matter of fact. Per websters a tournament is a series of contests between a number of competitors, who compete for an overall prize. Regardless of if you think they're fair or not they meet the criteria of a tournament.

Ah, I suppose I'm at fault for assuming that tournaments in 40k should generate fair and unbiased results.

Correct, you've injected your own bias into the definition. A 40k tournament cannot generate fair and unbiased results because players of varying skills use armies of varying power levels in variable scenarios (which are often specific to the given event and reflect the biases of the organizer).

I...I'm not sure what to say to that. Bravo!

The proper response is "of course it can, variables just mean it's harder for us to independently VERIFY if the result is fair and unbiased, that doesn't mean it ISN'T".

And people think judged games are more tournamenty because it adds a layer of seriousness over the whole affair. Judges occasionally making bad calls (as Breng points out in a strawman) doesn't change that. Two guys boxing each other with only their left hands and after putting their hands in pillows obviously aren't trying as hard as Foreman and Ali were.

Breng77 wrote:

Uneven curing of definitional unfairness is by definition unfair.

I get what you mean but it's not unfair by definition, you're a tad crossed there.

Look at it this way, if a ref only called legitimate fouls on one side of a game, is that fair or unfair?

Bad example. We're not saying the judge should take the audience at its word, but he should at least go ask the players and then make an informed call.

Crowds may or may not be impartial and thus even if point out legitimate rules issues cannot be counted on to do so evenly.

Sure, but that doesn't absolve a judge of the duty to look into it.

If not done evenly the practice is the definition of unfair.

It's unfair if the judge treats it differently depending on the player, not if the crowd does.

You seem to think that less rules played incorrectly is somehow more fair, when that simply isn't the case.

Of course it is. Are there occasionally imbalances in the rules? Sure, but that's for balancing to figure out later. Mistakes in the rules are always unfair when left uncaught.

It is only the case when reducing the errors is applied impartially by a ref, not potentially skewed to one side. The crowd has no place in adjudicating fair play in a game.

See above responses. Snip!

The thing you and others have expressed support for is requiring games to never have errors, and if errors are caught they must always be punished severely so they don't happen again.

Well, no, you're crossing posters. I specifically said punishment needs to be proportional and reducing errors is good. I never spoke of requirements, just doing our best.

The problem is that they will happen again, or will only decrease because players will stop attending events because of harsh punishment for making them, or because refs have been assigned to every table to prevent them from happening. I know which one I think is more likely to happen.

This is a nice trip down speculation and narrowed perspective lane but I'm not sure it's of any merit. Arguments along this line just turn into na-uh/ya-huh.

fair enough, I will state that magic requires quite a bit less money to chase the meta than I would say 40k does, and or at least less effort in time (you can play what 5-10 games of magic easily in the time it takes for one 40k game for practice, you don't need to paint your cards etc (or pay someone else to do so).

When I at least tried to make a tournament ready deck (though I didn't go anywhere), it was about $20 per card. Average deck has 60 cards. Every 3 months or so 1/3 of your deck, ish, becomes illegal for tournament play. It adds up.

sure I can if I am comparing the type of commitment people make to a hobby, I'd be surprised if most 40k players play more than 5 hours a week, with top guys maybe hitting 10-15 if they go to local tournaments. I would wager most pro-gamers play quite a bit more than that in an average week. I could be wrong, but seems likely.

They're also different games with different inputs. 40k is a LOT more about list building than playing, for example.

So judging by your join date you are pretty new to the scene.

Yes and no. Newer to 40k. Started in Fantasy like 15 years ago.

This insular group that you harp on so much did exactly what I am saying I see no one from this "esport" group doing, seeing something they want to change and doing it.

See my previous post. They'll get there if they aren't squashed first.

I'm not sure when you joined but I assume that maybe it was after GW basically tried to squash (far more actively than anything you cite) the competitive scene. They were the ones that harped on 40k not being competitive, stopped running events, supporting local event, made terrible missions, never faq'd anything etc. So people that wanted a "competitive" scene stepped up, created events from nothing and grew them into the majors/GTs of today.

I'm aware. That was a different time and different management though. Apples to oranges. Blizzard originally tried to stop all competition too. They even contemplated suing KESPA to shut down the juggernaut e-sports scene in South Korea. They were vehemently against it. Companies change.

Marketing of top players in the blogsphere isn't new it has been happening for a long time, nothing about it has changed, except some of the names.

And the frequency. It's one of many factors I listed.

You talk about resistance to change for older gamers, none I know are resistant to change, they are resistant to being made to be the ones to make those changes. People like you come on after events and rail on these events when mistakes happen, and they don't respond the way you want them to, you accuse them of deception, and tear down the tons of work they do, because you want something else.

You're projecting, hard. They're asking these groups to live up to their own words and advertisement. They're asking these people to be honest. That's never too much to ask of anyone and the knee-jerk reaction from them is a self-defense response so they don't have to acknowledge they were pretending to be something they're not (intentionally or no). I've seen actual commercial companies get buried in lawsuits for the same thing. The response isn't "well go build your own pizza place" it's to correct the marketing of your pizza.

Well guess what, they don't owe you anything, you want something else build it. You talk about relatively new to the scene? How new, a month?, 6 months? 2 years? I started running tournaments at my local shop maybe 2 years into my competitive gaming history, I knew plenty of people who did it earlier than me. So what is stopping these people from doing it? Someone already runs the events? The community at their store doesn't want to change? Maybe.

They owe everyone honesty. That's a fundamental truism everywhere.

Most of what I hear from people is "I shouldn't have to do it, it should just be that way." maybe that is not how you feel, but it is a common excuse. "I want to play I don't want to run events, so someone who is already doing it needs to change their ways."

That's nice, not my position not relevant. Based on your posts in this thread though, you're likely confusing what they're saying. They're not asking the current big TO's to change, they're asking them to be honest.

Does that seem reasonable to you? To put all the impetus on people that already fought and built something to risk their event to change things for a crowd that may or may not attend?

Does it seem reasonable to be honest? Yes. Yes it does.

As to you inventing this esport crowd and my view being skewed by my insular group. I'm not even talking about top players, or anything, I rarely talk to or see what you define as the brohammer group, I don't have time to go to big events these days. Do I know some top players as acquaintances, Sure I do. But I don't play with them basically ever, I rarely talk to them. So my not seeing these esports people outside dakka is mostly small stores and tournaments.

That's great, but the connection isn't lost cause it's old.

My local area has lots of new players, none of them complain about how the store runs events, and these events don't even have a judge at all. 85% or more are super casual, don't even play tournaments, will never go to NOVA or Adepticon, don't watch 40k streams of events etc. The last 15% might go to one of these events, but most will just play local events.

And both the advertisement and expectations of your local events are radically different than the big leagues. Hence why I say the problem is one of expectations and advertisement.

So when you say that half the vocal user base is "militant-causual", you are probably right, but that is an under representation of the casual/militant casual crowd IME, not an over representation.

I'm only talking about forum users. None of us have anywhere near enough data to speak to non-forum users. You'd need a random sampling of every region and demographic with about 2,000-3,500 responses for that.

That isn't to say 40k could not evolve into an esport, but to be fair that is a lot harder to pull off without a ton of money than it was for video games, you are selling to a smaller audience with a harder to watch product.

And yet GW will try. Alea iacta est.

Has streaming helped get people visualizing the game. Sure but that has been a thing on and off since 5th ed. It isn't new, it is just better quality now. Who started it? Those same "insular" old hats you think are "destroying the competitive spirit"

Because they're trying to be competitive venues, but only when it's convenient or easy for them. They're not willing to actually make the jump all the way. Hence the deception.

As for my mismatched perceptions, maybe, but you are guilty of that as well when it comes to tournaments, your perception is that most people that attend them are super serious about winning, and feel cheated when someone makes a mistake on the top tables. My assertion is that 90+% don't care what happens on the top tables, they are there for fun.

That is not my perception at all. My perception is that there is a group of players, of some unknown number, that GW is trying to grow, that are seeking serious competition. They are running into an old guard that was only faux-competitive and clashes are ensuing.

I think the only way for "esport" 40k to happen won't be through convention tournaments, it will need to be through teams and leagues, where there are fewer games happening at any one time, allowing for reffing, streaming of all top players, and tighter standards. OR maybe at an invite only event with fewer games to judge. Big events will never be able to pull it off, it is too hard to get it right, and DQing someone on the top table for a mistake on a regular basis will do more to kill the following than anything. Honestly other than the big following, I think 40k is one of the worse minis games for streaming and watching.

And that's a great trip down opinion lane again. As the scene grows, they'll have the resources to do it at larger events just fine. It just takes time, patience and honesty.

They only matter insofar as people keep expecting judges to be something they are not intended to be and a large reason they aren't is because it isn't feasible for them to be that.

This is your subjective definition of judge against someone else's subjective definition. They are called judges. Judges are:

a person who decides the results of a competition or watches for infractions of the rules.

So they need to watch for infractions. That's active, not passive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

quentra wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

quentra wrote:
Yeah Breng, no tournaments above 30 players should exist, or they shouldn't advertise themselves as tournaments. Calling an unjudged casual game a tournament is just downright deceptive.

Yes because throwing the baby out with the bath water is clearly the best decision. My favorite part of all these threads is watching people who've never organized a 10 man event, much less a a larger scale 200+ player event talk about what tournaments should do and if they can't then they just quit trying all together.

My favorite part of this thread is where people defend cheating because they can't figure out a better way to host events, and claim that a better way cannot in principle exist. I've hosted DnD games at cons, hearthstone tournaments at bars...Granted, never a wargame, but I'd love to see you DM 3 tables of 6 people each simultaneously of 3.5ed DnD. I have some idea of what it takes to organize something, and what my limits are.

You, I like you.

I agree.

@Audustum, I'm still failing to see where players are being mislead by anyone. Please tell me? Where is it stated that something was a certain way and it wasn't. Or is that just because you don't like how things get ruled? The adepticon policy I posted pretty clearly covers the judge was in the right in this circumstance, that was a policy it took me 5 min to find on the website, no false promise. OR are we back to you defining competition, or the use of the word tournament? Neither of which imply anything about anything regarding how rules will be followed.

So please show me where in their own words and advertising where the major events have lied to people.

I already posted some adepticon policy, here is what their site claims about the 40k championship

"Experience AdeptiCon's twist on an old classic. Prepare your 2000-point armies for some action-packed gaming against some of the fiercest competitors in the world!"

What in there is false? That you don't agree that the competitors are fierce because they make mistakes?

Lets look at the NOVA

"The NOVA Open’s 40K GT is an eight (8) round tournament. After Round four (4), your record will be effectively reset, and you will be seeded in a bracket of 15 other players closest to you in win-loss record. Bracket seeds are determined by the total points you score in Rounds 1-4. Once the event is bracketed, you will play exclusively within your bracket until the completion of the eighth round. All players are expected to complete all eight rounds, unless they indicate withdrawal on their Round 6 scorecard to participate in alternate Sunday activities."

Seems true to me. In fact they play up the rebracketting letting people know about playing against players on their level. Speaks more to the middle of the pack than the top.

What about the invite
"The NOVA Invitational is just that, an invitational tournament aimed at bringing together some of the most dynamic, talented, and interesting players in the 40K tournament scene for an intense, challenging test of skill to kick off the many varied 40K events happening throughout the NOVA Open weekend. If you're interested in seeking an invitation, or know someone you think is ideal for it, . Be aware the process of handing out invitations can be a painstaking one, requiring the organizers to confirm each invitee's attendance prior to sending out second and third round invitations for this limited-spot event. By Invitation Only: Two Days; 32 Top Players"

So this claims top players, and test of skill. But you cannot get in unless invited so no one going to this can possibly be mislead about what it is. But this is an event where I could see them trying to put judges on every table as it is a limited number of tables. Certainly in the later rounds.

looking through the posts in the Dakka thread I also see nothing misleading about anything.

How about the ITC
"The ITC (Independent Tournament Circuit) is a coalition of tabletop gaming tournaments that have joined together to increase their mutual resources, exposure to the community and the prestige of their events. These events run through a season which runs one year, beginning and ending in February. The player that does the best overall through the year will be the Circuit Champion. "

Nothing about uber strict competition in there.

So where is this deception happening? Is it that sites like this one follow them and look at the results as the biggest deal in the world? Is it players talking them up as great events? What is it exactly that says, they are deceiving people in their marketing?

Sorry I cannot think of a single thing I have heard or read that seems deceiving to me.

Maybe it is the expectations of the players that are off, because they don't know what to expect. Could this turn them off? I guess, the same way that an uber competitive tournament could turn of plenty of new players dipping their toes in the water.


I do think tournaments are slowly adopting policies where they view issues (currently chess clocks or points reductions seem to be en vogue). If GW makes a matched play app at some point that will solve list issues by and large. Many events are locking in on paint standards. Maybe this or similar will lead to a reff on the top tables on the last day, who knows. But I think it is unfair to classify tournaments as deceptive, just because you don't agree with how they are run.

The issue, Breng, is even in the use of the word "tournament." If I am going to the Grand Tournament at the NOVA Open, I am expecting a different experience than if I am going to the Glowpocalypse event at NOVA Open.

Tournaments generally try to find out who the best attending player (or team) is at the game in question. They are not trying to find out who the most charismatic player is, which is what it turns into if you allow people to just wantonly break the rules, so long as they can manipulate/convince their opponent to agree.

I've had Maelstrom games from Chapter approved rack up thirty to forty points in a game, even if I've lost. The advantage in battle points this provides to a player is incredible, and that means it's in both player's best interest to mutually agree to play that mission instead of the tournament's prescribed one. By your logic, even if a judge caught them playing wrong, he couldn't step in unless one of those two selfsame players brought the issue up to the judge. So you end up with a loss that gives like 30 battle points, while the players who didn't manage to convince their opponents to change missions could score at most 21, or whatever. (IIRC 21 is like the max for an ITC mission).

The_Real_Chris wrote:
The initial post was a bit hard to follow - was it the Psyker had a peril of the warp happen and the player rather than give the model its mortal wounds just quietly moved on?

A psyker suffered perils, got mortal wounds and died from that. Which should cause an explosion doing mortal wounds around him.
This last part, the explosion, was skipped. And potentially had a significant impart on the game because a Daemon Prince on low wounds was standing next to the Psyker.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So 2 players playing a rule wrong is disrespectful now? And stupid? I said it was a bad example, but plenty of rules mistakes could be made that effect both players (earlier in 8th I saw players not shooting a character because another model was closer and out of LOS, which at the time did not matter for targeting. They both played the rule this way and thought it was right, all game. I noticed it on the final turn on the stream, and it cost one player the game. If I were the judge when they were talking over the last turn, have said. "No you can totally shoot that guy?" Even though earlier in the game it was played otherwise, that is the judge deciding the game for the players. Neither of whom questioned the rule. Or should I DQ both of them because they in no way could replay the whole game. That idea of a penalty borders on ridiculous. I would mention it to them after the game that they had played the rule wrong and I would expect them to play it differently going forward.

As for Alex v Tony, what if we took slowplay out of that question. But the same mistake happen, should the judge allow players to allow for "take backs" or should they enforce what most people considered poor sportsmanship.

It's as disrespectful and stupid as determining the victor of a basketball game by letting the teams play soccer instead, if they both agreed. If I was a player on one of the other teams, and was under the impression I had to play actual basketball to win the tournament, I'd be incensed that "because the players agreed" they could simply just allow traveling for their game, or play soccer, or expand the play area to the size of a football field, or whatever other dumb rules change they agreed on.

And if you took the slowplay out of the discussion, I think Alex wouldn't deploy his deep-strikers first. Tony wasn't wrong because he followed the rules, he was wrong because he was responsible for the problem in the first place. He essentially "gotcha'd" his opponent into making a mistake, by slowplaying (which is against the rules). So it's a moot point to say "what if the slowplay was gone."

If the slowplay was gone, Alex is a good enough player to know not to deploy his deep-strikers first. If he had a lapse of judgement and did so anyways, Tony wouldn't be wrong to call him on it.

EDIT:
Hell, if me and my opponent agree, could we play our game at 4,000 points instead? After all, we agreed, and if neither of us brings it to a judge, it's not his place to step in, right? How about if we both agree to change our lists for that one game? Or both agree to play a mission from Chapter Approved instead of the tournament rulebook? A judge couldn't say "wtf are you doing? Stop that!" because he can't interfere unless there is a dispute?

Next time, I'm scouring all the missions available to see which ones give the most points, and playing those. "Max 21 points for the objectives for this mission? Man, my opponent and I agreed to play <Chapter Approved mission> at 4000 points each instead and he got 56 points, I got 48. We agreed, so there was no rules disputes, so you judges can't step in. Oh, what are you gonna do, make us restart the game?"

Yup just keep with the ridiculous examples that people will never agree to, instead of the ones I provide and not answer the question.

In the Alex v Tony example removing slow play is a good exercise because, Tony played by the rules by stopping Alex. But my question is what if Tony had allowed Alex the take back, and slow play was not involved. Should a judge step in and say "nope, no take backs." You essentially end up with a situation where right now plenty of people will allow opponents to do forgotten things, but strict rules say nope, cannot do that. Say I have deepstrikes, and say I'm moving to my psychic phase, then go no wait I have these deepstrikers I want to place. My opponent is ok with it, should a judge say "nope you said psychic phase too late."

You also skipped over my character rules example, what should a judge do in that example? Decide on the last turn of the game to essentially award one player the victory despite different rules being used all along?

If you have a ref at the table, in theory the rule is never played wrong to begin with, which is why I said the basket ball analogy falls short. There is also a difference between 2 players willfully breaking the rules, and not knowing, or misplaying the rules. My character rule is an example of that. Both players got the rule wrong, all game, that happens all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The issue, Breng, is even in the use of the word "tournament." If I am going to the Grand Tournament at the NOVA Open, I am expecting a different experience than if I am going to the Glowpocalypse event at NOVA Open.

Tournaments generally try to find out who the best attending player (or team) is at the game in question. They are not trying to find out who the most charismatic player is, which is what it turns into if you allow people to just wantonly break the rules, so long as they can manipulate/convince their opponent to agree.

I've had Maelstrom games from Chapter approved rack up thirty to forty points in a game, even if I've lost. The advantage in battle points this provides to a player is incredible, and that means it's in both player's best interest to mutually agree to play that mission instead of the tournament's prescribed one. By your logic, even if a judge caught them playing wrong, he couldn't step in unless one of those two selfsame players brought the issue up to the judge. So you end up with a loss that gives like 30 battle points, while the players who didn't manage to convince their opponents to change missions could score at most 21, or whatever. (IIRC 21 is like the max for an ITC mission).

And you do get a different experience, just not one where you have a ref at every table. As for best player, is rules knowledge not part of player skill? If I know the rules well, I'm not likely to let my opponent make mistakes.


I basically guarantee you could play whatever mission you wanted at a big GT and no one would notice, unless your scores were way out of wack. If a mission maxes out at 21 points, and you report more, they will tell you your scores are wrong, and have you redo them, regardless of what mission you played. What keeps people honest on the mission is the other player. At NOVA changing to Maelstrom is largely not in your best interest due to the win loss format, so unless you expect to win (despite building for NOVA missions), why change. Most people aren't going to do stupid things like this. They are going to get a simple rule wrong, because a ton of players are just bad at the rules, or simply forget them. I feel like you believe a ton of people are purposefully breaking rules in the hopes of not getting caught. I find that to be highly unlikely

Breng77 wrote:
Yup just keep with the ridiculous examples that people will never agree to, instead of the ones I provide and not answer the question.
In the Alex v Tony example removing slow play is a good exercise because, Tony played by the rules by stopping Alex. But my question is what if Tony had allowed Alex the take back, and slow play was not involved. Should a judge step in and say "nope, no take backs." You essentially end up with a situation where right now plenty of people will allow opponents to do forgotten things, but strict rules say nope, cannot do that. Say I have deepstrikes, and say I'm moving to my psychic phase, then go no wait I have these deepstrikers I want to place. My opponent is ok with it, should a judge say "nope you said psychic phase too late."

You also skipped over my character rules example, what should a judge do in that example? Decide on the last turn of the game to essentially award one player the victory despite different rules being used all along?

If you have a ref at the table, in theory the rule is never played wrong to begin with, which is why I said the basket ball analogy falls short. There is also a difference between 2 players willfully breaking the rules, and not knowing, or misplaying the rules. My character rule is an example of that. Both players got the rule wrong, all game, that happens all the time.

In the Alex v Tony example, removing slow play obviates the example. If you remove slow play, Alex doesn't make the mistake. If he does make the mistake, and Tony allowed him to take it back, the judge should absolutely stop him, because it's against the rules. So yes, you end up with a situation where casual, fast & loose play gets eliminated in favor of tight, knowledgeable tournament play. And this is a good thing. A judge should absolutely stop you from using your deep strikers if you're trying to do so when you're already in the psychic phase. Tournament games are not mother's basement games. It's time to put on the man pants.

And what do you mean? What a person chooses to shoot at is not a rules issue. If they are mistaken about the rules, they should learn them. But the judge shouldn't step in in this case, because no rules are actually being violated (and judges enforce rules). This is similar to not knowing a Leman Russ has a heavy bolter on it. Not firing said heavy bolter is not against the rules, and so the judge need not force the player to fire it.

In the "chess clocks" thread, it was told to me that Casual players need to learn the rules and "get good." So, perhaps it's time for tournament players to get serious too, and stop misplaying/not knowing rules. Things like whether or not you can shoot at characters in a given situation is absolutely a knowable quantity, and there is no excuse for a top-tier, best-on-a-continent (or in-a-country) player to not know it.

Breng77 wrote:
They are going to get a simple rule wrong, because a ton of players are just bad at the rules, or simply forget them.

Just to parrot the "chess-clocks" thread:
Tournament-level players should learn to play the game they're competing in.

 Marmatag wrote:

I find myself moving more and more away from competitive 40k. I'm stuck in that middle zone, where i'm solid enough at list building and wargames to where i can compete in and win tournaments, but also really despise the attitude that comes along with competitive 40k players by in large. In a general sense, there's always at least one negative experience or "that guy" at every event. I'm sick of it.

Haha. That was me in like, 3rd Ed. I've been a happier gamer ever since.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Yup just keep with the ridiculous examples that people will never agree to, instead of the ones I provide and not answer the question.
In the Alex v Tony example removing slow play is a good exercise because, Tony played by the rules by stopping Alex. But my question is what if Tony had allowed Alex the take back, and slow play was not involved. Should a judge step in and say "nope, no take backs." You essentially end up with a situation where right now plenty of people will allow opponents to do forgotten things, but strict rules say nope, cannot do that. Say I have deepstrikes, and say I'm moving to my psychic phase, then go no wait I have these deepstrikers I want to place. My opponent is ok with it, should a judge say "nope you said psychic phase too late."

You also skipped over my character rules example, what should a judge do in that example? Decide on the last turn of the game to essentially award one player the victory despite different rules being used all along?

If you have a ref at the table, in theory the rule is never played wrong to begin with, which is why I said the basket ball analogy falls short. There is also a difference between 2 players willfully breaking the rules, and not knowing, or misplaying the rules. My character rule is an example of that. Both players got the rule wrong, all game, that happens all the time.

In the Alex v Tony example, removing slow play obviates the example. If you remove slow play, Alex doesn't make the mistake. If he does make the mistake, and Tony allowed him to take it back, the judge should absolutely stop him, because it's against the rules. So yes, you end up with a situation where casual, fast & loose play gets eliminated in favor of tight, knowledgeable tournament play. And this is a good thing. A judge should absolutely stop you from using your deep strikers if you're trying to do so when you're already in the psychic phase. Tournament games are not mother's basement games. It's time to put on the man pants.

And what do you mean? What a person chooses to shoot at is not a rules issue. If they are mistaken about the rules, they should learn them. But the judge shouldn't step in in this case, because no rules are actually being violated (and judges enforce rules). This is similar to not knowing a Leman Russ has a heavy bolter on it. Not firing said heavy bolter is not against the rules, and so the judge need not force the player to fire it.

In the "chess clocks" thread, it was told to me that Casual players need to learn the rules and "get good." So, perhaps it's time for tournament players to get serious too, and stop misplaying/not knowing rules. Things like whether or not you can shoot at characters in a given situation is absolutely a knowable quantity, and there is no excuse for a top-tier, best-on-a-continent (or in-a-country) player to not know it.

Yes but what about everyone else? As has been said many times (and maybe this is the disconnect) most people that go to events aren't and never will be a top-tier guy. So your suggestion is make the event less fun for everyone else, because god forbid they make a mistake. So that the top-guy gets his rules right. I really do get the feeling that may of the people who say "how dare people make mistakes that should not stand." make plenty of their own mistakes. We'll also need to agree to disagree on whether a judge preventing players from being nice to each other is a good thing. Not everyone is an expert, nor will they be. The tournaments you and other seem to want will only cater to the best of the best, everyone else be damned. Sorry but what you describe sounds far less attractive, and were that the way say NOVA was, I would take a pass on going. Lots of people want to play in a GT, most of them don't want super strict games where a judge is hovering over them causing them stress.

For what it is worth, adding chess clocks will make errors more common (at least at first) as people will not stop to think as much as they do now.

Breng77 wrote:
They are going to get a simple rule wrong, because a ton of players are just bad at the rules, or simply forget them.

Just to parrot the "chess-clocks" thread:
Tournament-level players should learn to play the game they're competing in.

Learning and remembering are not the same thing when you account for time pressure, fatigue, etc. Point of fact, neither player on this table remembered Arhiman was supposed to blow up. Why not it is a base rule, not even a character specific rule.

Breng77 wrote:
Yes but what about everyone else? As has been said many times (and maybe this is the disconnect) most people that go to events aren't and never will be a top-tier guy. So your suggestion is make the event less fun for everyone else, because god forbid they make a mistake. So that the top-guy gets his rules right. I really do get the feeling that may of the people who say "how dare people make mistakes that should not stand." make plenty of their own mistakes. We'll also need to agree to disagree on whether a judge preventing players from being nice to each other is a good thing. Not everyone is an expert, nor will they be. The tournaments you and other seem to want will only cater to the best of the best, everyone else be damned. Sorry but what you describe sounds far less attractive, and were that the way say NOVA was, I would take a pass on going. Lots of people want to play in a GT, most of them don't want super strict games where a judge is hovering over them causing them stress.

What about the everyone else? I am the everyone else. I'm not a top tier player. I went 4-4 at nova and made plenty of awful rules mistakes, I'm sure. I recognize that everyone makes mistakes. What I am asking for is that you go "I understand you made a mistake, but it's important that the game be fair, so we are going to address your mistake rather than allow you to continue to make it."
And yes, it makes it less attractive, that's the point of my posts. 40k is not a competitive game, so the whole idea of a tournament is silly. But if you truly want to have a tournament, as some people do, then have a tournament. Don't go halfsies and say "its a tournament" and then give the trophy to someone who outright broke the rules on more than one occasion. That's just embarrassing for real competition.

I'm glad you've gotten to the point where you admit that actually making 40k competitive is a joke, though. That's where Marmatag and I stand, if I may speak for him.

Breng77 wrote:
Learning and remembering are not the same thing when you account for time pressure, fatigue, etc. Point of fact, neither player on this table remembered Arhiman was supposed to blow up. Why not it is a base rule, not even a character specific rule.

If time pressure and fatigue are problems, they can be compensated for. Dropping the games to 1000 points should reduce both time and fatigue quite nicely. If that's what it takes to make competitive 40k anything other than a hilarious oxymoron, then perhaps it needs doing.

Audustum wrote:

The proper response is "of course it can, variables just mean it's harder for us to independently VERIFY if the result is fair and unbiased, that doesn't mean it ISN'T".

The same argument can be held to if games have judges at them or don't - it makes it harder to independently VERIFY if the result was fair and unbiased but that doesn't mean it ISN'T. Just because there isn't a judge at every table doesn't mean the events results are either unfair or biased, anymore so than the bias introduced by the players, lists, external game balance, and tournament rules packet.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Yes but what about everyone else? As has been said many times (and maybe this is the disconnect) most people that go to events aren't and never will be a top-tier guy. So your suggestion is make the event less fun for everyone else, because god forbid they make a mistake. So that the top-guy gets his rules right. I really do get the feeling that may of the people who say "how dare people make mistakes that should not stand." make plenty of their own mistakes. We'll also need to agree to disagree on whether a judge preventing players from being nice to each other is a good thing. Not everyone is an expert, nor will they be. The tournaments you and other seem to want will only cater to the best of the best, everyone else be damned. Sorry but what you describe sounds far less attractive, and were that the way say NOVA was, I would take a pass on going. Lots of people want to play in a GT, most of them don't want super strict games where a judge is hovering over them causing them stress.

What about the everyone else? I am the everyone else. I'm not a top tier player. I went 4-4 at nova and made plenty of awful rules mistakes, I'm sure. I recognize that everyone makes mistakes. What I am asking for is that you go "I understand you made a mistake, but it's important that the game be fair, so we are going to address your mistake rather than allow you to continue to make it."
And yes, it makes it less attractive, that's the point of my posts. 40k is not a competitive game, so the whole idea of a tournament is silly. But if you truly want to have a tournament, as some people do, then have a tournament. Don't go halfsies and say "its a tournament" and then give the trophy to someone who outright broke the rules on more than one occasion. That's just embarrassing for real competition.

I'm glad you've gotten to the point where you admit that actually making 40k competitive is a joke, though. That's where Marmatag and I stand, if I may speak for him.

Breng77 wrote:
Learning and remembering are not the same thing when you account for time pressure, fatigue, etc. Point of fact, neither player on this table remembered Arhiman was supposed to blow up. Why not it is a base rule, not even a character specific rule.

If time pressure and fatigue are problems, they can be compensated for. Dropping the games to 1000 points should reduce both time and fatigue quite nicely. If that's what it takes to make competitive 40k anything other than a hilarious oxymoron, then perhaps it needs doing.

I don't agree that it is a joke, I just agree that it is not high level competition. You can play competitive pickup sticks if you want to, it only seem to be internet pundits that seem to care who the winner is. Me I just like going to events playing tough games against different opponents. I have no problem with tournaments as they stand simply because I don't care about the results beyond my own (did I play well, did I have fun)