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.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What strikes me as odd is the summation of all the facts.

1. We dont like cheaters
2. Cheating is easily and cheaply fixed
3. The Rules are too convoluted to ensure easy and rapid judgement


In Summary - Cheating will never stop so don't even try to address it. WUT?

To be honest, the overwhelming majority of people who play this game NEVER go to any tournaments. They play with unpainted proxy models, and take pains to have a fair and welcoming environment.

If you believe the tourney players outnumber the casuals, I've got a bridge in Spain I'd like to sell you.

I would hardly call your point 2 a 'fact'.

Asmodios wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, Horseback riding, Helicopter flying, and Space jumping might be more expensive than 40k. But lets go into the math of 40k.

Models alone: $750 to $1k - Especially if you plan on having back up models incase you come across different types of armies. Three full troop squads of marines is at least 150, un painted.

Paint - This can vary depending on skill and army. If you are going black templars - $100 bucks. If you are going deathwatch or 1Ksons, 350? If you don't buy GW magic paints, 200.

Carrying cases - High side professional grade travel cases - 250. Cardboard box with bubblewrap: 50/

Tools - about 150 if you get every brush and snip.

BOOKS - 250.(Battlescribe = 0)

Travel costs - Vary, but there are no professional players, so you eat this. No sponsors in 40k.

So we get about 1500-2500. Not far off my original estimate. That is 2k points of ONE ARMY. My GW store guy made it easy. Points=Dollars. 2k point lists cost about 2k dollars.

That is not an amateur level investment.

not only does your estimate seem incredibly high (for example $100 starting off with paint???? im doing a simple scheme on my Necrons right now, $5 primer and 4 different paints that are like $2 each.... a beginner doesn't need $100 in paint watch some of the miniac youtube vids on starting the hobby cheap)

But seriously im curious of a single hobby that you could actually get into cheaper than 40k

You can buy a 2000 point army on craigs list or ebay for like $300-$400 and strip it and buy everything else you need for like $50. There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard

There is one piece missing in this equation:
SKILL=TIME=MONEY

Painting itself is a time consuming process. Developing the skill is a sort of an aggregating returns type of situation, so the cost goes down over time. A way to shortcut this is to buy the metric poop-ton of paints GW provides so you are not having to blend, thin, slow, etc. I painted pro full time for two years, and one of the lessons I learned is that you always have to choose between speed and quality with reference to buying supplies. 'Should I buy a $3 can of krylon flat black and basecoat these dudes by hand? (Cheaper out of pocket), or should I buy that fancy Army Painter colored primer for $15? (Cheaper on time).
The more skill you have, the more you can do with less. I'm a mid-level pro painter, and I can paint an acceptable tabletop quality Dark Angel using the three primaries, white, black, and a base metallic in a couple of hours. However, I've been painting for 25 years. Someone like Sam Lenz, who has been painting over a span of probably a decade less than me, but has put in far, far more actual hours than I have, can paint a damn near Golden Demon level model in an 8 hour day.
What I'm saying is, many gamers dont have the time or the inclination to spend that kind of effort over that amount of time to 'get gud' on painting. So, they elect to spend the extra money buying the premixed and sorted triads, tetrads, and pentads GW has, and can spend less time painting and more time gaming.
Cleaning and stripping ebay stuff is another tradeoff along the same vein. Not nearly as much time or skill needed, but it's the same sort of tradeoff on a smaller scale.
I constantly calculated how much I was making per hour concerning all of these factors, and it was a very eye opening process.
To conclude, in this hobby, you are juggling time and money. As a little thought experiment, the next time you paint a model, track how long it takes you in actual brush-on-plastic time. Then, figure out how much you would have made at work in that same amount of time. Your bank account has not changed, but you have still spent.
I love this hobby, as do we all, but we must be realistic in what it is actually costing us if we are to learn and grow from each other.

I think one thing that is being missed is that in most cases, these cheaters are already known cheaters, by which I mean it's the same names that come up constantly with these "lapses in judgment". Very few of them are first-time guys who happen to get to a top table and it's found out that something was wrong.

It needs to be tracked and dealt with harshly to send a message that ITC will not tolerate cheating of any kind. That's what is missing. FLG and co usually defend the cheaters by trying to make it out like they really aren't bad guys so people shouldn't attach the stigma of "cheating" on them.

Wayniac wrote:
I think one thing that is being missed is that in most cases, these cheaters are already known cheaters. Very few of them are first-time guys who happen to get to a top table and it's found out that something was wrong.

It needs to be tracked and dealt with harshly to send a message that ITC will not tolerate cheating of any kind. That's what is missing. FLG and co usually defend the cheaters by trying to make it out like they really aren't bad guys so people shouldn't attach the stigma of "cheating" on them.

It’s ridiculous how much this happens, and this is also the case outside of gaming and in sports. Spades need to be called spades, and if prominent organisers don’t take care of it, it plants the seed for others to test the waters. Diving in soccer for example is rife and has been a long term problem, retrospective 10 game suspensions for players found to do it would very quickly stop it happening, as the players and their managers would not want to be banned that long due to serious performance implications which can lead to serious financial implications.

1 year suspension for repeated cheating. Lifetime ban if caught again after a return from suspension. Simple.

I'm not sure specifically what the punishment needs to be, but it should be automatic DQ from the event regardless and if it's a multiple time offender such as that Alex Harrison (?) guy then it needs to be a permaban and blacklist, otherwise it can be 3/6/9/12 month thing or something, not sure. But what normally happens is there will be drama over it and the TOs and/or FLG will go out of their way to deflect the internet accusations about it and even go so far as to say how everyone should forgive and forget.

Which may work fine if it's the first time (with the DQ from the event still in effect) but when you consistently see the same names show up in these accusations, the time for forgiveness is over.

I just think there needs to be a judge for each table... if there are too many tables for judges then reduce the number of tables.

However, I'm leery of people talking about lifetime bans so casually. I know how people are tired of the whole "oops I made a mistake" schtick, but sometimes it is GENUINELY a mistake and it is hard to tell the difference from that and intentional cheating. I can honestly say I've bumped models during a game, I've flubbed or forgotten rules that either cost me or won me the game, I've screwed up on my points calculations. These types of things should earn you an automatic DQ in the tournament fine, but this idea of a "reputation" system and a blacklist, or lifetime bans with "cheating background checks" is fething absurd. All tables should just be observed at all times, or at least recorded and that should solve the problem.

w1zard wrote:
I just think there needs to be a judge for each table... if there are too many tables for judges then reduce the number of tables.

However, I'm leery of people talking about lifetime bans so casually. I know how people are tired of the whole "oops I made a mistake" schtick, but sometimes it is GENUINELY a mistake and it is hard to tell the difference from that and intentional cheating. I can honestly say I've bumped models during a game, I've flubbed or forgotten rules that either cost me or won me the game, I've screwed up on my points calculations. These types of things should earn you an automatic DQ in the tournament fine, but this idea of a "reputation" system and a blacklist, or lifetime bans with "cheating background checks" is fething absurd. All tables should just be observed at all times, or at least recorded and that should solve the problem.

Guess the problem is the less the rules seem to get enforced the more people are willing to make an exemple out of offenders.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Guess the problem is the less the rules seem to get enforced the more people are willing to make an exemple out of offenders.

I mean we can execute a mixed group of innocent and guilty people in the town square all we want and call it "making an example of offenders" to deter future rulebreaking, but that isn't what it is... It's tyranny disguised as justice, and a way for angry people to vent their frustrations onto people who may not even deserve it in a vain effort toward enforcing the rules through fear, instead of channeling that anger into constructive ways that actually stop rulebreaking.

A judge or referee at every table is going to stop rulebreaking and cheating far better than any threat of "lifetime excommunication" from 40k ever will.

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Guess the problem is the less the rules seem to get enforced the more people are willing to make an exemple out of offenders.

I mean we can execute a mixed group of innocent and guilty people in the town square all we want and call it "making an example of offenders" to deter future rulebreaking, but that isn't what it is... It's tyranny disguised as justice, and a way for angry people to vent their frustrations onto people who may not even deserve it in a vain effort toward enforcing the rules through fear, instead of channeling that anger into constructive ways that actually stop rulebreaking.

A judge or referee at every table is going to stop rulebreaking and cheating far better than any threat of "lifetime excommunication" from 40k ever will.

Mind you i said people, not me, i don't agree with the sentiment, and a judge at every table would allready be a massive boon, heck 2 tables 1 judge would allready be massive imo.

Wait so you don't think that people who cheat/continually cheat should be punished? Now yeah "lifetime ban" is probably extreme for cheating (although I could see like 1-year ban). But they need some punishment to make it clear this is bullgak and won't be tolerated anymore.

w1zard wrote:
I just think there needs to be a judge for each table... if there are too many tables for judges then reduce the number of tables.

However, I'm leery of people talking about lifetime bans so casually. I know how people are tired of the whole "oops I made a mistake" schtick, but sometimes it is GENUINELY a mistake and it is hard to tell the difference from that and intentional cheating. I can honestly say I've bumped models during a game, I've flubbed or forgotten rules that either cost me or won me the game, I've screwed up on my points calculations. These types of things should earn you an automatic DQ in the tournament fine, but this idea of a "reputation" system and a blacklist, or lifetime bans with "cheating background checks" is fething absurd. All tables should just be observed at all times, or at least recorded and that should solve the problem.

10 seconds on google gave me this https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/02/05/las-vegas-open-40k-championships-a-judges-experience/
Which mentioned that last year the LVO had 5 judges for its 40k tournament. (475 players)
So in your mind the biggest tournament in the US should be limited to 10 players maximum.

GL with that argument.

I don't think anyone is calling for a lifetime ban on a first offense. That's the kind of thing you reserve for the people who are caught cheating year in and year out. You start with an automatic DQ. If you catch them again, it's a 3-month ban. Next time it's a year. Escalating punishments are pretty standard in organized sports.

Wayniac wrote:
Wait so you don't think that people who cheat/continually cheat should be punished? Now yeah "lifetime ban" is probably extreme for cheating (although I could see like 1-year ban). But they need some punishment to make it clear this is bullgak and won't be tolerated anymore.

No repeated offenders should get longer bans but instead of lifetime, years would do just fine imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

w1zard wrote:
I just think there needs to be a judge for each table... if there are too many tables for judges then reduce the number of tables.

However, I'm leery of people talking about lifetime bans so casually. I know how people are tired of the whole "oops I made a mistake" schtick, but sometimes it is GENUINELY a mistake and it is hard to tell the difference from that and intentional cheating. I can honestly say I've bumped models during a game, I've flubbed or forgotten rules that either cost me or won me the game, I've screwed up on my points calculations. These types of things should earn you an automatic DQ in the tournament fine, but this idea of a "reputation" system and a blacklist, or lifetime bans with "cheating background checks" is fething absurd. All tables should just be observed at all times, or at least recorded and that should solve the problem.

10 seconds on google gave me this https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/02/05/las-vegas-open-40k-championships-a-judges-experience/
Which mentioned that last year the LVO had 5 judges for its 40k tournament. (475 players)
So in your mind the biggest tournament in the US should be limited to 10 players maximum.

GL with that argument.

This year was around 700 correct?

I would be very interested in actually learning what compensation a "judge" or TO receives. Because I'll be honest, if you threw models at me, I'd TO. But I am no where NEAR qualified to TO. That being said, there are three people at my FLG store who would be happy to TO who are relative experts in multiple armies.

Another question: are the TO's actually qualified experts, or are they just glorified book checkers? I doubt very much if there are a plethora of experts in every army, outside of the staff who come up with the rules. IF all we have are rule checkers then anyone can TO.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I would be very interested in actually learning what compensation a "judge" or TO receives. Because I'll be honest, if you threw models at me, I'd TO. But I am no where NEAR qualified to TO. That being said, there are three people at my FLG store who would be happy to TO who are relative experts in multiple armies.

Another question: are the TO's actually qualified experts, or are they just glorified book checkers? I doubt very much if there are a plethora of experts in every army, outside of the staff who come up with the rules. IF all we have are rule checkers then anyone can TO.

Once you have a decent grasp of the game anyone can be a judge. At most tournaments they are instructed to check the relevant rule and FAQ/Errata document and make a judgement. So all you're really doing is reading and enforcing the rule as you understand it. There's a little bit of nuance in some cases, but not much. The real problem is rounding up enough judges as most people who would be willing and able to do it will be taking part in the event itself.

Wayniac wrote:
Wait so you don't think that people who cheat/continually cheat should be punished? Now yeah "lifetime ban" is probably extreme for cheating (although I could see like 1-year ban). But they need some punishment to make it clear this is bullgak and won't be tolerated anymore.

You're angry, and you are letting your anger dictate how you feel about the issue.

Sometimes it is easy to tell the difference between intentional cheating and a mistake, but most of the time it isn't. For example: A guy goes to his first tournament and makes a simple points calculation or wargear mistake on his list building, the judges catch it early and he is automatically DQed and given a warning, fair. The next tournament he goes to, his list is fine and he makes it all the way to the final where he mis-remembers the wording of a rule for one of his units, his opponent calls him out... does this guy deserve a lifetime ban (and to be branded a cheater by the entire 40k community) if both issues were genuine mistakes instead of intentional cheating? I really hope you don't think so.

These issues deserve automatic DQ whenever they are found I agree, but lifetime bans should be reserved for situations where the cheating is obvious and intentional, like loaded dice or something, and only after a similar situation has occurred at least once before.

 Ordana wrote:
So in your mind the biggest tournament in the US should be limited to 10 players maximum.

GL with that argument.

Or you know... they could just dig into their profit margin and hire more judges... or stagger the games if they don't have enough judges to cover a particular tournament round.

Aren't judges volunteers for the most part any way?

You could implement a random lottery for the players that are not playing and then add them to tables.
Kinda like ancient athens.

Not Online!!! wrote:
You could implement a random lottery for the players that are not playing and then add them to tables.
Kinda like ancient athens.

Eh might get dicey... imagine a guy was paired as "observer" to a player who he just lost to... There would be accusations that he let the other player's "mistakes" go and focused only on the "mistakes" of the person he lost to.

w1zard wrote:

Sometimes it is easy to tell the difference between intentional cheating and a mistake, but most of the time it isn't. For example: A guy goes to his first tournament and makes a simple points calculation or wargear mistake on his list building, the judges catch it early and he is automatically DQed and given a warning, fair. The next tournament he goes to, his list is fine and he makes it all the way to the final where he mis-remembers the wording of a rule for one of his units, his opponent calls him out... does this guy deserve a lifetime ban from 40K if both issues were genuine mistakes instead of intentional cheating? I really hope you don't think so.

These issues deserve automatic DQ whenever they are found I agree, but lifetime bans should be reserved for situations where the cheating is obvious and intentional, like loaded dice or something, and only after a similar situation has occurred at least once before.

Issues deserve fair punishments for them I agree. I also think that this is a complex game and its possible to get people in a tournament who don't know the rules as well as they might be able too; or who have bad habits and no intention of cheating. I think the tournaments need a means to filtrate people for the final games whilst also having a means to remove those who are displaying too many errors and problems with their game. In addition I think that some means of buy-back needs to be present. Instead of just random ban durations players should be able to earn-back their ability to compete. If the system were organised so that local and small tournaments could report results and collate them then a player could easily play good solid games at smaller or fringe events and earn points back toward being able to compete again. Essentially proving that they've learned their lesson.

IT actually doesn't even matter if they were cheating intentionally or not at the time they were issued the punishment because the buy-back would be proving that they are learning their lesson and changing their behaviour pattern. Remembering that some people cheat because they can, once enough barriers are in place they generally stop.


Of course some deserve long term or lifetime bans - weighted dice, abusive and extreme anti-social behaviour etc... - issues where there's little to no grey and where the behaviour is intolerable can most certainly get long and full term bans.




Also is that right that a 700 person - ergo 350 game event has way less than judges for even 1/4 of the games at the same time. Certainly that's a sign that the judging end needs better support - be it through redistribution of current finances; focus on investment prior to the game (ergo getting people who are skilled, able and willing to officiate) and perhaps also looking for additional revenue streams to help support that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You could implement a random lottery for the players that are not playing and then add them to tables.
Kinda like ancient athens.

Eh might get dicey... imagine a guy was paired as "observer" to a player who he just lost to... There would be accusations that he let the other player's "mistakes" go and focused only on the "mistakes" of the person he lost to.

Agreed, officials shouldn't be personally involved in the event. Furthermore I think officials need to be able to prove a basic level of competency and social skills. There's no point having a lottery and having people who might have hazy understanding of the rules (esp of other armies than their own) or people who have a lack in social skills* starting to officiate events.



*and lets be honest being a judge isn't just having basic social skills. You've got to be have a whole other subset of people management skills and communication skills. They've got to be able to easily understand and explain situations and rulings; to be able to communicate with players who might get difficult; to have the confidence to step in and contain a simple situation without fear etc... Even to people who don't lack in standard social skills its a very differetn ballgame when you make them an official.

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You could implement a random lottery for the players that are not playing and then add them to tables.
Kinda like ancient athens.

Eh might get dicey... imagine a guy was paired as "observer" to a player who he just lost to... There would be accusations that he let the other player's "mistakes" go and focused only on the "mistakes" of the person he lost to.

Play and judge in shifts then?

 Overread wrote:
IT actually doesn't even matter if they were cheating intentionally or not at the time they were issued the punishment because the buy-back would be proving that they are learning their lesson and changing their behaviour pattern. Remembering that some people cheat because they can, once enough barriers are in place they generally stop.

It does matter how you label it though, because we don't want to lump cheaters in with people who have just made a genuine mistake. Imagine mis-remembering or misinterpreting a rule at a tournament and get DQed, only to come back the next year and have people whispering behind your back about how you were DQed last year for cheating.

w1zard wrote:

 Overread wrote:
IT actually doesn't even matter if they were cheating intentionally or not at the time they were issued the punishment because the buy-back would be proving that they are learning their lesson and changing their behaviour pattern. Remembering that some people cheat because they can, once enough barriers are in place they generally stop.

It does matter how you label it though, because we don't want to lump cheaters in with people who have just made a genuine mistake. Imagine mis-remembering or misinterpreting a rule at a tournament and get DQed, only to come back the next year and have people whispering behind your back about how you were DQed last year for cheating.

I fully agree. I would certainly expect the labels to have clear titles that would avoid the stigma of cheating. Cheating, I agree, should be a title reserved for situations where the evidence is very strong to almost impossible to counter. It's a stigma that can stick for ages and, in the online world we live in, can have unexpected repercussions well outside of the world of toy soldiers.

There's loads of ways it could be done, from simple word choices to perhaps even devising a crude "player level" system so that players can be moved up and down a scale. Even just a simplistic two or three layer system could be used to downgrade a player out of major events if they are shown to have multiple, for example, rule infractions from making mistakes. You've not punished them nor called them a cheater, simply classified them as not knowing the rules well enough to compete. Moving them to a lower tier which might have its own competitive series of events. The person isn't excluded, just categorised; not demonised and they've fully got the ability to move up the ladder.

Since no one here bothered to read the ITC Code of Conduct:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RFhFICnwr15wK0pdUcUnp0uNRn_-jUdtZvHKPTTR4Yo/edit

Penalties:

A Foul is defined as an action taken by a player that violates the spirit of the game, the rules of the game, and/or the rules and guidelines set forth in this document. Fouls can range in severity and generally fall within three categories, Verbal Warning, Yellow Card, and Red Card. If a player commits a Foul, they can be penalized in the following ways, according to the judge’s discretion. A judge is free to apply whatever penalties he/she feels is necessary.

- Multiple Verbal Warnings can result in a Yellow Card

- Yellow Cards are given for non-disqualifying offenses.

- A player may only accrue 2 Yellow Cards during an event. If they receive a third they receive a Red Card and a DQ.

- Red Cards are given for a disqualifying offense, or in the case of multiple Yellow Cards.

- If a player receives one or more Red Cards in an event they can be ejected from that event and future events at the Organizer's sole discretion.

Warning - A judge gives a verbal warning that the player’s behavior is not acceptable and that other penalties are imminent for continued infractions. A player receiving two warnings over the course of an event will be penalized. Multiple verbal warnings can result in a Yellow Card being issued at the judge's discretion.

Clock Enforcement (Yellow Card) - A judge may penalize a player by forcing the game to utilize the rules for a “Timed Game”. The judge sets the time for both players, and the result of the clock are binding for that game.

Loss of time (Yellow Card) - A judge may penalize a player’s clock by removing time from it as a result of deliberate slow-play, stalling tactics, or incorrectly stopping the game clock.

Loss of turn (Yellow Card) - A judge may end a player’s turn or phase should it become clear that through a foul or another misplay, that player has put his/her opponent at an extreme disadvantage or that the game-state can only be fairly corrected via this method.

Reset of turn (Yellow Card) - A judge may reset a player’s turn/phase, moving models back to their most likely and least disruptive positions should it become clear that through a foul or another misplay, that player has put his/her opponent at an extreme disadvantage or that the game-state can only be fairly corrected via this method. The penalized player is not awarded extra time.

Removal of models (Yellow Card) - A judge may remove models from the game if they were illegally equipped, over the points limit of the event, found to be modeled for advantage, or unacceptable by the event’s hobby standards. If models are removed, they may only be used again with a judge’s approval after the issue has been resolved.

Disqualification (game)(Red Card) - A judge may disqualify a player from his/her current game. That player receives 0 points for that game, a loss, and his/her opponent is scored as a Bye unless the opponent’s current score would be higher.

Disqualification (event) (Red Card) - A judge may disqualify a player from his/her current event. That player is immediately removed from the roster of active players, removed from the event venue, his/her current game is scored a 0, his/her current opponent is scored as a Tabeling unless the opponent’s current score would be higher. No ITC points are awarded for any games played during the event for the penalized player.

Ban (3/6/8/12 month) - For especially egregious or repeated Fouls and/or behaviors, a judge may request a ban for a player from the ITC for the specified time. While a player is banned, they may not attend Frontline Gaming sponsored events such as The Bay Area Open, The Las Vegas Open, or the SoCal open. While a player is banned, they will not accrue any ITC points during this time period. Note: Other ITC events may choose to adhere to this ban at their own discretion.

 Overread wrote:
There's loads of ways it could be done, from simple word choices to perhaps even devising a crude "player level" system so that players can be moved up and down a scale. Even just a simplistic two or three layer system could be used to downgrade a player out of major events if they are shown to have multiple, for example, rule infractions from making mistakes. You've not punished them nor called them a cheater, simply classified them as not knowing the rules well enough to compete. Moving them to a lower tier which might have its own competitive series of events. The person isn't excluded, just categorised; not demonised and they've fully got the ability to move up the ladder.

The introduction of a league or tier system for players (in terms of skill) would be pretty neat, although there needs to be a community push in order for such a thing to happen.

But, in general I am in opposition to all "one strike and you're out" punishment systems, and systems involving "reputation monitoring" or "sportsmanship background checks" because it is not only ripe for abuse, but because of its inherently authoritarian nature. The novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was a warning, not a guidebook. Presumption of innocence should be the hallmark of any fair justice system, even a justice system for monitoring conduct for a tabletop game.

looking at how other competitive sports do this, e.g snooker.

my understanding is that earlier rounds, which are seldom on the telly, don't have a ref at each table, but do have some floating about - the players are basically watching each other.

these days you could stick a camera to record each game in case of disputes easily enough.

then when you get to the later rounds, last 16 etc, there is a ref at each table.

translate to 40k, if you have the usual swiss pairing setting, have floating referees early on, but then say for the last couple of rounds have the top scoring players games with someone on the table, or near it, arrange where such games are to facilitate this. by the time you get to say the last two games watching them shouldn't be hard, with floating referees for the rest.

yes you may well miss intentional rules bending or honest mistakes in early rounds or in lower ranking games, but the top levels should be 'better'.

would have thought the hard bit is the referees needing a working knowledge of all the factions special rules, and easy access to a complete library - most sports rulebooks are a lot smaller than 40k, and usually have a lot more 'common sense' running through them

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What strikes me as odd is the summation of all the facts.

1. We dont like cheaters
2. Cheating is easily and cheaply fixed
3. The Rules are too convoluted to ensure easy and rapid judgement

So how do you do the 2 without also punishing too harshly for people for honest mistakes which happen in 40k all the time? With all the suggestions for lifetime bans the moment somebody plays against rules that's harder than it appears.

tneva82 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What strikes me as odd is the summation of all the facts.

1. We dont like cheaters
2. Cheating is easily and cheaply fixed
3. The Rules are too convoluted to ensure easy and rapid judgement

So how do you do the 2 without also punishing too harshly for people for honest mistakes which happen in 40k all the time? With all the suggestions for lifetime bans the moment somebody plays against rules that's harder than it appears.

How to punish mistakes/cheats I would look towards how MTG handles it as an example.
First wrong is a warning, second is a game loss. 3e is DQ.

Honest mistakes happen, and this way you can make a mistake (or 2 if you dont care about standings) but at the end of the day you are responsible for knowing your rules when you go to a tournament.

As I see it, there is one major issue to tackle if you want to tighten up the game. While there is a recomended Code of Conduct, there is no single governing body over the overall tournament circuit. FLG runs a season and has a system of tracking points, but there is no formal system of tracking infractions outside of a tournament. Obviously you have the events that FLG runs, but between something like Adepticon, or ATC, you have no carry over to things like NOVA, BAO, Seigeworld, etc.

Until there is a system that carries over, a player can push the limits at one tournament, and then start fresh at another.

It shouldn't be that hard to implement through the BCP app and points tracking systems FLG already have in place. Use the current CoC. Verbal warnings are non-persistant, they are a "hey everyone makes mistakes, clean it up" warning. Yellow Cards do persist for a period of time, three months off the top of my head. Two yellow cards and and you get a red card. A red card persists for two years (doesn't matter if it was earned at an event or through persistent yellow cards) and is an automatic three month ban which also turns off points tracking for the same period of time, and produces a flag in the app when a player signs up for an event.Two red cards and you are shut down for 6 months, three is a year. At this point you are flagged permanently as a problem player and each yellow card is an instant red card. Obviously you can tweak all of that for what is fair but effective, but it would be a great step forward.

 Ordana wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What strikes me as odd is the summation of all the facts.

1. We dont like cheaters
2. Cheating is easily and cheaply fixed
3. The Rules are too convoluted to ensure easy and rapid judgement

So how do you do the 2 without also punishing too harshly for people for honest mistakes which happen in 40k all the time? With all the suggestions for lifetime bans the moment somebody plays against rules that's harder than it appears.

How to punish mistakes/cheats I would look towards how MTG handles it as an example.
First wrong is a warning, second is a game loss. 3e is DQ.

Honest mistakes happen, and this way you can make a mistake (or 2 if you dont care about standings) but at the end of the day you are responsible for knowing your rules when you go to a tournament.

Magic also has a lot of cards designed around how the rules interact, and how they punish rules mistakes. Cards with "May do thing, rather than Do thing" where done when the rules for such where harsh, now they are not punished as harsh for a mistake like that, so there are less cards coming with "May do thing" as it makes the game smoother.
The same reason they consider shuffling the deck as very narrow design space, It takes Time to shuffle a deck. So they leave it for powerful effect or as side effects to give a player some advantage. Honestly Games workshop could learn a lot if there devs simply play magic and try to understand it.

The Salt Mine wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
...But seriously im curious of a single hobby that you could actually get into cheaper than 40k

You can buy a 2000 point army on craigs list or ebay for like $300-$400 and strip it and buy everything else you need for like $50. There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard

You mean aside from every other wargame ever released?

What other wargames are way cheaper than warhammer? I played WMHs for a while and it was just as expensive if not more so than 40k. I tried infinity for a while as well and it was a bit cheaper but only in the fact that you only needed 6ish models to play the game. The models themselves were just as expensive as 40k models though. Ive looked at a few other wargames as well and as far as model price comparison goes they are all priced relatively close. I am actually legitimately curious about this. I love finding new amazing looking models as I love the modeling painting aspect.

Startup costs? PP will sell you this season's 50pt pre-built army for $150-200 new. CB will sell you a 300pt army pack for $90. The "cost to get started playing the game" is a very distinct number from "cost per model."