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.

I really dislike when players interject in to a game with "you should" "why the heck didn't you" or start commenting on unit choices compared to their lists etc. People who rule lawyer other games are sometimes these people. Games are timed and many of these interruptions are not helping either player. I have even seen other players interject with incorrect rules during tournaments, that needs to be stopped immediately with a "I suggest you ask a judge" response rather than slowing their game down even further with another bystander weighing in. Tournament games are timed and sometimes these interruptions can lead to a player consistently not getting past turn 4 where some armies hit their sweet spot.

I think how and how often you interject if you are not a judge is a deal breaker here. When in doubt just wave a judge over, most players are only mistaken and not intentionally taking advantage of a newer player. The rule needs to be corrected or at the very least prevented from being broken repeatedly. Mistakes sometimes happen and are not caught until after a game is over.

When I was new to tournaments I would inform my opponent and let them know if you think I am making a mistake on a ruling just let me know. I also ask the store owner or judges how they rule on a controversial equipment my army uses so I know if I am doing it correctly for the tourney (deff rolla, KFF n kans). Any players entering a tournament or playing unfamiliar people should do the same.

You guys think the two people playing at these tables are brain dead monkeys who never played the game before and apparently it is so common that only the wise casual observer can maintain the integrity of the tourney from collapsing under the incompetence of its participants.

Sorry... your opinions, rule interpretations and tactics are totally unwelcome and have no place in a tourney, and I believe that the occasional rule correction that may be correct doesn't justify the interruption or all the other horrible unwelcome interjections from observers. The fact many rules have multiple unclear interpretations, the only people who should decide rules are me and my opponent. I don't need or want some observer chiming in in any capacity.

I find it also unreasonable that if someone is telling you to butt out that you as the observer intervene as 'You are a cheater!!! JUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDGE!'. You have no place in that game. If you do feel that a great moral injustice is happening, tell a judge and let them handle it.

Do some of you guys really just go to tourneys so you can walk around and play judge? I have seen judges ask observers to shut up and leave for bothering players. Most tourneys barley have enough room for people to play let alone room for observers to stand close enough to watch what we are doing and follow our conversation. With a game on either side of me with a long table, I suspect this observer will be blocking my space and interfering with my ability to play by simply STANDING around in some gaming events.

Observers more often than not are nuisances...

I think you misinterpret the point here nkelsch. The way I read the OP is that if you see someone blatantly cheating, should you speak up? Your argument seems to be along the lines of "if the other play doesn't spot it, and there's no judge there, it's not cheating". It's not a case of people saying "you should have done that..." or "why didn't you do this...", it's a case of "I'm pretty sure you can't do that". If that comment gets both players to check the rules and reach a judgement fairly, I see no issue. As others have said, not knowing an opponent's army book inside out is no reason to suffer a loss.

narked wrote:I think you misinterpret the point here nkelsch. The way I read the OP is that if you see someone blatantly cheating, should you speak up? Your argument seems to be along the lines of "if the other play doesn't spot it, and there's no judge there, it's not cheating". It's not a case of people saying "you should have done that..." or "why didn't you do this...", it's a case of "I'm pretty sure you can't do that". If that comment gets both players to check the rules and reach a judgement fairly, I see no issue. As others have said, not knowing an opponent's army book inside out is no reason to suffer a loss.

No... if someone is cheating, the person in the game should then exercise his right to call a judge over. The observer really has no business being involved. I would ask a Judge to remove the observer if he tried to interject in any way in my game, even if he was trying to help me.

It is a case of people saying "you should have done that..." or "why didn't you do this...", because they totally do and those remarks are unhelpful and have no place in a tourney. And "I'm pretty sure you can't do that" is also terrible because often they are wrong, and also it can be seen as helping with tactics. If I am making bad decisions to assault something that is totally going to be a flub and he says "you know your wargear doesn't work like that." I can be 'thanks! Now I will change my tactics". That is help and unfair.

The issue is the number of unhelpful and unwanted comments outnumber the possible reasonable ones. And I do not trust observers judgements that they can tell the difference between advice and disarming cheating.

TOs and Judges are smart and easily identify the people who are not good with rules and need more observing and help. You can attempt to tell judges 'who you feel is inexperienced' so they will watch them but it is pretty arrogant to assume us tourney participants need your help to save us from ourselves.

When you play in a tourney do you play your neighbors game for them too? I get mad when my opponent can't focus on OUR game and wastes time being King rule guy for everyone in a 6 foot radius.

You are the only person talking about discussing tactics during a game. Everyone else is talking about if you see someone playing the rules incorrectly then either interjecting or getting a judge to interject. If it's something small like 4 is wrecked or something silly then I don't see a reason to not "butt in."

Aus-Rotten wrote:You are the only person talking about discussing tactics during a game. Everyone else is talking about if you see someone playing the rules incorrectly then either interjecting or getting a judge to interject. If it's something small like 4 is wrecked or something silly then I don't see a reason to not "butt in."

But many supposed 'rule interpretation' butt-ins basically results in helping with tactics during a game. When do you correct the rule? before you see someone getting ready to make a mistake or after they have made the mistake and are now in the thick of it? If you do it too early, you are going to be accused of 'coaching'. All you are going to do is cause trouble and waste people's time... Especially for the people who don't know the rules right but think they are smart and then quote wrong rules.

I will agree with nkelsch that my biggest pet hate is people who think they are helping and go 'no you can't do that' and are wrong... like someone who butted in saying 'his tanks have camo netting, that gives them a 4+ coversave.' It then took me 10 minutes to explain that it didn't

i would personally interfere and make sure they know the rule.

your an observerer, its not your place to say anything. you want to play enter the tourney. interferring ina game is just plain rude. if either gamer makes a mistake thats his business.

Interfering because someone is making a decision because they don't know about a rule that will screw them over in assault and interfering because their opponent told them the wrong rule is completely different.

nkelsch wrote:

Aus-Rotten wrote:You are the only person talking about discussing tactics during a game. Everyone else is talking about if you see someone playing the rules incorrectly then either interjecting or getting a judge to interject. If it's something small like 4 is wrecked or something silly then I don't see a reason to not "butt in."

But many supposed 'rule interpretation' butt-ins basically results in helping with tactics during a game. When do you correct the rule? before you see someone getting ready to make a mistake or after they have made the mistake and are now in the thick of it? If you do it too early, you are going to be accused of 'coaching'. All you are going to do is cause trouble and waste people's time... Especially for the people who don't know the rules right but think they are smart and then quote wrong rules.

The lesson here is to be cautious and polite, and not to intrude inappropriately or offer tactical advice. It is also good to be conscious that certain types of questions or comments CAN materially help someone tactically ("what turn are you on?" "Is this unit over here dead?"), and you really need to be careful not to speak inappropriately and impact the game.

That being said, I appreciate that you've moderated your position and do acknowledge that it is sometimes appropriate to comment or offer a correction. If a the players are clearly playing a core rule wrong (examples: allowing an independent character with a jump pack to re-roll a dangerous terrain test; or not allowing a model with multiple attacks to split its attacks between multiple engaged enmy units, or multi-assaulting with a single large model), or playing a codex rule wrong (grey knight player casts Quicksilver in his opponent's turn, Ork player with Warboss attached to Snikrot's squad attempts to split them off the turn they arrive to assault different units far apart), it is better to correct them. Whether the error is accidental or one player is attempting to cheat, the tournament's integrity is damaged by the players not abiding by the rules.

Mannahnin wrote:

That being said, I appreciate that you've moderated your position and do acknowledge that it is sometimes appropriate to comment or offer a correction. If a the players are clearly playing a core rule wrong (examples: allowing an independent character with a jump pack to re-roll a dangerous terrain test; or not allowing a model with multiple attacks to split its attacks between multiple engaged enemy units, or multi-assaulting with a single large model), or playing a codex rule wrong (grey knight player casts Quicksilver in his opponent's turn, Ork player with Warboss attached to Snikrot's squad attempts to split them off the turn they arrive to assault different units far apart), it is better to correct them. Whether the error is accidental or one player is attempting to cheat, the tournament's integrity is damaged by the players not abiding by the rules.

Again... If the OBSERVER says "hey, It looks like you are going to deploy your bikerboss with Snikrot, you know he can't detach when he comes on right?" that is inappropriate coaching. It could change the deployment location, even change what the player will do with Snikrot depending on the time of the comment. The timing of the rule correct along with the rule correction itself causes issues. If I had a choice between nosey unwelcome spectators following some unenforceable code and spectators shutting the hell up 100% in tourneys, I would want the gag order.

So what happens if some nosey spectator spends all game spouting wrong rules or rule corrections which basically end up being tactical advice? Do I get a tie? re-play the game? what? In a tourney you guys speak about the integrity of the game if you let people play by wrong rules... What about interference where these nosey people impart unfair coaching or introduce wrong rules due to the attitude an observer has the right and duty to intervene in other peoples games in a tourney the person is not participating in?

Besides the fact that it is crowded enough and I don't want someone looming over our table all game, it is not as black and white as you guys say and the only way to handle such unknown is "keep your mouth closed, and if your really upset, go to the TO or Judge to 'inspect' the table." Having random people ruining games is madness and rude to players. I would say it would be a poorly run event if TOs couldn't keep spectators from interfering with games.

This is a grey area, not a 100% black and white area. If a spectator is being rude, intruding, and wasting your time, both players should have no problem asking them to butt out.

Part of the problem is that, unlike in most competitive events with reasonably complex rules, not every game is umpired (unlike when I played historical ancients games in the 80s when every tournament game did have an umpire, or at least one to every two tables, and the WRG rules were fewer and less obscure than GW ones anyway).

In my experience most people who break the rules do so unknowingly through inexperience or genuinely misremembering a rule. There are players though who deliberately exploit a new player's ignorance of the rules or any player's ignorance of a specific codex. It is unfortunate that should happen and, were I to see it happen at a tournament, I would likely say something.

This is nothing like giving tactical advice. The "hey, It looks like you are going to deploy your bikerboss with Snikrot, you know he can't detach when he comes on right?" is coaching and nobody's talking about that. An example of what I think we're talking about is your opponent deploys his bikerboss with Snikrot, and then detaches him once he's come on (ie he cheats through ignorance or wilfulness) and you don't know whether he can do that or not as you don't own the Ork codex -- and you don't challenge him either because you assume he's a good sport and knows his codex or because you don't wish to be constantly questioning everything your opponent does that you are unsure about. If I see that and no umpire is handy, what is wrong with saying 'I don't think the codex allows that, you should check.'?

That's quite different from chipping in with ill-informed rules judgements or giving tactical advice. It's an attempt to preserve the integrity of the game. Otherwise what happens when after the game (but still at the tournament) you discover your opponent has accidently or deliberately broken the rules? Shouldn't he then be disqualified? And wouldn't it be better to avoid that by having someone speak up appropriately before it comes to that? Or is it just okay to cheat so long as your opponent doesn't know you're doing so?

Artemo wrote:If I see that and no umpire is handy, what is wrong with saying 'I don't think the codex allows that, you should check.'?

1. It is not your job
2. You are not playing in the tourney so the supposed integrity of the tourney has nothing to do with you.
3. You are not running or officiating tourney so the supposed integrity of the tourney has nothing to do with you.
4. Not all 'could you check the codex?' will come to a simple, or quick or easy solution. The players are adults and have the right to not have their game interrupted and officiated over by a nobody who has no authority and no evidence that they are correct.
5. 40k allows for rule disputes to be handled by rolling a 4+ dice... Any rule resolved via a 4+ or mutual agreement becomes valid even if wrong... The rule then makes it right.
6. Spectators like you are often wrong.
7. Checking the codex or rulebook every-time the spectator feels like interjecting wastes time in an already tight timeline.
8. In the Snikrot example, before the FAQ there was no CLEAR answer to being able to ambush ICs as much as people claimed there was. Two educated players may have different opinions on how it should be played and should handle it without spectator's involvement.
9. In the Snikrot example, before the FAQ there was debate as well as common RAI on how people played detaching from units. This particular rule in applying to Snikrot would take minutes of searching and it still may not be clear to some people. It is not a common rule and would possibly take explanations od dozens of other rules to make it clear... This a spectator has no business forcing on a game, a Judge should be handling something like this with a quick FAQ or spot ruling.
10. What happens when you the all-knowing and insistant Spectator is like 'Read the FAQ dummies.' I assume you the nosey spectator have copies of the FAQ to provide to these players who could never finish a game without your help.
11. As a spectator, you might be super ignorant to the rules of the tourney and what versions of the FAQs or what some judges have ruled at other tables. You may be standing there giving totally wrong information as You are forcing INAT FAQs on players in an event that has an event FAQ, or do you ask for a rules packet and event FAQ for every event you spectate?


Or you could just butt the hell out as it is none of your business. Or if you really have to rectify a great wrong, tell a judge who can do what he wants with the information you provide.

That's quite different from chipping in with ill-informed rules judgements or giving tactical advice. It's an attempt to preserve the integrity of the game. Otherwise what happens when after the game (but still at the tournament) you discover your opponent has accidentally or deliberately broken the rules? Shouldn't he then be disqualified? And wouldn't it be better to avoid that by having someone speak up appropriately before it comes to that? Or is it just okay to cheat so long as your opponent doesn't know you're doing so?

People can't distinguish from coaching and rules debates. People can't help themselves. How do I know you are a well-informed rules player and not some 3rd edition noob who wandered into the store spouting how the game used to be played 10 years ago? What happens when you intervene in my game and in the attempt to help fix a rules dispute, you begin saying things that changes the way the game unfolds or people play because it gives them tactical advice either through your boorish ignorance or unintended help by clarifying rules? Shouldn't the game be disqualified? How does a judge handle that? There is no time to 'replay' the game without you damaging the integrity. On the other hand, if you said nothing and we followed the rules to the best of our abilities and the judges interaction, if we messed up via ignorance or cheating, the integrity of the game is sound as the rulebook allows for mutual acceptance of given rules to move forward. At any time if one of the two people wishes to disagree and not accept a ruling, they can have a judge officiate.

It works fine... If you want it to work better as a participant of the event... then learn the rules better and speak up for yourself. Events do not need spectator nosey self-appointed judges int he name of event integrity. They ruin the integrity more often then they claim to protect it.

And regardless of your supposed integrity of the game, looming over people's tables while they are playing is rude. Eavesdropping on thier conversation while they play the game is also rude. And being arrogant enough that two adults can't play a 2-player game without you saving them from themselves is also rude.

Butt out and let the TO run his event. If you don't like it, then run your own event and have a judge at every table.

Sounds very much like tournaments don't have enough Judges to check things. I'd assume with more available this would be less likely to occur.

My club is set to run a tournament and we agreed one patrolling judge would be fine for the 20 tables (the other managing the scoring system) as we assumed all players would play honestly and appropriately in the spirit of the game. Now I'm thinking this needs revising in light of this thread - so thanks everyone for this.

This is obviously quite a contenscious issue but I agree with many posters:

1. It really isn't the job of observers to 'frequently' intervene - it might be unwelcome, waste time or they might not know the rules well enough themselves. This is what the Judges are for and we should assume that all players will play openly and honestly or it will ruin the whole atmosphere of tournaments.

2. However, if as an observer you notice something that isn't correct (and you are sure) from the main rulebook then a polite 'I didn't know you could do X'... or 'Are you sure you can do that'... 'might be worth checking that' - are okay.

3. Players need to be clear that if they use army specific rules and are asked about them they can immediately locate the point in their own codex to prove it otherwise they can't do it. Owness should be on players to prove their own rules not for others to disprove them. Main rulesbook should be clear to all though as these are the rules of the main game!

4.Time wasting is a big problem in a short tourny so resolving issues where you can't find the answer with a dice roll off is the best solution at the time. Perhaps after if you find it there is nothing wrong with going back to the player and saying 'hey look I've now found it and I/you were right'.

nkelsch wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

That being said, I appreciate that you've moderated your position and do acknowledge that it is sometimes appropriate to comment or offer a correction. If a the players are clearly playing a core rule wrong (examples: allowing an independent character with a jump pack to re-roll a dangerous terrain test; or not allowing a model with multiple attacks to split its attacks between multiple engaged enemy units, or multi-assaulting with a single large model), or playing a codex rule wrong (grey knight player casts Quicksilver in his opponent's turn, Ork player with Warboss attached to Snikrot's squad attempts to split them off the turn they arrive to assault different units far apart), it is better to correct them. Whether the error is accidental or one player is attempting to cheat, the tournament's integrity is damaged by the players not abiding by the rules.

Again... If the OBSERVER says "hey, It looks like you are going to deploy your bikerboss with Snikrot, you know he can't detach when he comes on right?" that is inappropriate coaching. It could change the deployment location, even change what the player will do with Snikrot depending on the time of the comment. The timing of the rule correct along with the rule correction itself causes issues. If I had a choice between nosey unwelcome spectators following some unenforceable code and spectators shutting the hell up 100% in tourneys, I would want the gag order.

So what happens if some nosey spectator spends all game spouting wrong rules or rule corrections which basically end up being tactical advice? Do I get a tie? re-play the game? what? In a tourney you guys speak about the integrity of the game if you let people play by wrong rules... What about interference where these nosey people impart unfair coaching or introduce wrong rules due to the attitude an observer has the right and duty to intervene in other peoples games in a tourney the person is not participating in?

Besides the fact that it is crowded enough and I don't want someone looming over our table all game, it is not as black and white as you guys say and the only way to handle such unknown is "keep your mouth closed, and if your really upset, go to the TO or Judge to 'inspect' the table." Having random people ruining games is madness and rude to players. I would say it would be a poorly run event if TOs couldn't keep spectators from interfering with games.

I really don't understand why your so against people pointing out a rule that is totally wrong.

Just because you think you get all your rules correct and feels no need for others to butt in because they are normally wrong does not mean people can't butt in if some new player is being cheated on rules that would break his army in turn 1. Also you think people are going to butt in with wrong rules.

We are discussing if you know a rule that is wrong and have 100% proof in a form of a rulebook or FAQ then should you point it out to the people playing.

I say yes because if they are getting rulebook rules wrong then they need to be coached, if they are getting FAQ rules wrong they need to be informed.

If someone says something stupid you can easily get rid of him in a few seconds. If someone actully pointed out something useful then both players should be happy unless they are cheaters.

I think this shows that the tournement should post something at the entrances with how they want the situation handled. So that the observers know what is expected or allowed in this particular instance.
My personal feeling is that if you see rules being broken then you should find an official and tell him the wheres and whys and let him decided how to handle it.

Norsehawk wrote:I was at my local store recently watching some of the games for a RTT and I was noticing several mistakes during play and during several of the games that I was spotting as they were pretty obvious, some were really game changing, some had the potential to be, a few examples:

A single (as they always are) dreadknight firing gatling psilencer at a squad of guardsmen and then multi assaulting them, and their chimera, and then 'auto penning' without rolling using the Nemesis Greatsword (which yes, as long as you roll over a 4 on 2d6, you do penetrate with a reroll if you miss) and going directly to the damage chart.

Space Wolf army facing chaos terminators who are inches away from the wolf lines disembarking from their rhinos, rapid firing bolters, firing meltas, and then assaulting (which led to an oh poo moment when someone else asked "you rapid fired their bolters?" and undid the assault moves

In the above situations, do you inform a judge as to what is going on? mention to the player who is breaking the rules that they may have missed the FAQ on that issue, or let it go? I don't want to be TFG, but I also don't want to see people getting robbed out of a fair game.

All bystanders should shut up and butt the hell out unless one of the players asks them. They are, after all, merely bystanders and utterly irrelevant to anything. If a bystander jumped onto a football field to question one of the team's he'd be eaten.

If I'm playing in a tournament and someone starts interjecting themselves I'd ask if they were a judge. If they said no i'd tell them to off or I'll hurt them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:You guys think the two people playing at these tables are brain dead monkeys who never played the game before and apparently it is so common that only the wise casual observer can maintain the integrity of the tourney from collapsing under the incompetence of its participants.

Sorry... your opinions, rule interpretations and tactics are totally unwelcome and have no place in a tourney, and I believe that the occasional rule correction that may be correct doesn't justify the interruption or all the other horrible unwelcome interjections from observers. The fact many rules have multiple unclear interpretations, the only people who should decide rules are me and my opponent. I don't need or want some observer chiming in in any capacity.

I find it also unreasonable that if someone is telling you to butt out that you as the observer intervene as 'You are a cheater!!! JUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDGE!'. You have no place in that game. If you do feel that a great moral injustice is happening, tell a judge and let them handle it.

Do some of you guys really just go to tourneys so you can walk around and play judge? I have seen judges ask observers to shut up and leave for bothering players. Most tourneys barley have enough room for people to play let alone room for observers to stand close enough to watch what we are doing and follow our conversation. With a game on either side of me with a long table, I suspect this observer will be blocking my space and interfering with my ability to play by simply STANDING around in some gaming events.

Observers more often than not are nuisances...

indeed, in any other sport or game, you'd get your head handed to your for interjecting in a game.

Actually at many sporting events the audience are vociferous in pointing out what they think to be foul play so that's a rather poor analogy. Doubly so because there is actually one or more officials refereeing, not one bloke running about adjudicting several games at once.

Artemo wrote:Actually at many sporting events the audience are vociferous in pointing out what they think to be foul play so that's a rather poor analogy. Doubly so because there is actually one or more officials refereeing, not one bloke running about adjudicting several games at once.

they may be vocal, but they arent listened too, and more often than not seen as interferance. Tennis and snooker for example : told to stfu, football, you could be asked to leave. Never once has a ref turned around and said - wow you got a point there... cheers. the more initmate the game the quieter the audience is expected to be.

in professional sports every player knows all the rules exceptionally well, and there are penalties for breaking the rules. there are professional judges/refs that get paid alot of money to watch the game, and to know the rules.

so comparing 40k to a sport is not a valid analogy as there are players that might be considered professional, playing against someone that started yesterday. and there are no penalties for a rules violation, so for example you failed to properly execute this rule so you lose 25 points of figures.

I personally was at the GT a few years ago with a friend who was new to the game, and i watched the end of 3 of his games. in all 3 of the games i could tell a more experienced player was taking advantage of him and i sat and made sure the rules were followed. so it both worked at teaching my friend the rules, and kept the other player from steam rolling him. like "forgotten" psychic tests, "forgotten" morale test and the list goes on. but i also made sure he was following the rules also so i pointed out his mostakes also.

allowing obvious rules "violations" (differing from rules disputes) to go at the very least not pointed out is a problem, because either one person is cheating, or both people dont know the rules and should be given the opportunity to learn them.

coaching is also different than the above, and should never occur in a tournament. why dony you use this, move here shoot that...

There was an example just yesterday in international cricket of crowd pressure influencing decisions of umpires and players, actually. And that's happened before too. I've never met anyone who's been asked to leave a football match because they were shouting comments to the ref, such behaviour is fairly normal. And I agree in events where silence is called for, then different standards apply (and there are always judges in close attendance anyway). I wasn't aware that GW games were in that category.

Troy wrote:

If I'm playing in a tournament and someone starts interjecting themselves I'd ask if they were a judge. If they said no i'd tell them to off or I'll hurt them.


indeed, in any other sport or game, you'd get your head handed to your for interjecting in a game.

So Troy, it sounds like you are of the school that says "Anything I can get away with is fair, and if someone other than a judge catches me, I will injure them?" That sort of play is why I don't normally play tournaments, too many people with the I've got to win at all costs, fair play, the rules, and if someone calls me on my cheating, I will them up.

The thing that drew me to watch for about 3 minutes at the GK vs. IG table was that someone came and told me that when I was in the painting room that a Dreadknight was destroying an entire guard army almost by itself, so I had to go take a peek, since they weren't doing that well for me. While I will admit the guard player was making newbie mistakes (not moving his tanks at all) the GK player was making so many rules errors in his favor that it was absurd. As I said in the initial post that caused me to ask this question in the first place, in less than 3 minutes, I saw: The GK player shooting guardsmen, then assaulting their tank that they got out of by 'multi assaulting' which is not possible to do with a single model. Then hitting at str 10 monstrous creature attacks because he was wielding a Sword and a fist, which was cleared up in the faq that since the knight was not a dreadnaught that it doesn't get the doubling of the strength from the fist. Now, odds are, that yes, the knight would shred vehicles, especially if they didn't move, but really, he should have been rolling to penetrate anyway, I mean rolling over a 5 on 2d6 to get a pen with a reroll isn't hard.

That said, while I didn't tell the judge, others were watching, and the guy disappeared before the last game of the day.

I'd hate to come up against some of you in a tournament. It sounds like you're basically saying that if I don't know your codex inside and out that it's my fault and I deserve to be cheated.

So for that reason, feel free to tell me whenever you spot any one bending or breaking the rules to suit their army please.

No one has said anything of the coaching sort "Hey buddy, don't stick your predator tank there, stick it here" kind of thing.

They've said it'd be for clarifications like "umm that long fang squad can split fire for two targets only, not one for each long fang".

Yes you can argue that the top players should know each and every Codex and units, some people just like playing their army as best they can and have to rely on trusting their opponent to know their own Codex while knowing their own inside and out.

Norsehawk wrote:

Troy wrote:

If I'm playing in a tournament and someone starts interjecting themselves I'd ask if they were a judge. If they said no i'd tell them to off or I'll hurt them.


indeed, in any other sport or game, you'd get your head handed to your for interjecting in a game.

So Troy, it sounds like you are of the school that says "Anything I can get away with is fair, and if someone other than a judge catches me, I will injure them?" That sort of play is why I don't normally play tournaments, too many people with the I've got to win at all costs, fair play, the rules, and if someone calls me on my cheating, I will them up.

The thing that drew me to watch for about 3 minutes at the GK vs. IG table was that someone came and told me that when I was in the painting room that a Dreadknight was destroying an entire guard army almost by itself, so I had to go take a peek, since they weren't doing that well for me. While I will admit the guard player was making newbie mistakes (not moving his tanks at all) the GK player was making so many rules errors in his favor that it was absurd. As I said in the initial post that caused me to ask this question in the first place, in less than 3 minutes, I saw: The GK player shooting guardsmen, then assaulting their tank that they got out of by 'multi assaulting' which is not possible to do with a single model. Then hitting at str 10 monstrous creature attacks because he was wielding a Sword and a fist, which was cleared up in the faq that since the knight was not a dreadnaught that it doesn't get the doubling of the strength from the fist. Now, odds are, that yes, the knight would shred vehicles, especially if they didn't move, but really, he should have been rolling to penetrate anyway, I mean rolling over a 5 on 2d6 to get a pen with a reroll isn't hard.

That said, while I didn't tell the judge, others were watching, and the guy disappeared before the last game of the day.

It sounds like you are of the school that draws false conclusions and then runs with them screaming into a ditch of false accusations.

I meant exactly what I said. Bystanders have no place to make comments. If they think there is cheating they can get a judge. Otherwise they can shut the up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kijamon wrote:I'd hate to come up against some of you in a tournament. It sounds like you're basically saying that if I don't know your codex inside and out that it's my fault and I deserve to be cheated.

Not at all. We're saying Joe blow walking by accusing you of cheating is not acceptable.

lixulana wrote:

I personally was at the GT a few years ago with a friend who was new to the game, and i watched the end of 3 of his games. in all 3 of the games i could tell a more experienced player was taking advantage of him and i sat and made sure the rules were followed. so it both worked at teaching my friend the rules, and kept the other player from steam rolling him. like "forgotten" psychic tests, "forgotten" morale test and the list goes on. but i also made sure he was following the rules also so i pointed out his mostakes also.

allowing obvious rules "violations" (differing from rules disputes) to go at the very least not pointed out is a problem, because either one person is cheating, or both people dont know the rules and should be given the opportunity to learn them.

coaching is also different than the above, and should never occur in a tournament. why dony you use this, move here shoot that...

This is exactly coaching. If you squatted on his game and basically helped him play his army for him, you coached him. Being someone to tell him how the rules of the game worked so he could make decisions off your information is coaching. Not to mention if you are only there to coach one side of a table and are not even attempting to be impartial. A tourney is not an appropriate place to be 'learning' the rules. If you are telling him rules, during a tourney, he is 'learning' and that is 'coaching'. What you should have done is *YOU* enter the event... *YOU* play the games and let him watch. He can then learn while he watches you play. THAT is the correct way of handling this situation. Not unfairly coaching him through his games.

And you guys say 'obvious' but the examples in this thread are rule disputes that have often been grey areas. What is obvious to you, the arrogant nosey interloper who knows the rules better than the person who wrote it may not be as obvious or as clear to interpret as threads in YMTC show.

In this example, you should have told a judge about your friends inexperience. And the judge could either watch over his games or let him get eaten by the meatgrinder. It was on him to save himself by asking for rule verification, not for you to loom over his game and play half of it for him.

This shows the lack of poor judgement by observers and how they are basically trying to justify their unfair interference. For every person who could possibly give unbiased fair advice to clear up obvious disputes, there are dozens of uninformed, rude, coaching interlopers who may not even be giving correct information and are totally overstepping their bounds. The only valid way to protect games from the bad spectators is to ban all spectators from interfering.

I'd have to go with the "it isn't your place to say anything as an observer crowd". RTTs aren't the place for those who don't know the rules to learn them. With time limits per round, looking up every little question will lead to 2 turn games. Learn the rules by playing at your LGS beforehand. As an observer if you see something wrong get with the TO or a judge and let him correct the mistake.

As someone who does play at a local club this isn't always enough to know everything about every army type. At my club certain armies are very popular and some are never seen i.e. no-one plays Tau, Necrons, Demons, GK, Orks or really Dark Eldar that much. Therefore my knowledge of these armies and there codexes is quite limited - a recent tournament near thrashing from Tau proved this point.

Clearly it is best/desirable to know about every army build and the ins and outs of their respective codexes but this isn't always that easy for everyone. What seems to be the problem is that different people enter tournaments for different reasons:

Player 1 - the Win at all costs player who wants the status and rank of winning. This player will not readily want nor accept third party intrusions, and nor should they. We all know these players as they often bring the spam list you'd never want to see a t a normal club gaming evening. (Sounds like we have a few in this thread)

Player 2 - the Semi-regular tournament player who enjoys the challenge of new players and the competitive element but who isn't too worried about losing some games. These players are generally a mixed bag, in my opinion. Ranging from those who are happy to accept any third party intervention to those who, like player 1, are not happy to have any input from outside the game.

Player 3 - the new to gaming and quite naive to the rules who want to play new people and learn more about the game. Whilst these are okay at tournaments they are probably best learning more at a club before going. Just my opinion.

It is when people from these different groups mix that problems arise. How to deal with this is the million dollar question!

Perhaps player 3 types are best not to enter until they can call themselves player 2 or 1s. Player 2 and 1s maybe should agree before hand whether they want any third party involvement from bystanders and display this on the table i.e. You are welcome to watch but keep your opinions/comments to yourself. We don't want any interference.' This stops un-wanted interference but still allows players the option of asking for an offical Judge to arbitrate if they are in dispute.

If I spot someone doing something that blatantly violates the rules, intentional or not, you can bet your sweet behind that I'm going to point it out in a polite manner. If said person tells me to butt out, I will. As some people have pointed out, "it's not my business", but since I'm not a completely selfish prick I don't give a damn, I'm just trying to be helpful. "Treat others the way you want to be treated", and all that...

I also can't see how pointing out that you can't, for example, multi-assault with a single model could be considered "coaching" If you do it during the movement or shooting phase then sure, but if you do it during assault movement then what's the harm?