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.

Kdash wrote:
Alex is going to carry that stigma for years, and the internet is just a great way to keep reminding people about it all, I guess.

No doubt but claiming there was more suspicious just for past actions seems bit too harsh. Having extra monitorin for him sure. But was there even anything actual shady in THIS tournament from him to warrant such a claim? If he was scrutinised by everybody surely at least some hint of such would have come if he's accused of suspicious activity.

Woah woah woah guys, for his acts in previous events? This Alex Harrison guy totally screwed over Skari. Read his post on Reddit. Collected missed dice as hits and bullied Skari off the board.

So this guy placed well, after pulling this?

Woah woah woah guys, for his acts in previous events? This Alex Harrison guy totally screwed over Skari. Read his post on Reddit. Collected missed dice as hits and bullied Skari off the board.

That seems a bit strange to even let such players play.

elook wrote:
Woah woah woah guys, for his acts in previous events? This Alex Harrison guy totally screwed over Skari. Read his post on Reddit. Collected missed dice as hits and bullied Skari off the board.

Well that's why I asked was there anything else in that reddit post because from what I read from that thread only references to Alex were "he was that guy from last London GT" and same for the 3rd guy.

But then didn't get anything else to my reply.

 Peregrine wrote:
Does the defense of his behavior as "not shady" account for the fact that he refused to let his opponent take back a mistake earlier in the game but then threw a fit over not being allowed to take back his mistake? That's a texbook example of a TFG player trying to bend the rules in their favor.

That and his apparent poor impulse control and anger management are the real issue here. That behaviour should IMO result in an immediate forfeiture of that particular game at the very least (personally I'd say expulsion from the event and the venue should have been the punishment, regardless of whether he made a mistake or deliberately cheated. If you can't behave like a civilised adult, then no-one else should be forced to suffer your antics.

Speaking as someone who owns a Castellan and has been playing that rule wrong since the codex came out (as in, I didn't find out about it until reading this thread):
If I made that mistake or a similar error in a paid-entry tournament with prizes, and didn't find out until a couple games in, I would request to have all my wins posthumously changed to losses.

If I found out, say, game one turn one, after advancing and spending the Command Points on a Stratagem I couldn't use, I'd eat the command points, not fire my weapons, and keep playing.

When at a competitive event with prizes on the line, getting the rules wrong in your advantage isn't acceptable.

(This goes for other types of cheating mentioned, too. If I get two units mixed up or forget to nominate them, I'll let my opponent decide which is which.)

Waaaghpower wrote:
Speaking as someone who owns a Castellan and has been playing that rule wrong since the codex came out (as in, I didn't find out about it until reading this thread):
If I made that mistake or a similar error in a paid-entry tournament with prizes, and didn't find out until a couple games in, I would request to have all my wins posthumously changed to losses.

If I found out, say, game one turn one, after advancing and spending the Command Points on a Stratagem I couldn't use, I'd eat the command points, not fire my weapons, and keep playing.

When at a competitive event with prizes on the line, getting the rules wrong in your advantage isn't acceptable.

Shame that not many people would do so.

tneva82 wrote:

elook wrote:
Woah woah woah guys, for his acts in previous events? This Alex Harrison guy totally screwed over Skari. Read his post on Reddit. Collected missed dice as hits and bullied Skari off the board.

Well that's why I asked was there anything else in that reddit post because from what I read from that thread only references to Alex were "he was that guy from last London GT" and same for the 3rd guy.

But then didn't get anything else to my reply.

Read the Game 3 paragraph buddy
https://www.reddit.com/r/Drukhari/comments/appvvi/quick_lvo_recap_at_the_vegas_airport_waiting_for/

Not Online!!! wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
Speaking as someone who owns a Castellan and has been playing that rule wrong since the codex came out (as in, I didn't find out about it until reading this thread):
If I made that mistake or a similar error in a paid-entry tournament with prizes, and didn't find out until a couple games in, I would request to have all my wins posthumously changed to losses.

If I found out, say, game one turn one, after advancing and spending the Command Points on a Stratagem I couldn't use, I'd eat the command points, not fire my weapons, and keep playing.

When at a competitive event with prizes on the line, getting the rules wrong in your advantage isn't acceptable.

Shame that not many people would do so.

I get a bit of a reputation for being a rules stickler with my friends, but it usually comes down to "I want to play the game the way it's designed to be played" combined with "I don't want to win unless I've earned it". Winning is fun, but it's only fun because you overcame a challenge. I don't mind when other players make mistakes, especially in casual games, and if we're not at a prized tournament I always let my opponents go back and fix stuff they've done wrong unless it's impractical to do so. But for my army, especially when my opponent has paid for the privilege to be at a tournament, I'm not going to rob them of a fair game or a shot at the top prize if I can help it.

So, that reddit thread really is just an Alex vs Skari + reddit. Something obviously must have happened for Skari to make the post, but there are some many opinions put out as facts from all quarters it’s hard to put forward a neutral informed view.

I must admit I hadn’t seen that conversation before today.

I’m kinda confused about the whole Jinx issue with Brandon’s Bullgryn. I didn’t see the game as I fell asleep, but was it first turn as Alex suggests it was? And, Jinx does reduce the saving throw by 1, so any 4’s would become 3’s etc. If it wasn’t first turn and Barrier was up, then I guess they just negate each other. Likewise, with the +1 to save from cover negating Jinx’s effects on the armour saves. Without cover or barrier, vs Jinx, the Bullgryn would always have a 3+ save on the slab shields and a 5++ on the brute shields. If in cover, it’d have been a 2+ on the slabs and a 4+/5++ on the brutes. Cover and Barrier would have been 1+ & 3+/4++.
I’m guessing I’m missing something here, otherwise, it seems like a pretty straight forward interaction to me?

I don’t suppose anyone can independently confirm whether or not Alex actually got any yellow cards at the event? Does FLG publish these things now they have their new system up and running?

Picking up hits vs picking up misses is, and always will be contentious. I wonder what’d have happened if Alex was requested to pick up the misses instead. I think this could prob do with being added into the Code of Conduct as a suggestion for all players to follow, along with clearing dice from the “rolling area” before making the next rolls.

I can see how Alex constantly making comments like “lets see if it explodes” even in a joking way, before you have a chance to say anything yourself, would get very annoying. The only people that know how that back and forth went were the 2 players and the judge that showed up pretty early on (by the sounds of it). Everything else is just pointless speculation.

Bullying is always unacceptable, regardless of the form it takes.

Right now, all we can do is hope FLG have taken note and take action based on the actual evidence and any first-hand accounts they have. (however, I’m not expecting a great deal…)

If someone with the reputation of Alex is picking up hits instead of misses then he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, he was trying to cheat.

 Ordana wrote:
If someone with the reputation of Alex is picking up hits instead of misses then he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, he was trying to cheat.

Exactly. He also seems amusingly unaware of how much worse he looks when he comes in to defend himself. On a more serious note, if you've got people claiming that not only was he cheating, but also involved in behaviour that came across as bullying that's something that needs to be dealt with very severely if shown to be true, though unfortunately it's very difficult to prove. Kind of telling as well that LVO didn't want ot put the game on stream because of the player involved. If you're that worried about a player's behaviour in the first place why is he at your event?

I had hoped we'd seen an end to these types of behaviours at big tournaments and I'm a little surprised a guy who was shouting and screaming about a ruling wasn't ejected from the event on the spot. Even if it wasn't directed at a judge, that's the sort of behaviour I'd except from an entitled 12-year old, not a grown adult and, again, TOs need to be seen to be dealing with that sort of thing appropriately.

Alex earned his rep. Now he has to work to un-earn it. He needs to be followed and watched by a dedicated TO, and none of his games can get press. I think that was his situation here? Did they include anything else stricter?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Alex earned his rep. Now he has to work to un-earn it. He needs to be followed and watched by a dedicated TO, and none of his games can get press. I think that was his situation here? Did they include anything else stricter?

According to Skari's comments in the linked Reddit post there wasn't a judge permanently stationed at the table until turn 3, so there wasn't constant judge/TO scrutiny, no.

I disagree with the idea any player should be monitored that closely at an event anyway. If you have a player who is so untrusted by the organisers they feel the need to station a judge at their table for each and every game just ban them. It's not worth the hassle. Having reflected on something Skari mentions in his Reddit post I think there's an important factor to consider for the TOs here that may have been overlooked. Skari commented he was already a bit upset that the game was supposed to be streamed but when the organisers realised who his opponent was they decided against streaming it. Assuming that's true, you've got a player who is being affected by the poor reputation of their opponent, missing out on the opportunity to play on stream and get some limited edition dice, all through no fault of their own. Doesn't seem so fair to allow that one bad opponent to spoil things like that for others, does it?

Slipspace wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Alex earned his rep. Now he has to work to un-earn it. He needs to be followed and watched by a dedicated TO, and none of his games can get press. I think that was his situation here? Did they include anything else stricter?

According to Skari's comments in the linked Reddit post there wasn't a judge permanently stationed at the table until turn 3, so there wasn't constant judge/TO scrutiny, no.

I disagree with the idea any player should be monitored that closely at an event anyway. If you have a player who is so untrusted by the organisers they feel the need to station a judge at their table for each and every game just ban them. It's not worth the hassle. Having reflected on something Skari mentions in his Reddit post I think there's an important factor to consider for the TOs here that may have been overlooked. Skari commented he was already a bit upset that the game was supposed to be streamed but when the organisers realised who his opponent was they decided against streaming it. Assuming that's true, you've got a player who is being affected by the poor reputation of their opponent, missing out on the opportunity to play on stream and get some limited edition dice, all through no fault of their own. Doesn't seem so fair to allow that one bad opponent to spoil things like that for others, does it?

I was watching the stream I seem to remember them saying Alex didn't want his games to be streamed. And I think its only natural and fair to ask both players if they want to be on stream before putting them infront of a camera.
(The final is the final and I don't think players had a choice to be on stream there)

Which is a very different situation compared to organisers not wanting Alex to be on stream.

Honestly, I say kudos for somebody finally taking a stand against this instead of just ignoring it like ITC tends to do.

Name and shame these scumbags. Ban them. Make people know that they are bad for the hobby and, if possible, push them out. They don't belong here. Not that I think this game even remotely belongs as a competitive one, but until cheaters get dealt with harshly it will never be taken seriously.

 Ordana wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Alex earned his rep. Now he has to work to un-earn it. He needs to be followed and watched by a dedicated TO, and none of his games can get press. I think that was his situation here? Did they include anything else stricter?

According to Skari's comments in the linked Reddit post there wasn't a judge permanently stationed at the table until turn 3, so there wasn't constant judge/TO scrutiny, no.

I disagree with the idea any player should be monitored that closely at an event anyway. If you have a player who is so untrusted by the organisers they feel the need to station a judge at their table for each and every game just ban them. It's not worth the hassle. Having reflected on something Skari mentions in his Reddit post I think there's an important factor to consider for the TOs here that may have been overlooked. Skari commented he was already a bit upset that the game was supposed to be streamed but when the organisers realised who his opponent was they decided against streaming it. Assuming that's true, you've got a player who is being affected by the poor reputation of their opponent, missing out on the opportunity to play on stream and get some limited edition dice, all through no fault of their own. Doesn't seem so fair to allow that one bad opponent to spoil things like that for others, does it?

I was watching the stream I seem to remember them saying Alex didn't want his games to be streamed. And I think its only natural and fair to ask both players if they want to be on stream before putting them infront of a camera.
(The final is the final and I don't think players had a choice to be on stream there)

Which is a very different situation compared to organisers not wanting Alex to be on stream.

Fair enough, that lines up with the account from Skari, even if the reasoning wasn't 100% correct.

Slipspace wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Alex earned his rep. Now he has to work to un-earn it. He needs to be followed and watched by a dedicated TO, and none of his games can get press. I think that was his situation here? Did they include anything else stricter?

According to Skari's comments in the linked Reddit post there wasn't a judge permanently stationed at the table until turn 3, so there wasn't constant judge/TO scrutiny, no.

I disagree with the idea any player should be monitored that closely at an event anyway. If you have a player who is so untrusted by the organisers they feel the need to station a judge at their table for each and every game just ban them. It's not worth the hassle. Having reflected on something Skari mentions in his Reddit post I think there's an important factor to consider for the TOs here that may have been overlooked. Skari commented he was already a bit upset that the game was supposed to be streamed but when the organisers realised who his opponent was they decided against streaming it. Assuming that's true, you've got a player who is being affected by the poor reputation of their opponent, missing out on the opportunity to play on stream and get some limited edition dice, all through no fault of their own. Doesn't seem so fair to allow that one bad opponent to spoil things like that for others, does it?

If a TO was stationed at each of the top 8 tables, and final 4, and so on, it would seriously cut down on these "judgement mistakes". It is too prevalent a problem, and far too easy a solution. 1 "mistake" issue in the top 8 is too many. It's why you don't see these sort of "mistakes" in other professional events. You don't see chess players moving rooks diagonally, or tennis players accidentally catching balls out of the air. If you are a top competitor in your given field/hobby/sport, you don't make these "mistakes".

One bad opponent having the game watched by a TO would make the match as fair as possible, and remove the fear of cheating. How is that spoiling things???

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


If a TO was stationed at each of the top 8 tables, and final 4, and so on, it would seriously cut down on these "judgement mistakes". It is too prevalent a problem, and far too easy a solution. 1 "mistake" issue in the top 8 is too many. It's why you don't see these sort of "mistakes" in other professional events. You don't see chess players moving rooks diagonally, or tennis players accidentally catching balls out of the air. If you are a top competitor in your given field/hobby/sport, you don't make these "mistakes".

One bad opponent having the game watched by a TO would make the match as fair as possible, and remove the fear of cheating. How is that spoiling things???

The "spoiling things" quote was in relation to Skari not getting to be on stream, not in relation to having a judge at the table. It seems there may have been a slightly different reason for not being on stream anyway. I have no problem with judges at the top tables as a matter of routine. Judges are a limited resource but putting them on the top tables sounds like a good idea all round. What I'm not in favour of is singling out one individual to have permanent judge presence at their table due to their reputation and regardless of their position in the tournament. At that point you might as well just ban that individual.

So the Code of Conduct didn't matter in this event?

If the actions to be believed

Player A says no to a take back for Player B...
Player A makes a mistake and Player B says rightly NO to a take back.
Player A acts in an anti-sport manner (at this point I think this is intentional cheating due to the behaviour alone).
-E.g. it looks to be someone using any trick in the book to win games rather than relying on their skill. An "Unintentionally" forgetting how your rules work on a top table.
Judge should have taken a more harsh action and not refund any cp, an mby more serious actions in the CodeC.
I from a ygo TCG context an breaking the sequence of events is really game breaking.
TLDR: You would be instantly DQ'd in a ygo event if you behaved like this LUL.

I'm going to give the judge a pass. Losing a shooting phase from the Castellan is most likely good enough. No need to double down on taking the 3 CP. And I'd be fine with that if I was the opponent. I have my own sportmanship to maintain as well.

Regarding the Alex Harrison game in the final, wasn't there a bit of controversy where he moved like half his supersonic fliers and then starting going back to the ones he already moved and altering their positions?

I can be somewhat malleable if it's normal unit you're doing that to since it doesn't matter all that much IMO but supersonics have really restrictive rules for moving (even though not as much for the space elves) so if you noticed mistakes after you put it down and finished moving several other planes then tough luck.

Generally speaking, I think it's fine and the correct response to refund the CP if it wasn't something you could have done in the first place e.g. use a stratagem that you wouldn't have been able to use (such as one used at the start of the movement phase at the end of the movement phase by "mistake")

ThatMG wrote:
So the Code of Conduct didn't matter in this event?

If the actions to be believed

Player A says no to a take back for Player B...
Player A makes a mistake and Player B says rightly NO to a take back.
Player A acts in an anti-sport manner (at this point I think this is intentional cheating due to the behaviour alone).
-E.g. it looks to be someone using any trick in the book to win games rather than relying on their skill. An "Unintentionally" forgetting how your rules work on a top table.
Judge should have taken a more harsh action and not refund any cp, an mby more serious actions in the CodeC.
I from a ygo TCG context an breaking the sequence of events is really game breaking.
TLDR: You would be instantly DQ'd in a ygo event if you behaved like this LUL.

They had said multiple times that such behavior will not be tolerated, especially arguing with judges. Yet, this player did not receive red card and even get CP refund. About Harrison without video we don`t have evidence, i guess most top players are not easy to play against.
I believed he was monitored every game, since he have such reputation, but i guess they did not manage to do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Generally speaking, I think it's fine and the correct response to refund the CP if it wasn't something you could have done in the first place e.g. use a stratagem that you wouldn't have been able to use (such as one used at the start of the movement phase at the end of the movement phase by "mistake")

You are wrong, he could have used the strat with adv weapons. Is that good no, is it legal yes.

With all the talk about trying to legitimize tournaments and make them some kind of esport, I'd say if you want to be taken seriously you absolutely need to blacklist people proven to be cheaters and that blacklist should be a public viewable file.

Same as in real sports when you get caught doping and you end up on the front page for it.

Marin wrote:


You are wrong, he could have used the strat with adv weapons. Is that good no, is it legal yes.

I agree, but the trick is to be nice. I mean, Alex shouldn't have asked. Have some pride man and accept your play. But the desire is to beat him at his best, not his worse.

auticus wrote:
With all the talk about trying to legitimize tournaments and make them some kind of esport, I'd say if you want to be taken seriously you absolutely need to blacklist people proven to be cheaters and that blacklist should be a public viewable file.

Same as in real sports when you get caught doping and you end up on the front page for it.

Sports are *replete* with people cheating and getting away with it. Let's not act like regular sports are something to look up to.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

auticus wrote:
With all the talk about trying to legitimize tournaments and make them some kind of esport, I'd say if you want to be taken seriously you absolutely need to blacklist people proven to be cheaters and that blacklist should be a public viewable file.

Same as in real sports when you get caught doping and you end up on the front page for it.

Sports are *replete* with people cheating and getting away with it. Let's not act like regular sports are something to look up to.

Besides, the comparison doesn't work. Most sports have multiple refs and judges watching the action.... and still getting it wrong.

And if anyone thinks there is no cheating in chess - they're dead wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_chess

I just hope the LVO goes out with a statement that carries general statistics of the event, amonst those stats how many yellow cards were handed out. I don't think they need to name those people, at least not if they only got a single card since those could be given for not uploading you list on time IIRC. I don't think we need to publicly shame people for that but a breakdown of how many cards were handed out at the event alongside a breakdown for what they were given for would be illuminating.

If someone was banned (I don't think that happened here) then there should be a statement as to why the player was banned. It easily becomes a situation where that person is heavily publicly shamed which isn't great (there should be reprecussions but online bullying might damage that persons psyche, which is a bridge too far IMO). But at the same time the players deserve to know if the person they're playing has a history of cheating.