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.

Tony, captain of Team Happy, here to address the issues from this year’s ATC and formally suggest a competitive tournament code of conduct. First, I want to apologize for my team’s shortcomings. We did accidentally use a plasma pistol that was not included in the army list. We did have a heated conversation during a contentious game. We did have several converted models that had not been approved before the event.

Several other top teams also had similar issues at the ATC. As captain of Team Happy I am ultimately responsible for my team’s conduct and again admit that we were a part of this group. I did not protest our punishment, even as it changed in response to petitions and lobbying from other teams. Our only request to the T.O.s of ATC is that we be treated fairly and in line with the other teams and that they do not give in to the targeted efforts of this very small group of toxic individuals.

To show our commitment to moving the community in a positive direction, we are suggesting the following rules of conduct are put in place by T.O.s across the competitive landscape for all events. Most importantly, we urge that that they are applied evenly and consistently across all participants, and not used as a tool of intimidation by those who have a louder voice or a larger platform.

1. If a list is found to be over the allotted number of points, the participant receives an automatic disqualification.

2. If a participant is found to be using an unapproved conversion, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.

3. If a participant is found to be using a non WYSIWYG model, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.

These rules represent the start of a more comprehensive list. We also recommend that an affidavit of completion/validity is added to the score sheet and that both players are required to sign verifying that the game was played fairly and that the results are valid.

Team Happy feels that the tournament scene and the hobby are better off with a clearly and evenly applied set of rules. We are committed to the above rules moving forward and will do our best to bring the competitive scene out of the dark place that it has been dragged to.

We hope that T.O.s across the country incorporate these suggestions into their tournament packets so that all participants can have confidence that they will be treated fairly. I am committed to personally embodying these ideals moving forward.

How about you and your happy team just quietly sit and do some personal reflection on how to be better people with less character flaws. ITC will and has taken the mantle on this without the need for your input; i'm sure. Thanks, now you especially should do well to just be quiet and let this fade some after LVO and now ATC.

 quickfuze wrote:
How about you and your happy team just quietly sit and do some personal reflection on how to be better people with less character flaws. ITC will and has taken the mantle on this without the need for your input; i'm sure. Thanks, now you especially should do well to just be quiet and let this fade some after LVO and now ATC.

They have actually, and it's currently a point of discussion in the ITC Tournament Organizers page.

So I guess we could say thank you, Team Happy. Your misconduct has finally forced this issue to be dealt with.

I'm not certain I trust Team Happy to lead this discussion - they've already been so oriented to gaming the system I'd instinctively distrust anything they attach their name to.

GW used to have the equivalent of PP's 'Page 5':



Could serve as a launching point. I agree there needs to be a sliding scale of penalties but TOs should be able to boot someone if they are a toxic presence.

HappyTony wrote:
Tony, captain of Team Happy, here to address the issues from this year’s ATC and formally suggest a competitive tournament code of conduct. First, I want to apologize for my team’s shortcomings. We did accidentally use a plasma pistol that was not included in the army list. We did have a heated conversation during a contentious game. We did have several converted models that had not been approved before the event.

Several other top teams also had similar issues at the ATC. As captain of Team Happy I am ultimately responsible for my team’s conduct and again admit that we were a part of this group. I did not protest our punishment, even as it changed in response to petitions and lobbying from other teams. Our only request to the T.O.s of ATC is that we be treated fairly and in line with the other teams and that they do not give in to the targeted efforts of this very small group of toxic individuals.

To show our commitment to moving the community in a positive direction, we are suggesting the following rules of conduct are put in place by T.O.s across the competitive landscape for all events. Most importantly, we urge that that they are applied evenly and consistently across all participants, and not used as a tool of intimidation by those who have a louder voice or a larger platform.

1. If a list is found to be over the allotted number of points, the participant receives an automatic disqualification.

2. If a participant is found to be using an unapproved conversion, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.

3. If a participant is found to be using a non WYSIWYG model, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.

These rules represent the start of a more comprehensive list. We also recommend that an affidavit of completion/validity is added to the score sheet and that both players are required to sign verifying that the game was played fairly and that the results are valid.

Team Happy feels that the tournament scene and the hobby are better off with a clearly and evenly applied set of rules. We are committed to the above rules moving forward and will do our best to bring the competitive scene out of the dark place that it has been dragged to.

We hope that T.O.s across the country incorporate these suggestions into their tournament packets so that all participants can have confidence that they will be treated fairly. I am committed to personally embodying these ideals moving forward.

Well said Tony, it takes a brave person to come forward and admit your flaws. I agree with your suggestions and hope that TO's adopt them. Don't let the toxic elements of this community hold you down.

If you've got a complaint, don't make it in an insulting and inflammatory way. Rule #1.

- Lorek

Whether this is legit or trolling the conspicuous absence of anything addressing slow play concerns was good for a laugh. We would certainly not want to remove everything in the toolbox.

HappyTony wrote:


1. If a list is found to be over the allotted number of points, the participant receives an automatic disqualification.

2. If a participant is found to be using an unapproved conversion, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.

3. If a participant is found to be using a non WYSIWYG model, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.

These need clarification. Just to go back to the plasma pistol everyone is talking about a person could claim that it's a matter of 1: (failed to pay points for pistol) or 3: (Model is not WYSIWYG) or even 2: (glowing bolt pistol too similar to plasma psitol)?

 ChargerIIC wrote:
These need clarification. Just to go back to the plasma pistol everyone is talking about a person could claim that it's a matter of 1: (failed to pay points for pistol) or 3: (Model is not WYSIWYG) or even 2: (glowing bolt pistol too similar to plasma psitol)?

That would depend entirely on how they use the model rules-wise. "Sergeant with plasma pistol" written in the army list and/or rolling the model's attacks at STR 7 instead of STR 4? That's an illegal list, DQ. "Sergeant with bolt pistol" written in the army list and rolling the attacks at STR 4, but the model has a plasma pistol? Not WYSIWYG and model is removed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
These need clarification. Just to go back to the plasma pistol everyone is talking about a person could claim that it's a matter of 1: (failed to pay points for pistol) or 3: (Model is not WYSIWYG) or even 2: (glowing bolt pistol too similar to plasma psitol)?

That would depend entirely on how they use the model rules-wise. "Sergeant with plasma pistol" written in the army list and/or rolling the model's attacks at STR 7 instead of STR 4? That's an illegal list, DQ. "Sergeant with bolt pistol" written in the army list and rolling the attacks at STR 4, but the model has a plasma pistol? Not WYSIWYG and model is removed.

I could get behind that.

Personally I couldn't give a rats a$$ if Team Happy apologizes.

However this has got to be the most left handed apology I've ever seen.

We had illegal lists........but so did others

I was cool with our punishment...... Regardless of the extreme "Witch Hunting " we endured.

Oh and btw.... We have only won this thing 3 times in a row and attend many other events yet we still can't figure out how to follow the basic Tournament guidelines....... Let us fix it for you !

I was there... We were heading into first place when this all went down possibly having to play Team Happy..... Not one person approached us to threaten to leave...

Was there a small group of guys who were verbal what was going on.. And your team ?! Maybe..

However it's a damn insult to myself and the other captains and players to insinuate that we needed to run you guys out on a rail so we could fair better at the ATC.

HappyTony, so what’s the penalty when you think you are going to lose so you start to make erroneous rules questions to intentionally slow down the game?

Today is a Happy day. Today irony was redefined forever.

HappyTony wrote:
Tony, captain of Team Happy, here to address the issues from this year’s ATC and formally suggest a competitive tournament code of conduct. First, I want to apologize for my team’s shortcomings. We did accidentally use a plasma pistol that was not included in the army list. We did have a heated conversation during a contentious game. We did have several converted models that had not been approved before the event.

Was it really accidental? Seems convenient.

Several other top teams also had similar issues at the ATC. As captain of Team Happy I am ultimately responsible for my team’s conduct and again admit that we were a part of this group. I did not protest our punishment, even as it changed in response to petitions and lobbying from other teams. Our only request to the T.O.s of ATC is that we be treated fairly and in line with the other teams and that they do not give in to the targeted efforts of this very small group of toxic individuals.

"Small group of toxic individuals" you say? It seems like a lot of people who attended the ATC would say that perfectly describes Team Happy.

To show our commitment to moving the community in a positive direction, we are suggesting the following rules of conduct are put in place by T.O.s across the competitive landscape for all events. Most importantly, we urge that that they are applied evenly and consistently across all participants, and not used as a tool of intimidation by those who have a louder voice or a larger platform.

1. If a list is found to be over the allotted number of points, the participant receives an automatic disqualification.

2. If a participant is found to be using an unapproved conversion, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.

3. If a participant is found to be using a non WYSIWYG model, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.

These rules represent the start of a more comprehensive list. We also recommend that an affidavit of completion/validity is added to the score sheet and that both players are required to sign verifying that the game was played fairly and that the results are valid.

Team Happy feels that the tournament scene and the hobby are better off with a clearly and evenly applied set of rules. We are committed to the above rules moving forward and will do our best to bring the competitive scene out of
the dark place that it has been dragged to.

You mean the dark place your team members dragged it to?

Your suggestions seem reasonable but it appears you're a little late since the ITC are already looking into forming a code of conduct after what happened at the ATC. To be honest, I don't think formulating a code of conduct is difficult. Even the specifics of what penalties should apply for rules breaches isn't really all that important, IMO, as long as those rules are and penalties are clear and objective. What is important is that the rules are enforced properly. I think in order to do that there needs to be more consideration given to how TOs can effectively referee tournaments. We need better systems for list checking both before an event and during it. We need better systems to stop slow play (the introduction of chess clocks may help with this, it's a step in the right direction at least).

 NecronLord3 wrote:
HappyTony, so what’s the penalty when you think you are going to lose so you start to make erroneous rules questions to intentionally slow down the game?

What, someone really did that? I'm shocked. I was told, in the chess clock debate, that nobody would ever do this to waste time and if they did the judge would DQ them for cheating so it wouldn't work.

@OP - add this one:

4. If a Team is found to have committed multiple violations over multiple events, they shall be permanently banned going forward.

... and make it retroactive!

Buh-bye, don't let door hit ya in the ass on the way out!

Posting here with what essentially amounts to a non-apology with unasked for event guidelines was probably not the smartest idea of your day.

HappyTony wrote:
We also recommend that an affidavit of completion/validity is added to the score sheet and that both players are required to sign verifying that the game was played fairly and that the results are valid.

Ah, so if someone figures out their opponent cheated after the fact, then they have no recourse. I can see why one might want that.

Yeah, Team Happy will submit a legal list, but they will still cheat by "accidentally" using a plasma pistol that they didn't pay for, but there won't be any recourse afterwards? <REDACTED> that bull gak.

Please do NOT circumvent the language filters - BrookM

Please stop guys, we all know that this isn't the real Tony. I appreciate the effort the troll put in, but spreading misinformation is the worst thing we can do in the current situation.

HappyTony wrote:
Tony, captain of Team Happy, here to address the issues from this year’s ATC and formally suggest a competitive tournament code of conduct. First, I want to apologize for my team’s shortcomings. We did accidentally use a plasma pistol that was not included in the army list. We did have a heated conversation during a contentious game. We did have several converted models that had not been approved before the event.

Several other top teams also had similar issues at the ATC. As captain of Team Happy I am ultimately responsible for my team’s conduct and again admit that we were a part of this group. I did not protest our punishment, even as it changed in response to petitions and lobbying from other teams. Our only request to the T.O.s of ATC is that we be treated fairly and in line with the other teams and that they do not give in to the targeted efforts of this very small group of toxic individuals.

To show our commitment to moving the community in a positive direction, we are suggesting the following rules of conduct are put in place by T.O.s across the competitive landscape for all events. Most importantly, we urge that that they are applied evenly and consistently across all participants, and not used as a tool of intimidation by those who have a louder voice or a larger platform.

1. If a list is found to be over the allotted number of points, the participant receives an automatic disqualification.

2. If a participant is found to be using an unapproved conversion, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.

3. If a participant is found to be using a non WYSIWYG model, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.

These rules represent the start of a more comprehensive list. We also recommend that an affidavit of completion/validity is added to the score sheet and that both players are required to sign verifying that the game was played fairly and that the results are valid.

Team Happy feels that the tournament scene and the hobby are better off with a clearly and evenly applied set of rules. We are committed to the above rules moving forward and will do our best to bring the competitive scene out of the dark place that it has been dragged to.

We hope that T.O.s across the country incorporate these suggestions into their tournament packets so that all participants can have confidence that they will be treated fairly. I am committed to personally embodying these ideals moving forward.

Is this really Tony? With at least one obvious sock puppet suddenly appearing to defend Team Happy it is hard to know what to believe. However at the risk of being trolled I will engage.

1. I would include here any in-game mistakes made relating to modelling for confusion. The plasma pistol would be an example of this - the model does not represent the list therefore is confusing. If the player owning the model make a mistake due to modelling confusion that was entirely under their control then an immediate DQ.

2. The problem here is obviously players who claim that they are approved and which actually were not. I would suggest mandatory printed photographic crib sheets which can be stamped/signed by the TO to show that they are actually approved. No approved sheet - you cannot use the model. Remove from list and if that makes your list invalid then you are out of luck.

3. Yes but see above, if the model has been used in a way not supported by the list then rule 1 should apply. If the model is claimed to be a conversion but there is no crib sheet then apply the penalties for rule 2.


There are of course a lot more things that need to be in a code of conduct. I strongly believe that dissent - refusing to accept the ruling of a judge - has to be immediate DQ for the good of the event. Actually I think that this one goes to the heart of everything and a tournament that has an instance of dissent should probably also issue a ban for a period except in exceptional mitigating circumstances.


Finally I will state the obvious, for Team Happy to write the rules of conduct right now has deep problems. With reputations currently in the gutter why would anybody presume good intent here? ATC had a set of rules for this - they applied them and on the uncontested facts of infringements the rules were eventually correctly applied. I am in the internet minority in not seeing any real scandal here - infringement happened and the correct penalty was applied for those infringements. If there is a problem with other teams flying under the radar with infringements then that is probably due to this one team taking up all the attention of the judges - that is a shame but it is a consequence of this team misbehaving and I am not going to blame the TO's or judges for struggling to cope with a difficult situation not of their making. They have already said that they will tweak their rules for future events having learned lessons here - Team Happy should leave them to it and not try to interfere in that process in any way.

Having Team Happy suggest the code of conduct is akin to asking the fox to design the hen house.

The fact that you're asking people to "sign an affidavit" after the game reeks of desire to abuse the system, as it would prevent mistakes from being rectified and cheaters being punished if they were caught at any time later...sound familiar? It effectively says, "We think we can get away with it in the moment and want to cement our ability to do so."

The only reason that the scene is in a "dark place" is because of your own, repeated, behaviors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HappyTony wrote:
I did not protest our punishment, even as it changed in response to petitions and lobbying from other teams..

And also, you need to quit this BS. ATC went on the record as noting that *you* had suggested that your team leave if another single issue...which then happened. To date, I haven't seen any denial from you nor your team that that happened, so it seems accurate. So this wasn't some sort of "harsh, unfair, mob" punishment: you were given exactly what you asked for.

Hey everyone, just as an FYI, the community of ITC event organizers is indeed working on a set of Floor Rules that can be used by any event organizer at their discretion.

It provides a system of guidelines for player conduct and judge responses. It is being actively worked on by over 200 judges all of whom are experienced organizers.

If you are an ITC event organizer and not in the FB group, please email me (don't PM me on Dakka, I haven't checked those in years) and I will be happy to help you out.

Thanks to everyone contributing to this effort as it will help a great deal to standardize tournament play and avoid situations that can cause conflict and controversy. It will also help to recognize and reward exemplary sportsmanship, too!

Great job Reecius!

I didn’t think that someone could look less honorable from circulating an anti-cheating platform, but asking your opponents to sign an affidavit that you didn’t cheat them might do it.

The affidavit is a horrible idea. I can just imagine TFG bullying someone to sign it.

HappyTony wrote:
1. If a list is found to be over the allotted number of points, the participant receives an automatic disqualification.

2. If a participant is found to be using an unapproved conversion, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.

3. If a participant is found to be using a non WYSIWYG model, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.

Let me add to this list.

4. If a player is found to be engaging in 'Slow Play', that player forfeits the match.

5. If a player is nagging their opponent to complete their turn quickly, placing undue pressure on their opponent, that player forfeits the match.

6. If a player assists or otherwise manipulates their opponent into making a game losing error rather than pointing out the potential mistake, that player forfeits the match.

How does that sound?

Items 5 and 6 could be subjective.

Alot is subjective. What about the guys that complain about slow play after they lose, but are fine with going slow. Slow play is very seldom one player.

Slow play isn't subjective at all. What turn did the game get to when it ended? Did they make it to Turn 5, or did they only make it to Turn 3? That right there is an objective measure. You need to make it to Turn 5 by a certain time limit, but failed to do so. If they only made it to Turn 3, then which player took up the most amount of time? That's the player engaging in slow play. When one player spends an hour on a single turn in a 2 1/2 hour game, that's clearly the player engaging in slow play.

The solution to that is easy, though. Put a clock on each player. Although I'd suggest giving each player a single allotment of time, rather than giving them a specific time limit per turn. First turns typically take longer than final turns, after all, as you likely have your whole army or a good chunk of it on the first turn, while large portions of it are probably gone by the last turn. My suggestion to that is for each player to have a clock and be allotted 75 minutes to play (Assuming we're going for 2.5 hour battles). The player hits the clock before they start their turn, take their turn, and then pause the clock when they finished their turn. If their clock runs out then they can do nothing else, so it'll encourage them to play at a reasonable pace. So for example...

TURN 1 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used up 18 minutes, leaving him 57 minutes.

TURN 2 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 17 minutes, leaving him 40 minutes.

TURN 3 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 13 minutes, leaving him 27 minutes.

TURN 4 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 10 minutes, leaving him 17 minutes.

TURN 5 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 8 minutes, leaving him 9 minutes.

So if one player actually takes an hour on their first turn, they'll only have 15 minutes left to use on subsequent turns, so they won't be able to slow play the game so that it can't get past Turn 3, while the player who's more frugal with their use of time can get repeated turns against their opponent unopposed. Slow play would come to a dead halt if that were implemented.

 Chief Librarian Mephiston wrote:
Slow play isn't subjective at all. What turn did the game get to when it ended? Did they make it to Turn 5, or did they only make it to Turn 3? That right there is an objective measure. You need to make it to Turn 5 by a certain time limit, but failed to do so. If they only made it to Turn 3, then which player took up the most amount of time? That's the player engaging in slow play. When one player spends an hour on a single turn in a 2 1/2 hour game, that's clearly the player engaging in slow play.

The solution to that is easy, though. Put a clock on each player. Although I'd suggest giving each player a single allotment of time, rather than giving them a specific time limit per turn. First turns typically take longer than final turns, after all, as you likely have your whole army or a good chunk of it on the first turn, while large portions of it are probably gone by the last turn. My suggestion to that is for each player to have a clock and be allotted 75 minutes to play (Assuming we're going for 2.5 hour battles). The player hits the clock before they start their turn, take their turn, and then pause the clock when they finished their turn. If their clock runs out then they can do nothing else, so it'll encourage them to play at a reasonable pace. So for example...

TURN 1 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used up 18 minutes, leaving him 57 minutes.

TURN 2 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 17 minutes, leaving him 40 minutes.

TURN 3 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 13 minutes, leaving him 27 minutes.

TURN 4 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 10 minutes, leaving him 17 minutes.

TURN 5 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 8 minutes, leaving him 9 minutes.

So if one player actually takes an hour on their first turn, they'll only have 15 minutes left to use on subsequent turns, so they won't be able to slow play the game so that it can't get past Turn 3, while the player who's more frugal with their use of time can get repeated turns against their opponent unopposed. Slow play would come to a dead halt if that were implemented.

The problems with this have been beaten to death in another thread https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/760214.page
Since this is a back and forth game a single player's turn isn't done in a vacuum. There is room on both sides to abuse the clock and cost an opponent time.

A better solution would be better monitoring by the judges, but that could require more judges and a change to how tables are positioned within the space, which may wind up placing a cap on the max number of players.