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.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Well it's still just hearsay unless you can actually prove it occurred.

I do not think that word means what you think it means. - Inigo Montoya

All things aside, I'm very much interested in seeing the army lists of the top 10 players. Are there any fellow dakkanauts that were one of the top 10 BAO players or players' opponents who are willing to post them?

 SabrX wrote:
All things aside, I'm very much interested in seeing the army lists of the top 10 players. Are there any fellow dakkanauts that were one of the top 10 BAO players or players' opponents who are willing to post them?

Agreed!

I'd like to see some lists!

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Well it's still just hearsay unless you can actually prove it occurred.

Which would still be the case even had he called a judge. Should he record the game next time? What you are saying is that timing is all that's important which is foolish frankly. I agree his timing could have been better, but it's much better to speak up later then never.

The core of this sportsmanship discussion is why I drink while I play, and try to force my opponents to share my bottle with me.

 RiTides wrote:


I think a more useful outcome from this, rather than focusing on the specific case, would be how to make it easier for situations like this to come out and be resolved at the actual event in the future. Maybe a "resolution center" with a judge devoted solely to things like that, that players can contact in between rounds and ask them to keep an eye on a certain player, or to resolve certain things?

[.....]

Just brainstorming, because this kind of thing does seem to happen all too often, and it does seem like there's not an easy path for addressing it at the event themselves, since normal judges have enough on their plates just handling the ongoing games, let alone checking to see if a player is consistently not following the rules throughout the event, or the like.

I like that you're trying to move this discussion along the lines of solutions to problems, and appropriate behavior during play (especially play against strangers) is worthy of discussion. My big beef is lazy, plodding, disorganized play (another discussion).

Regardless, shame is an incredibly important factor towards correcting bad behavior. Whether the BAO champ cheated is undetermined; that he was & is an unpleasant competitor unafraid to look like a cheat and a bully has been certified by friends and others; the exposure here will affect his future behavior.

Several lists have been posted but they get burried in te discussion so perhaps it would be fruitful to contact the players in the top 10 and have thier lists posted in a new thread titled "lists of the top 10 in BAO"?

The rules I follow when playing (even in tournaments)

1. Never roll dice unless my opponent is aware and watching or has said 'go ahead'
2. I have my opponent count how many of his models are under any templates or blast markers I have to place.

Marius Xerxes wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

elotar wrote:
"If you see fraud and don't shout fraud - you are a fraud."

It's very hard to catch cheating in 40k, so generally behind any exposed occurrances of it there are hundreds of hidden ones.

Nobody must care how "well" the tournament was run if it's win by cheater. We are living in the 21 sentury, is it really hard to find other Steve Sisk's opponents and get confirmation/refutation of such claims?

I disagree. The average person can effectively supervise 3 to 5 people in a work place before the quality of the supervision becomes effected (see "span of control"). Applying that as a rough guide, a tournament the size of the BAO would need 12 judges each watching 5 games every round to really have an idea of how each game developed and who was or was not trying to play by the rules.

There is a difference. When supervising employees, for example, if I see them doing something incorrectly, I step in and correct the error immediately.

When judging in a 40k tournament, you are not going to interrupt game play to correct "mistakes" made unless there is a disagreement and you are asked to help resolve it.

This is why its called rules judging and not rules referee. We resolve disputes, not stop the game at every rules infraction we see as we pass by.

Depends, as a TO/judge if I see a player deliberately play a rule wrong I will point it out, for instance in this case if I knew Khan only had a 4++, or WS6, and saw a player tell his opponent elsewise. I wouldn't call the player on cheating for it, but would point out the correct rule, or at least have the player look it up. I feel doing this results in less bad feeling from people losing games due to rules getting played wrong, further the corrected player should only be upset if they were intentionally cheating, if it was a mistake, then no big deal we all make them. Only resolving disputes leaves you possibly watching cheating happen.

That said you cannot be everywhere at the same time and if the rules issue comes up when you are not nearby, obviously the players are responsible to catch it.

RiTides wrote:To be clear, discussing specific games / results from the BAO is totally acceptable in this thread, as is discussing the painting results, overall meta, etc.

However, name-calling is not. No matter what your opinion is, please stick to Dakka's rule #1- Be Polite. Arguments will be much more persuasive that way, and conducive to discussion. Thanks!

--------------------------

For myself, I agree that it should have been handled at the event itself. That was a big learning experience for me in going to GTs- that if you have an issue, you need to deal with it right there. However, there certainly is pressure to NOT utilize the "thumbs down" result, and so it is often not effective in deterring a player who is consistently giving his opponents terrible games, as many settle for giving the middle result and moving on.

I think a more useful outcome from this, rather than focusing on the specific case, would be how to make it easier for situations like this to come out and be resolved at the actual event in the future. Maybe a "resolution center" with a judge devoted solely to things like that, that players can contact in between rounds and ask them to keep an eye on a certain player, or to resolve certain things?

Seeing it come out on the internet after the fact when nothing can be done about it does suck, but the person mentioned they went to a staff member the next morning and was told nothing could be done already.

I think that's the reaction that likely would have occurred in talking to a "normal" judge at any GT, so maybe some sort of resolution center / judge would be a good idea for events of this caliber?

Just brainstorming, because this kind of thing does seem to happen all too often, and it does seem like there's not an easy path for addressing it at the event themselves, since normal judges have enough on their plates just handling the ongoing games, let alone checking to see if a player is consistently not following the rules throughout the event, or the like.

We had a similar situation happen at connecticon last year, a player played a couple rules wrong on one of his ICs, and ended up winning a game in part because of it. I did not find out until after the event was over and at that point there was really nothing to be done.

As for how to handle it post occurrence, the issue is 2 fold. How do you know a player cheated if you don't witness it? For me I would require multiple opponents stating the same issue/issues. Second, how do you determine intent? Maybe that player is rolling a 3++ on a character because he thought that he did. DO we go to the point where a rules mistake is an auto forfiet of all previous games, and re-doing points, for that players opponents? The issue with that is in say a battle point event, doing this means the previous players now played easier games after this game that they lost.

Say I lose to the suspected cheater round 1, maybe 15-5 in battle points, then go on to 20-0 my second round, and 3rd round. Now I have 45 points. Day 2 I find out my opponent cheated, so I get a full points win for round 1, and jump to 60 points. I haven't earned that 60 in the same way as other players may have....in general it causes issues.

At the same time it sucks that those players lost to a player playing rules wrong.....

Essentially until either players can self judge games well enough to determine rules wrong, or enough judges exist to ref games, cheating will always happen in some cases.

Part of the issue is that people only really call attention to incorrect rules when it matters. If Khan had rolled his 3++ incorrectly but rolled a bunch of 2s no one cares.

Breng, for myself I wouldn't see any need for battle points "in general" to be adjusted based on a sportsmanship issue, especially after the fact. I think it's more that, if there was a better way for TOs / a "resolution judge" to track this kind of thing occurring while an event is taking place, the player in question could be penalized (not their opponent's scores bumped up, just their own docked). I believe in Frontline's events two thumbs-down votes results in action being taken, anyway, so there is a mechanism for it... but since this has come up before, I think considering a better way to handle it at an event is useful.

Certainly, adjusting everyone's scores post-mortem later in the tournament isn't a good idea, imo... simply docking that one player's score is enough of a deterrent, imo, and easier to manage.

It would have to be followed up on and determined at the event, though, which obviously normal judges have no time to do. Which is why having a judge set aside just for situations like this, with an easy means of contacting them at the end of a round/day, would be a useful thing to consider, I think.

 undertow wrote:
The rules I follow when playing (even in tournaments)

1. Never roll dice unless my opponent is aware and watching or has said 'go ahead'
2. I have my opponent count how many of his models are under any templates or blast markers I have to place.

Those are good policies! I've had lots of folks do the second to me (having me count the number of my models under their template), particularly seasoned players. I think it's faster and results in their hitting at least as many of my models as they would have chosen themselves. It puts the onus on me to be honest, and I think when put to it most players will be when given that kind of decision to make.

I would like to see some lists too. It would be easy to PM the people if I only knew their usernames. If you can specify who it is and what their dakka name is, just post it for everyone on the thread. Thanks!

New Thread for Lists:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/607894.page

BAO exit poll is out, check your email!

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Well it's still just hearsay unless you can actually prove it occurred.

Naw, man. mortevie just gave you the lawyer/court/legal definition of what "hearsay" is. In a court/trial hearsay is not admissible. Testimony is.

DB, how's this?
If *I* state/testify that I saw Bigfoot, then it is *not* hearsay. It's testimony, therefore, more heavily weighted (thus more believable) than ... :
If OverwatchCNC says, that *I* (BrotherErekose) said I saw Bigfoot, then that is 'hearsay'. OverWatch: "Yeah, I heard BrotherErekose say he saw a sasquatch." < - - - hearsay

@mortevie
Well, stated counselor.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Hunting for pictures:
1. I'm failing to find a link to the cool tau diorama, so I am trying a paint judge contact (Chung Chow).
2. Anyone have a picture of me and Grant VBD of the ITC?
- - - - -- - -

(read the following as sarcasm):
I know you all are desperate to know what list could have possibly taken *me*, Mr. Table 95 of the LVO to a whopping, 4 and 2!

Autarch - fusion gun

x5 Fire Dragons, including Exarch, firepike & fast shot & their WaveS

x3 D.A.V.U. all WaveS are ScatLas & Holo
x4 jetbikes
x5 jetbikes

x6 S.Hawks
x9 W.Spiders including Ex with fast shot

WraithKnight
x2 WarWalker - ScatLas & BL
x1 WarWalker - ScatLas & BL

I finished 49 at the BAO, only 2 places behind GTA. I'm pretty happy with it, should have been 5-1 though. I just realized an illegal list the day after day 2 of the BAO, and I failed a 3 or 4 inch charge. Lol, good times.

-------

I went 3-3

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Well it's still just hearsay unless you can actually prove it occurred.

Naw, man. mortevie just gave you the lawyer/court/legal definition of what "hearsay" is. In a court/trial hearsay is not admissible. Testimony is.

DB, how's this?
If *I* state/testify that I saw Bigfoot, then it is *not* hearsay. It's testimony, therefore, more heavily weighted (thus more believable) than ... :
If OverwatchCNC says, that *I* (BrotherErekose) said I saw Bigfoot, then that is 'hearsay'. OverWatch: "Yeah, I heard BrotherErekose say he saw a sasquatch." < - - - hearsay

@mortevie
Well, stated counselor.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Hunting for pictures:
1. I'm failing to find a link to the cool tau diorama, so I am trying a paint judge contact (Chung Chow).
2. Anyone have a picture of me and Grant VBD of the ITC?
- - - - -- - -

(read the following as sarcasm):
I know you all are desperate to know what list could have possibly taken *me*, Mr. Table 95 of the LVO to a whopping, 4 and 2!

Autarch - fusion gun

x5 Fire Dragons, including Exarch, firepike & fast shot & their WaveS

x3 D.A.V.U. all WaveS are ScatLas & Holo
x4 jetbikes
x5 jetbikes

x6 S.Hawks
x9 W.Spiders including Ex with fast shot

WraithKnight
x2 WarWalker - ScatLas & BL
x1 WarWalker - ScatLas & BL

You changed the list after our practice game the Tuesday before the BAO?! Why did you split the War Walkers into two squads instead of 1?

Here's a link to pix of the painting submissions, including the Tau thing I mentioned earlier:

http://www.wgconsortium.com/index.cfm/stories/view/1119/the_draconic_awards_at_bay_area_open_final_thoughts_and_highlights/

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
You changed the list after our practice game the Tuesday before the BAO?! Why did you split the War Walkers into two squads instead of 1?

... On my own, with my little brian, I figured that two Outflanking units were better than one to present dual flank threats. It's one more scoring unit. 2 and 1 is harder to tarpit in h2h, etc.

Geez, OW, gimme *some* credit.

 undertow wrote:
The rules I follow when playing (even in tournaments)

1. Never roll dice unless my opponent is aware and watching or has said 'go ahead'
2. I have my opponent count how many of his models are under any templates or blast markers I have to place.

Completely agree. I've learnt this through experience though. One time I rolled a pretty crucial save while my opponent was looking up a rule [genuine mistake, didn't realise he was looking away] and I then tried to argue that the roll should stand. I quickly realised that I was in the wrong [based upon how I would feel if he had done the same] and rolled it again [still made the save lol]. My friend who plays Guard does number 2 with his [many] templates and it really cuts out any arguments.

I also get my opponent to check I have line of site if it's marginal [even if they didn't question] as I don't want to gain an unfair advantage.

While I sympathise with minion and his situation, when you're playing at BAO-level event you should be expected to know the rules (or at least attempt to find out on the spot.), especially for a crucial roll like the one he mentioned. It doesn't take very long to open the codex to compare, but it sounds like you're not a competitive player anyway, and you were more upset about the sportsmanship aspect. In which case you should have changed your thumbs up to a thumbs down on Day 2, which you didn't. Writing a blog post is pretty passive-aggressive, and it seems the weakest way out.

If someone tries to hustle you with a 3+ on an Iron Halo save and you get played, it's partly your fault for not knowing the ruleset. When I attend a tournament and want to play at the highest level, I make damn sure I know everything there is to know and if I don't I make sure I find out.

Part of 40k (well, most of it) is rules knowledge but part of a competitive tournament is playing to your opponent's weaknesses (in this case a trusting nature), and making sure you don't get played. He used this edge to get ahead, and thus won the tournament. While I certainly don't advocate cheating to win, not getting cheated is an important part of a competitive environment you have to be aware of. Fight your corner.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
If someone tries to hustle you with a 3+ on an Iron Halo save and you get played, it's partly your fault for not knowing the ruleset.

This like how if my car gets stolen, it's my fault for not putting it in a garage, right?

And yes, by coming down in favor of NOT calling out a cheater, everybody IS endorsing cheating as a means to win.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
While I sympathise with minion and his situation, when you're playing at BAO-level event you should be expected to know the rules (or at least attempt to find out on the spot.), especially for a crucial roll like the one he mentioned. It doesn't take very long to open the codex to compare, but it sounds like you're not a competitive player anyway, and you were more upset about the sportsmanship aspect. In which case you should have changed your thumbs up to a thumbs down on Day 2, which you didn't. Writing a blog post is pretty passive-aggressive, and it seems the weakest way out.

If someone tries to hustle you with a 3+ on an Iron Halo save and you get played, it's partly your fault for not knowing the ruleset. When I attend a tournament and want to play at the highest level, I make damn sure I know everything there is to know and if I don't I make sure I find out.

Part of 40k (well, most of it) is rules knowledge but part of a competitive tournament is playing to your opponent's weaknesses (in this case a trusting nature), and making sure you don't get played. He used this edge to get ahead, and thus won the tournament. While I certainly don't advocate cheating to win, not getting cheated is an important part of a competitive environment you have to be aware of. Fight your corner.

You are completely wrong on every level. How can you possibly justify cheating regardless of the circumstances? ?? I'm not accusing anyone. But I would never defend cheating in any way. If someone is cheating, it is 100% their fault and they should be punished.

The language should be something like: it's prudent & wise to know ALL the rules, but unacceptable to cheat, implicitly (which seems the case here), much less explicitly.

 thunderingjove wrote:
The language should be something like: it's prudent & wise to know ALL the rules, but unacceptable to cheat, implicitly (which seems the case here), much less explicitly.

Good phrasing.

As a new player who wants to participate in tournaments just to play some 40k, I'm worried now. I just know my army and it's rules. I have considered tournaments like BAO just because they seem like an awesome time. I don't want to study every rule to feel like I am prepared enough. I don't care about winning per se. I just love playing the game.

If your going to have fun, that's a whole other thing. You should always go to GTs if your just looking to have fun, hang out with new friends and play some 40k.

Now, if your intent is to go compete and win a lot then you should know in advance and study up on the armies you think should be there.

I feel you can do both or either at a GT.

The negative overtones are unfortunate considering the volume of positive feedback this event resulted in.

Is the concept of asking for rules clarification not clearly indoctrinated?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Median Trace wrote:

 thunderingjove wrote:
The language should be something like: it's prudent & wise to know ALL the rules, but unacceptable to cheat, implicitly (which seems the case here), much less explicitly.

Good phrasing.

As a new player who wants to participate in tournaments just to play some 40k, I'm worried now. I just know my army and it's rules. I have considered tournaments like BAO just because they seem like an awesome time. I don't want to study every rule to feel like I am prepared enough. I don't care about winning per se. I just love playing the game.

Stay the course, you seem to have the right spirit of the game.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
While I sympathise with minion and his situation, when you're playing at BAO-level event you should be expected to know the rules (or at least attempt to find out on the spot.), especially for a crucial roll like the one he mentioned.

This flies directly in the face of the spirit of the tournament. This attitude is what keeps newer players (or those who have not yet attended a GT) from attending. Let alone the sisyphean task of actually knowing all the rules.

 Reecius wrote:
BAO exit poll is out, check your email!

Did you like the army composition guidelines we used for the BAO 2014?
We are referring to how you write your list, how many detachments you can use and of what type, etc.

I liked the format as it was at the BAO: 1 mandatory CAD and 1 optional other non-CAD detachment, with Factions able to self-ally.

I would like to see 2 detachments of my choice, but only 1 of them can be a CAD, but allowing Factions to ally with themselves and the limit of 1 LoW and/or Fortification. This means you could only ever have 1 CAD, but you don't have to take a CAD.

I would like to see more freedom with 2 Detachments total, of any type the player chooses but with a limit of only 1 Lord of War or Fortification and Factions not able to self-ally. This means you could have 2 CADs, or 2 Formations as your army.

I do not care.

No option for more restrictions on the FOC?

How/why would you restrict it more?

I think we can reference classic MTG story of Van Cleave disqualification from gran prix Boston, which was based on coverage photo and post tournament reports of one player and judges.

The general logic here is that it's not a court, accused is not facing jail time or any other phisical loss, so we does't need high profile evidence of deeds and intent (!) to make accusation.

Main goal of tournament judges is to provide pleasant environment for all involved, so if we got player, who is definately TFG as well as alleged cheater, it'll be much better to everybody, if he will be encoraged to change his behaviour(I see no problem in changing tournament results) or leave the community (be banned from attending futher tournaments for some time).

 Aves wrote:
How/why would you restrict it more?

The option to not self ally.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Aves wrote:
How/why would you restrict it more?

The option to not self ally.

So basically you want 6th with a LoW slot?