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.

DJ3, that above is one of the best write ups I've seen on judging and judging styles. You should put together a judging handbook at some point for new fledging judges/TOs to reference.

 Cult of My Boy Blue wrote:
Does anyone have Zach Pawlikowski, seer council eldar list please?
Thank you

Playing him round 5, I think his list was. 5 farseers, big 8 man council. Baharroth. 1 or 2 units of spiders (6 man), then bikes and bikes and more bikes.

Thank you Tsilber!

I actually had the pleasure of watching Justin Judge a few of the games at the top tables and I can say he is not only spot on with his comments he is also one of the best judges ive seen watch over a game.

He is quite good. I owe him a T-Shirt.

If a judge see a rule misplayed they should correct it.

At the Top tables in GTs its generally understood that the players have a high knowledge of the game and there opponents army and the rules.

In many cases the Judge is simply there to maintain order of the gamers surroundings ( keeping audience comments, participation and noise at a minimum). Keep the pace of a Top game going in a timely manner. Availability for quick rules issues and lastly to observe Blatant cheating.

In the past I have seen judges all to many times stop games without being asked to make rules calls that were completely wrong.. or at the least open to scrutiny. That's a sure fire way of creating anamosity between the gamers and the organizers.

If 2 players are playing a game correctly "as they understand it".. then a judge should allow them to play on.

Even top players make mistakes especially when the pressure is on. If the judge is standing there they should do their job. FWIW I don't think the wolf star player in question did anything wrong... It was the moderator that started it.

True.... However we play a game that consists of 2 players so its really the failure of the 2 players, of the player making the mistake and his opponent observing the mistake. Is it the job of the judges to interject every time a player makes a mistake ? I don't think so. I observed a game where Nick N. was under the assumption that he was playing for a secondary goal of Line breaker and he hadn't picked that goal..
Should the judge have made him aware of that ? should he have let the audience tell him that ? I don't believe he should have... actually I believe it was the sign of good judging that let the game play go as it was.

Did it matter anyway ? no... Nick actually had accomplished his 2 secondary goals.

I think the situation needs to be looked at how it effects the game. If a player makes a 1 time mistake. and how it impacts the game going forward. Do you stop the game and interject ? Do we start allowing our judges to micromanage the game ? throwing flags for every misstep ? What do we do if we observe 2 players playing a rule wrong or a mission wrong halfway through a game ? If we correct it... who does it impact ? both players, 1 player or none ?

Im not saying a judge should never interject in a game especially if a player does something that is unobservable by there opponent. But when 2 Top players are playing. As a TO, I expect each player to be fully paying attention to there games and playing to there best understanding of the game as much as possible and relying on my judges to maintain order and last resort rules questions.

-ed

One table of players never deserves special treatment. Tournaments are not just about the face crushers at the top table. If you can't actively judge every table, you shouldn't actively judge any table. Suggesting otherwise shows weakness as a TO, Steve, IMO. Yes, that was a countertroll to the 0-logic one-line trolling you're doing to Ed. Deal.

DJ3 wrote:

There's a thousand other problems with active judging (disrupting the flow of play, making the game run even slower, the ultimate apocalyptic scenario wherein a judge stops a game without being asked and then provides the wrong ruling, etc) but the situation outlined above is why it should be avoided from an organizational standpoint, above all else.

That is an excellent post, and one that should be linked to any time there is a judging "controversy" going forward.

The role of a TO, and any judges they delegate to, is to efficiently run games. Active judging is the opposite of that.

We had a Justin at our table during the semi finals game, I have heard people thought I was getting frustrated with something he did or didnt do.. This is not true, I may have gotten frustrated but that was my own fault and nothing else that he or my opponent did, I apologized for it.

In the end glad he was there, to be called upon for X Y or Z.

Now lets get back to the Greatness of NOVA.

Like when Security had a run in with Brandt... something about guitar music in the lounge... hahahha

I love how NOVA made daemon players put all their warp charge dice on the table in a separate pile from any other dice. This is really the way it should be.

Back to judges they must take on some responsibility besides resolving disputes or else players are expected to rely solely on self judging ? If it obvious something major is not done right the judge should intervene.

DJ3: well put. As the Necron player I believed (and still do) that Mike was totally legal in his moves. Not to mention, they area that was questioned and deemed possibly illegal, was in my opinion both at the table and afterward, inconsequential. The big moments that mattered were Mike rolling double 1s for a charge, not choosing to hit and run bottom of 5, and my warp spiders moving 27" in the bottom of 6. Where a couple wolves were in a one sided combat did not matter.

Tsilber wrote:
We had a Justin at our table during the semi finals game, I have heard people thought I was getting frustrated with something he did or didnt do.. This is not true, I may have gotten frustrated but that was my own fault and nothing else that he or my opponent did, I apologized for it.

In the end glad he was there, to be called upon for X Y or Z.

Now lets get back to the Greatness of NOVA.

Like when Security had a run in with Brandt... something about guitar music in the lounge... hahahha

Please....PLEASE someone finish this tale heheh

Anyone know what PJ was running? Similar to his last tourney lists?

 astro_nomicon wrote:
Anyone know what PJ was running? Similar to his last tourney lists?

Seer Council: Jetbikes, 7 Warlocks
CAD: Daemons: Fatey, 2 Heralds of Tzeentch, Screamers, 2xPink Horrors (11 and 10)
CAD: Farseer on bike, 2x3 Scatter Bikes

Yeah thats his list, 3 farseers total with crazy warp dice, 29 pre-roll.

Ok folks I compiled all the Lists from the Top 16 players at Nova. I am sure I made some mistakes, but there you go!

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2015/09/09/tits-tournaments-nova-open-2015-top-16-lists/

Thanks to everyone who helped me put it together as well!

zedsdead wrote:
I don't think so. I observed a game where Nick N. was under the assumption that he was playing for a secondary goal of Line breaker and he hadn't picked that goal..
Should the judge have made him aware of that ? should he have let the audience tell him that ? I don't believe he should have... actually I believe it was the sign of good judging that let the game play go as it was.

Haha--that whole situation scared the hell out of me. It seemed everybody tableside knew Nick didn't have Linebreaker. Somebody pointed at his scoresheet, and I had to tell them to leave. Then somebody picked up his scoresheet and I had to physically take it away from them and move everybody back.

Luckily, we all know Nick is far too drunk when he plays to pick up on something so subtle as "why are bystanders and judges fighting over my scoresheet?" He never realized he didn't have Linebreaker until I told him when he was filling out his scores (and it didn't matter, as he'd already achieved the secondary he didn't even know he had).

That was when Chip and Phil had the good sense to assemble the WALL OF CHAIRS to prevent any further problems at Table 1.

Wall O Chairs worked for about 15 minutes... But at least people mostly sat in them, so were a couple feet back

Perhaps a subforum on Judging/Refereeing? First order of business would be to Sticky DJ3's post(s) on the topic. Subforum need not be limited to 40K.



My sense is that people get their ideas about refereeing from watching sports. That is active refereeing. One of the key differences between sport and, say, 40K, is that in sport the players ARE the game--they need to be actively monitored and corrected/penalized.

I also served as a judge for AdeptiCon this year. It was my first time. I heard the same speech (From DJ3 and, honestly, from everyone else that was an experienced judge): Be a Vampire. Be visible, be available, be observant, but do nothing unless asked to. I saw some WEIRD stuff go down on more than a few tables, but the players were playing the game as they mutually understood it, so I kept to myself and moved along.

I know the feeling of losing a game and then discovering, after the fact, that a significant (i.e. outcome influencing) rules violation occurred. I blame myself. I also know the feeling of thinking that something isn't quite right, but not pursuing that thought with my opponent--let alone a judge, losing the game, and finding out later that I was right to think something was wrong. Again, I blame myself.

+Unsolicited Advice Below+

Things to do before going to a tournament:
Understand (and accept) that the 40K rules-set is Permissive
Study the rules, don't just read them (but at LEAST read them--don't assume things work like they did 2 editions ago...)
Study rules controversies (YMDC, for example) and whether or not/how Tournament FaQs (and GW FaQs too, such as they are) address those controversies
Understand the difference between HIWPI ('How I would play it'), 'How we play it where I come from' and the way it's played according to a Tournament FaQ ('For ease of play...')
Practice consistently implementing the rules in game conditions

Things to do AT a tournament:
Bring the BRB and relevant FaQs
Ask your opponent questions, politely, about the 'special' things his army/units/models can do (USRs and Snowflake Rules that allow a unit to 'break' basic rules [see: Battle Focus])
If a BRB issue arises, look it up in the BRB and try and resolve it before calling a judge--a good judge's first question is, "Did you look in the rule book?"
Don't assume your opponent is more familiar with how rules apply to complex situations than you are; if you don't understand, ask a judge to confirm, "Is this how this works?"

I normally view the judge's effectiveness on how well his tee shirt is tucked into his cargo shorts and how tightly clasped his hands are behind his back.

 FTGTEvan wrote:
Wall O Chairs worked for about 15 minutes... But at least people mostly sat in them, so were a couple feet back

This. I had to remind a few people that they were there for a reason.

NOVA was a blast to help run/judge. Can't wait for next year.

Justin thank god for you man

What if there are multiple instances of a player reported cheating? Let it ride ?

http://ftgtgaming.blogspot.com/2015/09/nova-review.html

My initial thoughts and reactions to another awesome NOVA

Anyone play against Todd Silber's Daemon list that came in 12th? I love Seekers, and seeing a big unit of them with Grimoire and Be'lakor for Invis makes me pretty happy.

DCannon4Life wrote:
Study rules controversies (YMDC, for example) and whether or not/how Tournament FaQs (and GW FaQs too, such as they are) address those controversies

It's important to emphasize his choice of wording here--study rules controversies at places like YMDC; rather than necessarily putting too much weight on their "conclusions," the best thing to do is use places like YMDC to make yourself aware of the problems. This is not really a sleight against YMDC, and moreso a safety net for players, because the conclusions YMDC comes to are not always likely to be the ones a floor judge comes to.

When friends call me to ask for "rulings" on armies they are testing, I tend to give them three answers: what I would rule as a judge, how most people play it, and what the rules technically say. If there's much conflict between these three answers, I usually tell them outright not to play that army, because there's no way to predict what will happen on the floor at a tournament and you don't want your army invalidated by a ruling.

Places like YMDC are only concerned with the third option, and that limits their usefulness in a way. They also have an enormous blindspot for precedent and ripple-effect; you can argue X is technically Y all day, but if X=Y breaks A, B, C, and D by precedent, you probably can't actually make that ruling on the floor. As a judge I refer to it as the Jerk Effect (though I generally replace Jerk with whatever colorful expletive comes to mind at the moment), and the best way to explain it is this: for every ruling you make, imagine you gave a Jerk a stack of Codexes and Rulebooks and a week of research time to use that ruling against you in some way. Even if, at the time, the specific ruling you make is saving Timmy the Baby Seal from Jerry the WAAC Monster, rulings are supposed to stand as precedent and they will spread amongst an event. The other 100-200 highly knowledgable players who really want to win your tournament at the hypothetical Jerk and his stack of rulebooks. No matter how smart you are, you're not smarter than 200 people combined, and somebody will find that loophole if you aren't careful.

That is one of the primary things a good (in my opinion) judging crew should focus on--maintaining precedent across tables. One of the worst things to hear is "well a judge told me it worked this way, but another judge told him it worked the other way" because then you can end up with two players playing the same rule with the expectation of it working two different ways, and no way to resolve the issue fairly if it comes up when they're playing each other (and had each been playing with their version in mind).

There were times when I'd walk over to Phil and Neil just to ask if they'd already made a ruling on something--if they had, even if it wasn't a ruling I agree with, that's the end of the discussion. You stick with the version you set because that's far more important, for the event, than us having a YMDC-style debate and making sure the minute details are all technically correct. Adepticon is identical--if you see a small group of judges hanging out, we're probably asking Chris or John if we already have set precedent for something.

Requizen wrote:
Anyone play against Todd Silber's Daemon list that came in 12th? I love Seekers, and seeing a big unit of them with Grimoire and Be'lakor for Invis makes me pretty happy.

He roomed with me and explained some of the tech. He's also been commenting pretty regularly here, so I'm sure he'd be happy to chat out his list, even if he wanted to stay under the radar.

DJ I would love to eventually see a video tutorial !