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.

DCannon4Life wrote:
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.

That kind of discussion definitely belongs in this section (Tournament Discussions) and while most threads here are 40k related, the section is open to discussion of any tournament topic for any game system.

Regarding DJ3's (excellent) post about judging, I would make this one caveat - telling an inexperienced player they should ask their opponent to see rules can slow a game down to a crawl. Early on, I unfortunately gave an opponent a rather bad game at a GT because I read that advice on Dakka right before attending . Was he wrong on some of his rules? Yes, absolutely... but I've found that with my knowledge of the game, it's so much faster to check with another player (or ideally a judge if they're nearby) rather than to try and go through rules line by line on the spot. There just isn't time, and newer players doing so will result in a game that isn't fun - and while they avoid getting cheated, they lose the plot in the process.

Just something I learned along the way (and as a plug for the AdeptiCon team tourney, if no one on your team knows a rule, you can try to grab a judge, but usually somebody knows and can keep the game flowing well enough without everybody breaking out their books!).

 RiTides wrote:
[Regarding DJ3's (excellent) post about judging, I would make this one caveat - telling an inexperienced player they should ask their opponent to see rules can slow a game down to a crawl.

That's likely more of a player-etiquette issue than a judging one, to be honest.

It's a harsh truth, but if you don't know the rules (of the primary competitive armies, at minimum) well enough to complete a game on time due to needing rules explained, you really have no business attending a major GT, because it can be outright disrespectful to your opponent. No offense intended to you RiTides (you even noted that you think you gave the guy a bad game because of it), and I like that you mentioned even referencing "common" rules with nearby players--as long as you aren't disrupting their game, they'll usually be happy to give you a yes/no/maybe, and if they seem reluctant at all that might give you a clue to call for a judge or ask your opponent for more details on the rule.

From a judging standpoint, a game like that would be interpreted as a slow play issue--the problem being that while it's absolutely possible that you don't know the rules, it's equally likely (from our perspective) that you're just trying to slow down the game. As you mentioned, this is a somewhat common issue, and would be resolved by having a judge posted at the table to resolve all trivial rules questions immediately and without any need to reference the books. In extreme cases, if it becomes obvious the game is not likely to reach Turn 5, my preferred stance is to clock the faster player's turn and then hold the slower player to completing their next turn in the same time period (without informing either player beforehand--you don't want the "faster" player rushing his turn just to try to deprive the other player of clock) and after the completion of that turn, split up the remaining time equally among them.

The guys at NOVA were great about this--at one point I went to Table 1 (while I was running the Brett/Todd game on Table 2) and Chip had a chart of all their turn times. I'm pretty sure I just gave him a thumbs up and walked away.

It's also worth noting that there's lots of little "player etiquette" things like this. Not having excessively confusing counts-as or conversions is a big one, and is why tournaments tend to be so strict with their model policies. It's also a big part of why Forge World hasn't seen wider acceptance (I've always shouted this at people: Forge World is not banned for balance reasons.) because throwing an extra 15+ books of new, obscure rules has a dramatic effect on the "can you tell me what that unit does?" problem in games. This is why 0-1 allowances are working really well, because it doesn't slow down a game much when you've only got to explain one weird unit to your opponent.

Another example is, I play Daemons, and I have really big (postcard-sized) Psychic Power cards for each of my Psykers that I mark off with dry erase markers. People always say "oooh, I bet that helps you keep track of your powers!" No, I could write my powers down in a notebook and then burn it for all I care--I'm going to remember. Those cards are for my opponent, because in my opinion, it would be disrespectful to make them have to guess what my powers are. The only way they're "for me" is in the sense that my opponent won't have to slow the game down by asking me what my powers are constantly.

I see your point about inexperienced players, but we were all noobs once, and even the most experienced store tournament player might encounter combinations and rules interactions they're not used to encountering in a larger tourney.

They have to gain that experience somewhere, and unfortunately, it's going to likely be at some more experienced player's expense.

DJ3 wrote:

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.

Thank you.

If you can't ask a player to show the rule then why go ?

 Valhallan42nd wrote:
I see your point about inexperienced players, but we were all noobs once, and even the most experienced store tournament player might encounter combinations and rules interactions they're not used to encountering in a larger tourney.

They have to gain that experience somewhere, and unfortunately, it's going to likely be at some more experienced player's expense.

To a degree, but we're definitely not talking about "how does a 2+ rerollable work?" here--that's a two minute explanation and won't have any real impact on a game. One of my opponents at NOVA this year actually told me he hadn't played against Daemons in over 8 months and I pretty much walked him through everything in my entire army while deploying, explained various psychic powers and interactions, and provided special rule information and statlines as we went. At no point did it feel like we were going to have a clock problem--so we'd actually have to go past even "I admittedly have no idea how your army works, please tell me literally all the things" for it to get to the point of being a disturbance in most cases.

If you require constant, basic rules explanations to the point of having a heavy impact on the game clock, that's far beyond being unfamiliar with the top-end competitive landscape.

To be honest, in the very few cases I've seen something like this occur, it's less of a situation of asking about rules--that's a rather quick process--and more of a situation of being unaccepting (or outright combatative) with the answers received. It's one thing to go "how does the Warp Spider jump work?" and have your opponent tell you. It's another if you then add on "what? let me see the codex." The point it really becomes a problem is "that's dumb, let me comb through the rulebook for five minutes to see if there's some hidden phrase that disallows the thing I'm already looking at."

I agree, and I only mentioned it because early on in my going to GTs I saw that advice, and I think it's a little bit of a trap for a new player (and there are a lot at GTs!). If you know what you're doing, you can check out the wording of a rule, but to finish a game on time many players will need to just take their opponents word for it or have a judge or other player confirm it.

I haven't had that issue in a long time because I decided I'm there to have fun, and if there's a issue, I just quickly ask someone and we move on!

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me that most of the times a player would want to see the wording of a rule is because their opponent might have something off about it, right? That is definitely a player etiquette thing, but I've just found it is worlds faster to get judge input (or other players if able) and get on with the game

Just some practical tips from someone who took that advice the wrong way once upon a time! Since switching to the above approach, I'd like to think I haven't had a bad (at least from my end ) game at a GT.

DJ3 wrote:

1. Any time a player asks their opponent for a rules clarification, the judge should weigh in
2. Any time a player asks for a Line of Sight verification, the judge should handle it
3. Any time a player references the rules incorrectly to their benefit, the judge should weigh in

Isn't number 3 the definition of active judging?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

DJ3 wrote:

1. Any time a player asks their opponent for a rules clarification, the judge should weigh in
2. Any time a player asks for a Line of Sight verification, the judge should handle it
3. Any time a player references the rules incorrectly to their benefit, the judge should weigh in

Isn't number 3 the definition of active judging?

Not really, in my experience active judging is: hey, you guys moved the charging models wrong, here's what you should be doing (or some other similar intervention)

#3 is "No relentless totally confers to the unit" or "Yeah I can fire rapid fire weapons and charge"

But agree its kind of a grey zone as what is active judging and what falls under #3

I don't see the difference.

I'm with you Darkness. I don't really see the difference either. There are TONS of cases where someone flubs a rule that is in their favor that later ends up losing them the game. I did it at NOVA!

To DJ3's point, a judge should never start an interaction. it should always be the players starting the interaction. I think all of those rules are understood to be happening after the judge has already been called to the table. At least that's how I read it.

#3 is active since neither player asked for the call.

This is getting comical, with all the awesomeness of NOVA, we are harping on do's and dont's as judges. Judges are appointed Judges for reasons, they did great. If players had a problem with a call they could get second opinion from a different Judge. Parties were allowed to litigate their argument on a ruling, it wasnt "hey Judge, X is what is happening.", Judge answers, "Y is the ruling", it didn't happen.

Grats to winners, Awesome looking armies, Great event Mike, thanks to those who donated their time. Thanks to the Judges. And better luck next year or the next tourney to those who did not find desired results.

Tsilber wrote:
This is getting comical, with all the awesomeness of NOVA, we are harping on do's and dont's as judges. Judges are appointed Judges for reasons, they did great. If players had a problem with a call they could get second opinion from a different Judge. Parties were allowed to litigate their argument on a ruling, it wasnt "hey Judge, X is what is happening.", Judge answers, "Y is the ruling", it didn't happen.

Grats to winners, Awesome looking armies, Great event Mike, thanks to those who donated their time. Thanks to the Judges. And better luck next year or the next tourney to those who did not find desired results.

Amen

The actual judge of the event presented what appears to be a paradoxical argument. That bears discussion.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
The actual judge of the event presented what appears to be a paradoxical argument. That bears discussion.

Justin was A judge pulled in to help out later on during the GT, not THE judge. I think he did a great job, as well, and while I understand the desire to delve into apparent paradoxes ... just wanted to set the record straight on who was what kind of judge.

Well to listen to his ramblings it sounded like he was THE judge... just saying .

You should know better, Steve Turner. Stop trolling, Mr. Turner.

It's okay.

I thought his posts were excellent, not "ramblings"! The judging discussion was really interesting to me, and while it could use it's own thread, the posts were really thoughtful and thought-provoking... to be honest, unlike the last few

My post had a gif ... on the internet. I thought that's what I'm supposed to do?

Some of it was over the top imo.

I wasn't necessarily referring to yours Mike

I think it's important for players to think about and know how judges plan to interact with them - a lot of folks here seem to prefer non-intervention unless asked, which I am totally fine with. But when I first started attending GTs that idea would have again caught me off-guard, so it is good to discuss it!

Next year I'm totally breaking my unable-to-really-attend-Nova streak (although I've stopped by a few times, never really gotten to stay long or play). Hopefully with a vendor booth

Yea Nova was awesome, I'm glad I made it my first big name GT to attend. Wont be the only time I go.

 Iechine wrote:
Yea Nova was awesome, I'm glad I made it my first big name GT to attend. Wont be the only time I go.

Your nids were badass.

There were countless numbers of great things that happened at NOVA this year. I am really hoping we can start to concentrate on those rather than some sub aspect that was tiny and is tending to lead off topic Mike as usual you ran an excellent event and as usual I am looking forward to next year. The guy that I played on Sunday morning with bugs (bugs on bugs heh) was probably one of the funniest games I ever played. There were more beautiful looking armies in the GT than I think I have seen at any other event including NOVA. The quality of entries at the Capital Pallet have increased exponentially over the last three years and it is great just to walk through the displays in awe. I had a blast and I appreciate all the time you guys put into the event

 Fishboy wrote:
There were countless numbers of great things that happened at NOVA this year. I am really hoping we can start to concentrate on those rather than some sub aspect that was tiny and is tending to lead off topic Mike as usual you ran an excellent event and as usual I am looking forward to next year. The guy that I played on Sunday morning with bugs (bugs on bugs heh) was probably one of the funniest games I ever played. There were more beautiful looking armies in the GT than I think I have seen at any other event including NOVA. The quality of entries at the Capital Pallet have increased exponentially over the last three years and it is great just to walk through the displays in awe. I had a blast and I appreciate all the time you guys put into the event

Learn to paint...

we can't all buy our armies heh

Just a touch outside of the current discussion, but where do normal players in DC play? I was just there last week and could not find a store I would consider a players store.

Crystal City was an awesome location for sure. Hope to be there next year.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Just a touch outside of the current discussion, but where do normal players in DC play? I was just there last week and could not find a store I would consider a players store.

Crystal City was an awesome location for sure. Hope to be there next year.

A lot of us host gaming at our homes. I do in Springfield.