Xenomancers wrote:
I had this issue come up in a tournament.

I was playing against tau and was running GK with a IK ally. It was turn 3 and I was in perfect position to stop his fusion suit drops. I had smoke blown on my undamaged LR, and I had Invis up on my knight and all my DK had sanctuary up - he had no ideal target.

The tau "forgot" to roll for his reserves. I didnt catch it until about the end of his moving phase. I brought it up to him before he shot anything and he said - oh well I get I can't roll now because I have to do reserves before the movement phase. I tried to explain to him that he must roll anyways because this is actually an advantage for him. He called the TO over.

The TO said roll off on it on a 4+. ofc the tau won the roll off and his suits were allowed to stay off the board without rolling for reserves. Needless to say I was pretty angry about it but played through. It turned what would have been a near turn 4 tabling into a marginal win because those suits dropped the next turn and destroyed my knight when I failed to cast invis.

I don't think this situation was handled right. I think he should have been forced to roll reserves because the previous movements had literally no interaction with his deep strikes.

What do you guys think?

DJ3 wrote:
If I let my opponent play a rule wrong and it costs me the game, I don't end up mad at him, I end up mad at myself for letting him get away with it.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Um.. if its forgetting the AP or S of a weapon thats both players fault, they giv eyou the army list to look over, its both players jobs to know the rules/unit rules.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

DJ3 wrote:
If I let my opponent play a rule wrong and it costs me the game, I don't end up mad at him, I end up mad at myself for letting him get away with it.

This is a very admirable attitude. I think this is what I would like for myself, and for other players; I agree that it would solve a myriad of problems.

The way I currently deal with the shame/aggression perception is to express honest amazement at the cool things different units can do. I'm continually disgusted and blown away by all the special abilities my opponents pull out. "This guy can run and charge!" "These Marines have a 3++!" "This gun is Str D!" And it's impressive, and I say that. I then ask to see the rule, and when they show it to me and it's right, I continue to express amazement: "I can't believe your guy can do that. That's a great power!" And they agree and we both feel good. (Although I feel less good when my is kicked )
When it's wrong, I point that out immediately, and then my opponent asks to see his own book, and then he says, "Oh, you're right. Sorry about that!" And I say, "No worries. There's a lot of rules to keep track of."
And that's that, although I still struggle with it, because I DO feel, deep down, that asking to see someone's rules is an implication of cheating. And when someone asks to see my rules, that's what I feel is being implied. Of course, since I'm always right, I get to be smug. (That was sarcasm.)

 AndrewC wrote:
I do have an observation on the Scibor model. Why did the player have an alternative stock model to replace it?

To me that says the player had an inkling that the figure might not be acceptable to play with, and as such did he clear it with the TO before playing the tourney?

Xenomancer, if you had your army set up to catch the DS suits, you really should have caught him before he moved his first unit for the reserve roll. Your post seems to imply that you were anticipating it.

Cheers

Andrew

 Xenomancers wrote:
I knew he had deep strike reserves coming - but tau don't move much...this was maybe a 20 second movement phase where all he did was move a riptide. I'm not sure why I didn't prompt him. I just didn't realize it in time. Plus it was rather chill until then - not like i expected him to cheat me.

 AndrewC wrote:
I do have an observation on the Scibor model. Why did the player have an alternative stock model to replace it?

To me that says the player had an inkling that the figure might not be acceptable to play with, and as such did he clear it with the TO before playing the tourney?

Xenomancer, if you had your army set up to catch the DS suits, you really should have caught him before he moved his first unit for the reserve roll. Your post seems to imply that you were anticipating it.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Maybe I'm just being a pessimist. On the few occasions that I've taken part in a tourney, I've only ever taken the models I need along with anything I need to repair in case of damage. The fact that he had an alternative replacement for a model central to the presentation of his army raised a red flag for me.

Just me being a typical Scot.

Cheers

Andrew

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
If it can't I penalize the player X number of tournament points where X is related to how common I think the rule is.

Now some people are saying "No warnings no excuses, know your rules or get the boot."

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Druid13 wrote:

The only reason that anyone brought up the GK/Scibor model at all was because 3rd place was looking to DQ the person who took "first".

I'm not sure why it was necessary for you to bring up so much detail surrounding this situation, since it doesn't in any way help solve the dilemma that occurred. However, since you did bring it up, I'll clarify things a bit, since you are misinformed and speaking from a place of ignorance.

Unless you're the 3rd place person (which I'm sure you aren't), it's quite arrogant to speak on his behalf, when you yourself have no idea what he was thinking since you never spoke to him. Just because you would act out of grasping avarice in that situation doesn't mean anyone in that position would. So please, don't throw about accusations unless you can back them up with facts rather than specious speculation. It just shows you're a mean-spirited person, making accusations with no legitimate grounding in reality.

The actual reason it was brought up was for fairness's sake. The TO claimed the 75% rule would be "strictly enforced." It was not. This was unfair. Tournaments should be fair. It seems pretty straightforward. The problem was not the model (because, as I mentioned in the OP, it was quite pretty). The problem was the way the TO applied rules arbitrarily to different players. This should not occur at tournaments.
To further prove that fairness, rather than personal gain, was at the heart of things, I'll tell you this: the person who won third place actually should not have, based on points. He noticed this error himself, reported it to the TO, and nearly got his prize rescinded. The TO decided that the scoring error was not the player's fault, and graciously allowed him to keep the money, despite the score error.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
If it can't I penalize the player X number of tournament points where X is related to how common I think the rule is.

So you make up an arbitrary penalty with no precedent behind it? The TO should never be allowed to alter the outcome of a game based on their arbitrary opinion about what it should be. If you're going to have score penalties for rule mistakes (and IMO that's a very bad idea) then you need to have a clear system for determining how much of a penalty is imposed and under what conditions, and you need to include it in the tournament rules so that everyone is aware of your policies before the event begins. As soon as you cross the line into assigning arbitrary score penalties you throw away your credibility as an honest TO and lose the trust of your players.

Now some people are saying "No warnings no excuses, know your rules or get the boot."

No, actually I'm saying that your punishments are ridiculously harsh in a game like 40k where the rules are bloated beyond any sensible level and full of problems that inspire 10-page YMDC flame wars. In fact, I'm pretty sure that your penalty system is harsher than the one used in MTG tournaments with $50k cash prizes, which makes it completely inappropriate for local 40k events.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
You assume I'm talking about 40k tournaments

as for "losing the trust of the players" I have never had a single issue with it.

Being pretty sure my system is harsher without having seen a single penalty I've given is some pretty good divination or possibly astroprojection.

Now I can't undo it but what I can do is penalize player A for the points of the General as he should not have killed it.

This is a penalty but is not unfair in my (or any of my players opinion) as these were points he should not have scored & as such should not have.

 Peregrine wrote:

Now I can't undo it but what I can do is penalize player A for the points of the General as he should not have killed it.

Except that's not true. He should not have killed it with that attack. Nobody knows if he would have been able to finish off the general with something else and score those points anyway. Once you change that one even the rest of the game becomes a complete unknown and nobody has any idea what the final score might have been. In fact, maybe if you could magically rewind the game to that initial mistake, correct it, and resume playing both players would change their strategies and the player who originally benefited from the mistake might win by a larger margin.

This is a penalty but is not unfair in my (or any of my players opinion) as these were points he should not have scored & as such should not have.

It's unfair because it's just your personal opinion that those points would not have been scored. You're inventing a hypothetical ending to the game and then assigning points based on that opinion. Another TO might come to a different conclusion about how the game probably would have ended and impose a different penalty. And there's no way either of the players involved can know what your penalty is going to be until you make your arbitrary decision. If I'm in that situation there's a good chance that I'm going to disagree with your arbitrary decision, and I'm certainly going to have my doubts if the other player is your friend.

Rules Judgments

TSHFT use a passive judge system.

What is a passive judge system?
In a passive judge system, judges and TO’s are responsible for any disputes and they are expected to keep the event running smoothly. However, Judges and TO’s are not responsible for the fairness of any games. Judges are not actively involved in your games, even when they spot a player error. Therefore, players are responsible for making sure their games play according to the rules. Here are a few examples of what players might be responsible for: legal army list, proper use of items, correctly applying FAQs, etc for both you and your opponent. Judges will only be involved if a player requests to resolve a dispute, when this occurs all judgments are final.

TSHFT will allow any agreement or modification of game-play between players. Terrain, mission packages or special rules will be the most common form of agreement. Example: one set of players might want to say a piece of terrain is a ruin and other set of players say it is impassable. However, both players can enter into an agreement on anything they feel like it. For example: if BOTH players agree that lasgun should be “STR 10 AP 1 assault, ignore cover” then so be it. In order to revoke an agreement BOTH players need to agree on that as well.

What constitutes cheating?
TSHFT is a competitive tournament and will assume all players are well versed in the rules related to this event. A intention of changing the mechanics of the game without an agreement. example: loaded dice, incorrect measuring device, model for advantage etc, etc.

Misinformation on rules and mis-measurement are not considered cheating. Players are responsible for their game plays according to all rules. Any answer or not answering by your opponent might have the potential to be considered an agreement.

Example 1:
Player 1. Do you have any AP 3 weapon?
Player 2: No.
Game event: end turn move on to player 2’s turn.
Player 2: O, my Heldrake is AP 3.
Player 1: You just told me you did not have any AP 3.

Solution: Player 2 has entered an agreement with player 1 that he does not have any AP 3 weapon; therefore, Heldrake’s flamers are now considered not AP3. Since it is player 2 who misinformed player 1, the benefit will goes to player 1 and now Heldrake’s Flamers are consider AP 4 or worst for the rest of the game. Player 2 does have the option to not answer player 1’s question (by not answering; player 2 is not taking any responsibility) or give him an answer that is not absolute. After all, it is player 1’s responsibility to know player 2’s army and answer that question himself. Player 1 can also request player 2 to produce his codex for him as a reference.

Example 2:

Player 1: I am going to run with Relic.
Player 2: go ahead
Game event: after few turns
Player 2: you can’t run with Relic, we need to go back and redo it

Solution: player 2 has agreed to the rule change in the BRB to where you can run with Relic.

Player 1: I am going to run with Relic.
Player 2’s action: silence
Game event: after few turns
Player 2: you can’t run with Relic, we need to go back and redo it

Solution: player 2 is agreed to change the rule in the BRB to where you can run with Relic. However, since player 2 did not actively agree to the condition then the agreement is on a turn by turn basis.

Rules Judgments
Rules issues will be dealt with swiftly by a roaming judge. We use a hierarchy for determining rules issues as follows:
1. Main Rule Book
2. FAQs and Erratas
3. IGTC FAQ
4. TSHFT TO have the final say

All decision are final. However, if you think the ruling is wrong you can appeal to ITC Ruling Body for future events.

 kestral wrote:
This thread has caused me to abandon any interest I had in returning to the tournament scene. You're talking about DQing someone after the fact for rules hotly debated in for pages and pages and requiring recourse to FAQs and multiple documents to resolve. Examples like the levels hit by a blast template have literally reversed from edition to edition IRC. It is not possible to play the game perfectly anymore without more study than a hobby should reasonably require or your own legal team. "My client can neither confirm nor deny that your formation special rule may or may not interact with his FAQ'd special character rule in the way you hypothesize." Which is a shame, because it really was better at one time.

 kestral wrote:
This thread has caused me to abandon any interest I had in returning to the tournament scene. You're talking about DQing someone after the fact for rules hotly debated in for pages and pages and requiring recourse to FAQs and multiple documents to resolve. Examples like the levels hit by a blast template have literally reversed from edition to edition IRC. It is not possible to play the game perfectly anymore without more study than a hobby should reasonably require or your own legal team. "My client can neither confirm nor deny that your formation special rule may or may not interact with his FAQ'd special character rule in the way you hypothesize." Which is a shame, because it really was better at one time.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
You assume I'm talking about 40k tournaments

Everything in that quoted section applies equally well to non-40k games. You should never, in any game, assign arbitrary penalties based on nothing more than your personal opinion about what it "should" be. If you're going to enforce score penalties then you need to have a clear list of what offenses produce penalties and what those penalties are, such that once a mistake occurs everyone involved knows exactly what the penalty is going to be without any judgement calls being made.

as for "losing the trust of the players" I have never had a single issue with it.

Well then you're lucky that you have players who are tolerant of horrible TOs. Are you running these events at the only store in the area? I know that's the only way I would ever attend an event where the TO assigns arbitrary score penalties, and I would assume from the beginning that the game is rigged and treat it as a casual "play some games" day with no competitive value.

Being pretty sure my system is harsher without having seen a single penalty I've given is some pretty good divination or possibly astroprojection.

I've seen your penalties because you posted them explicitly. One mistake is an arbitrary score penalty where you ignore the results of the game and decide who wins, two mistakes is an automatic game loss that effectively eliminates your chances of winning the tournament, three is disqualification. That's the kind of thing that might be appropriate with $50k cash prizes at stake (like in a MTG pro tour event), but even then I think the penalty rules aren't as strict.

Now I can't undo it but what I can do is penalize player A for the points of the General as he should not have killed it.

Except that's not true. He should not have killed it with that attack. Nobody knows if he would have been able to finish off the general with something else and score those points anyway. Once you change that one even the rest of the game becomes a complete unknown and nobody has any idea what the final score might have been. In fact, maybe if you could magically rewind the game to that initial mistake, correct it, and resume playing both players would change their strategies and the player who originally benefited from the mistake might win by a larger margin.

This is a penalty but is not unfair in my (or any of my players opinion) as these were points he should not have scored & as such should not have.

It's unfair because it's just your personal opinion that those points would not have been scored. /quote]

It wouldn't have been. General is out of combat, bottom of last turn, out of LoS of the enemy. I'm not sure how familiar you are with fantasy but there was no way besides magic he could have been killed and since you can only cast a spell once, he wouldn't have died (Wizard had Doom&Dark, Spirit Leech, Aspect of Dreadknight, soulblight). It's not arbitrary there is a lot more information to it. The rest of the game doesn't change. Remember that part where it was the bottom of the last turn?

As for the 3 strikes I may need to clarify that's 3 mistakes of the same rule. If you say you get a parry save even with your enchanted shield once, ok . If you do it AGAIN after you have already been told that same tournament now it doesn't look unintentional. If you try it a 3rd time you're definitely TRYING to cheat and I don't want you here. Just because I give a penalty doesn't mean I decide who wins. It could mean that instead of a 20-nil you win 18-2. You seem to think I just say "whelp you lost". Which is the case for repeat offenders but it helps drill home that you need to know your rules and repeating the same "errors" won't be tolerated when you have been explicitly corrected. However often it is a slight adjustment in the margin of victory. The example with the general shifted a 20-nil to a 17-3. Still a victory just a less margin.

In my area there are 5 places to play. 3 LGS's and 2 college gaming clubs. I get good turn out so no I don't run things at the only store. I'm also glad you think I'm horrible (though you state as though this is fact & not opinion) because you have played in so very many of my events and aren't making this entire assumption off of one thing that may or may not happen and may or may not impact the overall standings. You say "tolerate" but my players have always said "enjoy". I try to remediate issues with a solution that will make both players happy, you can say you'll never be happy with my system and that's fine. I'll try to work with you to come up with a solution that satifies both parties but if one party will never be satisfied I will give my judgement, if they don't like it tough.

I get it, you don't like my system. That's fine, don't play in one of my events. There are other locations and other tournaments in the area. I have never had a problem with attendance, my events have grown. If so many people were truly against the way I do things they can go to other events, or run their own. I'm not stopping them and if people start to leave my events for another I will have to assess why & make changes that the players want.

I can't possibly make everyone happy but if I see consistent attendance of events & especially growth in attendance, I'm clearly doing something right. If I see a decline then I'm doing something wrong and need to find out what.If it's my system on penalizing cheaters (intentional or not) then it will change. Every packet I use has the last page "Comments / Concerns / Suggestions" where players are free to leave feedback. If enogh want change, I'll change, if they like how it is, I'll keep it that way.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
You should always consider that some of what is being espoused on the net comes from people with little to no actual tournament experience. Members who don't have any real stake in tournaments for 40k but feel that because they can form an opinion they must state it forcibly and influence those who read what they write without the knowledge of their actual stake in things. This thread is no exception.

 yakface wrote:
However, even so forcing a player to play with his Heldrake's weapon as AP4 because he temporarily forgot could lead people to ask a bunch of douchey questions hoping to get their opponent to slip up, and this system also gives their opponent the 'right' to apparently not answer questions (for fear of giving the wrong answer), so it certainly isn't perfect!