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.

 Primark G wrote:
Yeah put words in my mouth why don't you.

Which words the one where you said if mistakes fall in favor of the player he is cheating?

Breng77 wrote:

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:
You say I should question my opponent if I think something is to powerful, and guess what, he would have gave me the wrong answer because he did not know the rules for his army!. it was only caught because he did play someone that knew his rules, that is not OK, no I should not have to police my opponent. If you are playing in a tournament that has prizes, and people potentially paid thousands of dollars to attend, you should know, at the very least, how to play your army correctly. No I do not think there is an excuse for this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unless every time the internet loses their mind that player should be banned from every event forever is your solution.

Make stuff up much? No one said this and I don't believe it. I would be fine if he was not allowed to win anything, and he should have apologized to his previous opponents, which he might have. Lesson learned, and study your rules for the next tournament.

You ask him to SEE the rules, you know in his INDEX/CODEX. So you can read them. If he does not have the "official print/digital copy of the rules" call a judge as the rules packet requires him to have them. So no he wouldn't give you the wrong answer. Hence "can I see the rules for that?" not "what does that do?" Sorry most people make mistakes with their armies, it is incumbent upon people to police their own games, because you are the first line of arbitration for rules mistakes.

He didn't win anything, no idea if he apologized. But most people that complain about this stuff want people to be shunned by the community because they made mistakes. Doing so means tournament streaming ends because no one will want to be shunned for their mistakes made on camera.

Not sure one of the GTs most successful legendary players will get "shunned". So thats a awkward stretch.

FYI- He couldnt produce the rule. He didnt have a copy. So what was your point?

That if the first player that he played asked for clarification, this would have come out, and been addressed. My point is the idea that people shouldn't have to ask to see rules is a silly stance, that we should just trust that our opponent knows all the rules to their army, and is playing them correctly is a poor place to start for a tournament player.

As to how the event addressed him not having a copy of his rules. That is up to the event, but it would have come up round 1 if his opponent asked to see the rules. I have more issue with "not having copies of rules" than making a mistake in how rules are played.

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:
First of all you're talking to the wrong person, second of all I did not say that. I said I would think/feel I was cheated. If I give you a twenty and find out later I got change for a ten I would think I was cheated, that does not mean I know the intent of the other person, but I have every right to think I was cheated. The same as if you are giving your close combat troops another attack they do not have, I have every right to feel like I was cheated. That's why doing something about these issues should matter because it effects the people he played due to no fault of there own.

what are you even talking about, the post where I quoted a different poster? Who said exactly that the player making mistakes is cheating. And I responded to him not to you?


I also disagree that they have no fault in their results. They could have asked to see the rules. Your stance is that they should never have to question their opponents grasp on the rules. I disagree. It doesn't mean they have not right to feel salty about losing if the mistake resulted in their loss, but they are not devoid of responsibility any more than they would be if they forgot to move a unit turn 5 and lost the game.

That is up to the event, but it would have come up round 1 if his opponent asked to see the rules.

How would I know to ask? I am not playing his army I am playing mine. Why should I know the rules for his army and the guy that is playing it shouldn't? Are you serious or just Trolling I honestly do not know?

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:

That is up to the event, but it would have come up round 1 if his opponent asked to see the rules.

How would I know to ask? I am not playing his army I am playing mine. Why should I know the rules for his army and the guy that is playing it shouldn't? Are you serious or just Trolling I honestly do not know?

If a rule seems strong to you, you ask to see the rule. You don't need to know anything about the other army at all. If I'm playing a guy and he says. This gun is Assault 40 S10 Ap -5 2D6 damage, I'm going to say "woah that's crazy, do you mind if I see the rules for that." Same as a stratagem that I'm unfamiliar with and my opponent tells me it lets him attack 3 times in a row. The problem is often more that people are too proud to admit that they don't know their opponents rules, and hear things from forums about chaos having a stratagem that lets khorne units attack again, and say. "oh yeah he can totally do that"

I just assume that if something feels too good it may well be. IT might not be, but why not assume that it is and see the rules.

Your "victimize the victims" approach is amateur. Dudes are playing one of the biggest players in the USA. Some assumptions can/could be made. Heck he probably help develop 8th edition through play testing and feedback.

At the highest level of play(players). A "headliner" should know his army and have the references. Dont be an enabler.

Unless the NOVA boss cares, which seems he doesnt. This is all a waste of time. Im done. Glad everybody had fun.

Breng77 wrote:

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:

That is up to the event, but it would have come up round 1 if his opponent asked to see the rules.

How would I know to ask? I am not playing his army I am playing mine. Why should I know the rules for his army and the guy that is playing it shouldn't? Are you serious or just Trolling I honestly do not know?

If a rule seems strong to you, you ask to see the rule. You don't need to know anything about the other army at all.

Sorry mate but this is just silly amounts of contradictory nonsense.

How on earth are you seriously expecting someone to suspect a rule is BS without any knowledge of the army? This is so unreasonable in a timed event, why not ask them to read their opponents lists and codex completely prior to first turn? Seems just as reasonable to me. /s

 Byte wrote:
Your "victimize the victims" approach is amateur. Dudes are playing one of the biggest players in the USA. Some assumptions can/could be made. Heck he probably help develop 8th edition through play testing and feedback.

At the highest level of play(players). A "headliner" should know his army and have the references. Dont be an enabler.

Unless the NOVA boss cares, which seems he doesnt. This is all a waste of time. Im done. Glad everybody had fun.

To my knowledge he is not a playtester but I honestly don't know. I just don't understand the blind trust in players you all seem to have.

It was extra close combat attacks for Chaos, they are supposed to be good in close combat. I am not too proud to admit that I don't know my opponents rules and I feel it is rude to constantly question my opponent if he does. If he does know his rules and I keep questioning him, on what he is doing, how do you think he is going to feel? I will ask again why should I know, or know enough, of my opponent's rules but he should not?

I just assume that if something feels too good it may well be. IT might not be, but why not assume that it is and see the rules.

Why didn't the player follow this metric? It sure is odd we never see players misinterpreting the rules at a detriment too their army?

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:

That is up to the event, but it would have come up round 1 if his opponent asked to see the rules.

How would I know to ask? I am not playing his army I am playing mine. Why should I know the rules for his army and the guy that is playing it shouldn't? Are you serious or just Trolling I honestly do not know?

If a rule seems strong to you, you ask to see the rule. You don't need to know anything about the other army at all.

Sorry mate but this is just silly amounts of contradictory nonsense.

How on earth are you seriously expecting someone to suspect a rule is BS without any knowledge of the army? This is so unreasonable in a timed event, why not ask them to read their opponents lists and codex completely prior to first turn? Seems just as reasonable to me. /s

It is not unreasonable at all. How can people not expect to question rules that seem off? Seriously asking, you all just blind trust all the rules your opponent quotes and assume they play them right? It literally takes 5 seconds to check a suspicious rule. he says "I'm using x stratagem, to attack again." I say, "you can attack 3 times in a row, can I see that rule." He opens to the page and hands me the book (or hands me the stratagem card if he has it.), I read the rule. It literally does not slow the game down a ton. Most things are going to seem pretty reasonable. I literally have copies of all my data sheets just incase my opponent wants to see a rule, I can provide it quickly. ( I also have a hard copy of the book on hand). If something does not seem too powerful you assume it is no issue and keep going. Is it only me that hears a powerful rule and goes "You can do what now!!!?" I guess I need to play you guys because I can cheat up a storm by making rules up. "I'll spend this command point to give my orks +6" to my charge roll." I mean you don't know my rules, so how can you suspect something might be wrong and ask me to see the stratagem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:
It was extra close combat attacks for Chaos, they are supposed to be good in close combat. I am not too proud to admit that I don't know my opponents rules and I feel it is rude to constantly question my opponent if he does. If he does know his rules and I keep questioning him, on what he is doing, how do you think he is going to feel? I will ask again why should I know, or know enough, of my opponent's rules but he should not?

I just assume that if something feels too good it may well be. IT might not be, but why not assume that it is and see the rules.

Why didn't the player follow this metric? It sure is odd we never see players misinterpreting the rules at a detriment too their army?

I see players misinterpret rules to their detriment all the time. Maybe he misread the rule and thought he knew it. Way back in 5e I played my Tervigon as S6 for a while, never realizing it was S5 because every other tyranid monster was S6. Someone asked me about it and I learned I had it wrong. Now this is something that might not get caught without knowledge, but bigger things like the rule in question likely will be.

How are you supposed to suspect something is off? Thats the part of your argument that is most ridiculous. There is no objective measure so basically your expecting players to guess which rules seem unreasonable OR question everything. Neither things presented there help the situation.

 Red Corsair wrote:
How are you supposed to suspect something is off? Thats the part of your argument that is most ridiculous. There is no objective measure so basically your expecting players to guess which rules seem unreasonable OR question everything. Neither things presented there help the situation.

So again if I'm playing orks and I tell you a 1 CP stratagem lets me add 6" to my charge, you don't think that might be off? Asking seriously? You won't catch every mistake, but you will catch most large mistakes, (or find horribly broken rules). I mean seriously you have no barometer for things that seem OP? Were it me I would have thought "Berserkers get to attack 3 consecutive times on the charge before I get to do anything. wow that is powerful." At which point what does it hurt to ask? Or when I played against a helforged Cerberus, I asked to see the rules for the main gun because they were crazy powerful and complex. So you are making "educated guesses" about which rules seem off to you? What is your alternative solution? No one makes mistakes? TOs retroactively fix things after mistakes have been made?

Another example from the GT but from a less successful and famous player:

I met a gentleman playing Sisters, and played against him. Told him the Exorcist did d3, not d6 damage. We looked it up, and sure enough, it did d3.

He immediately apologized, and 1) played it correctly henceforth and 2) expressed at least to me sincere regret that his previous opponents in the GT had suffered the Exorcist's d6 damage.

And it's an honest mistake! The rule doesn't seem "too powerful" - after all, they were fantastic anti-tank weapons in earlier editions - and it is an easy mistake to make, especially when writing lists. In fact, the only reason I happened to remember is it seemed ridiculously UNDERpowered so I read it and read it again to make sure.

People make mistakes, the guy was contrite and expressed his regret that he had erred, and we moved on with the game.

When people are playing 8 games in 3 days, fatigue sets in. Combined with a new rules edition vastly different from the old and a withering hail of new information about everything in your army, things become confused or mistaken.

With all the new rules it is very hard to say and who has time to read them all... you are being silly or trolling hard.

 Primark G wrote:
With all the new rules it is very hard to say and who has time to read them all... you are being silly or trolling hard.

I specifically mentioned not needing to know all the rules and still catching at least major mistakes. I probably would catch the mistake in unit's example for instance because it does not seem way out of whack. Whereas attacking 3 times in a row does. Apparently I'm the oy one whoAsks to see my opponents rules.

Dude, you are saying we should question every rule written by GW that seems overpowered!?! Read that again slowly and think about it before responding.

Playing a tournament.

Have your rulebook bookmarked within an inch of it's life.
Have your Codex also bookmarked within an inch of it's life.
Have printouts of FAQ's and stickinotes stating the new rules on the page affected referencing the FAQ.

It is dumb in the extreme to not have all your reference material: you have no evidence what you say is right.
As an opponent, seeing someone that could not be bothered to bring their books seems to push the "casual play" a bit too far in that setting.
I have met too many WAAC players that like to push a "make it up as I go" remembering of rules who conveniently forget their books so I am leary of that kind of thing.

MY problem is living through 2nd edition up to our present 8th edition and darndest stuff gets misremembered from prior editions.
In a way, the stats changes is a blessing: less to get confused over.

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:
Dude, you are saying we should question every rule written by GW that seems overpowered!?! Read that again slowly and think about it before responding.

Yes, if you are unfamiliar with it absolutely. Unless you plan to memorize every other Mary how else will you know you aren't getting cheated?

To be fair this edition is still on the fast and furious mode and hasn't really settled down yet. You can't get to worked up with mistakes unless someone's being a douche. I'm hoping things settle down after the release of the chapter approved books pay for FAQs point nerfs (apparently including fw) and the release of the astra militarum nerf codex. At that point other then a few underpowered codexs there should be more parity. That's if gw does a good job with the chapter approved book with points adjustments. I know that's asking a lot.

Nobody is getting worked up over it, the problem is there are people who simply don't take it seriously. How do they expect the fast and loose crowd to get their crap together if there are no repercussions? It's also completely asinine to suggest it's somehow the fault of the players being cheated for not catching it, which BTW, what would that matter since apparently after he was caught no action was taken?

 Red Corsair wrote:
Nobody is getting worked up over it, the problem is there are people who simply don't take it seriously. How do they expect the fast and loose crowd to get their crap together if there are no repercussions? It's also completely asinine to suggest it's somehow the fault of the players being cheated for not catching it, which BTW, what would that matter since apparently after he was caught no action was taken?

The point is if you catch a persons mistake you don't get cheated. There is a crowd of people that seem to want to see punishment for people making mistakes. They are apparently perfect and have never misplayed a rule, and want those that make mistakes to be disqualified because that will stop them from ever making mistakes again. The only way to really cut down on "mistakes" is to create an environment where people question rules and catch those mistakes regularly and early and allow players to correct
Things right off the bat.

Breng77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Nobody is getting worked up over it, the problem is there are people who simply don't take it seriously. How do they expect the fast and loose crowd to get their crap together if there are no repercussions? It's also completely asinine to suggest it's somehow the fault of the players being cheated for not catching it, which BTW, what would that matter since apparently after he was caught no action was taken?

The point is if you catch a persons mistake you don't get cheated. There is a crowd of people that seem to want to see punishment for people making mistakes. They are apparently perfect and have never misplayed a rule, and want those that make mistakes to be disqualified because that will stop them from ever making mistakes again. The only way to really cut down on "mistakes" is to create an environment where people question rules and catch those mistakes regularly and early and allow players to correct
Things right off the bat.

Wait what? Now who is being dramatic?

First off, intent is basically impossible to prove.

Second, why should players EVER play accurately or correctly if there are absolutely no consequences for errors? All they need do is faint stupidity and they have folks like you to defend them.

Thirdly, you really are failing at defending your position when your suggesting it's somehow impossible for people to know the BASIC rules for THEIR unit entries. For such a pro I really am mind blown he manages to fuss up Khorne Berserkers. Nobody is perfect sure, but it's overly dramatic and bullcrap to suggest it requires perfection to know your units entries, or heck maybe have the source handy so you can check rather then assume an advantage. But wait he didn't have the source either, something that's required btw.

BTW did he voluntarily drop from standings when he was discovered?

I'm super entertained by lots of people who weren't at the con or the 40K GT arguing about what should have happened in an event that included only 10% of the attending population.

So we raised nearly $60K for charity ...

MVBrandt wrote:
I'm super entertained by lots of people who weren't at the con or the 40K GT arguing about what should have happened in an event that included only 10% of the attending population.

So we raised nearly $60K for charity ...

No kidding. As someone who attended the GT, it was awesome and no more mistakes were made than I believe to be reasonable.

Also yay charity money! I bought all of my opponents a drink at the Foundation Lounge, and then some. Gin and tonics!

MVBrandt wrote:
I'm super entertained by lots of people who weren't at the con or the 40K GT arguing about what should have happened in an event that included only 10% of the attending population.

So we raised nearly $60K for charity ...

Agreed. Lets call it entertaining. Why not.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/171681922
Min 39 to 51ish

Awesome on the charity push. Thats pretty cool.

Thanks for the link ... so a player was doing something wrong unwittingly, his opponent caught it, they amicably figured it out, and the game moved on with 0 angst. And it impacted nothing. Seems pretty legit to me!

For the audience of folks who don't go to GTs due to misconceptions like Byte's, they are not events for high level MTG-style play. They are events for socializing and making buddies. These 2 players in particular are common on the circuit, typically do well because they are good players (Whether or not they ace rules all the time), and are buddies. I would hope one player being in his pajamas would indicate the level of HARDCOAR GET IT ALL PERFEKTZ involved ... vs "play hard have fun do your best."

Well I wanted to delete the content of this particular post but it got quoted so its alive and well below.

I think in most sporting events if there's a rules screw-up there's usually just a proportionate forfeit. In (American) football, for example, minor rules infractions generally just move the offensive team back down the field to negate any advantage (intentional or not) from the rules break.

In this case, we can't really figure out retroactively what would have happened if the rule was done right without a photographic memory and rolling a lot of hypothetical dice. Simple answer would probably have just been to put a bonus negative on the player's score for those two matches to counter-balance his standing.

If 40k becomes more competitive and popular, which it might not but GW seems to be trying for both, increasingly competitive people will attend tournaments. New faces will appear and we might not be able to fall back on "I know that guy". Probably good to have something as a contingency. Otherwise you can leave a bad taste in some peoples' mouths (like Byte).

On the other issue, I think it's insane to say that in a game this voluminous with its rules you should have to memorize your opponent's. Nu-uh. In an ideal world, we'd have a judge assigned to each table who would supervise every match, but no 40k GT has that kind of resources. So players have to pick up some of the burden and at least know their own rules thoroughly. I don't think we're so far gone we can't trust our opponents to not knowingly lie or cheat.