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.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with a judge stepping in is that unless it was made clear that they would be actively judged then it is up to the players to ask for rulings. This was pointed out to the judge, but whose to say other mistakes were not. Should this get intervention just because an observer noticed it?

I very much think judges should interfere if they notice or are notified of a mistake being made.

Is there any other game where a judge will not actively interfere unless asked for?

Imagine if football referees only threw a flag if the other team complained about it... I imagine we'd have many more contact injuries than we do already.

Imagine if football referees threw flags if the crowd called foul. That is what people are calling for here. Now a judge could be assigned to actively judge the game but then using the football analogy the teams don’t get to call foul. 40k judges aren’t refs they are there to arbitrate disputes on rules. The game is self judged much more like high school tennis (at least near me) or ultimate frisbee in most events. Both are competitive but judged by players with higher judges just there to arbitrate disputes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
That is where I disagree, the players (and if the judge is actively judging the table) are the only ones who should catch and correct mistakes. Otherwise is it fair to have my buddies watch my opponent for rules mistakes and get the judge, when he doesn’t have the same. You either need an active judge and that judge is the only one make rules calls, or you have players self judge and they are the only ones making rules calls. Both of those systems get use in other competitive environments, in no environment does the crowd call the game.

The crowd isn't calling the game, the crowd is notifying the authority to call the game. HUGE difference.

And you're seriously arguing that having the ability to make sure someone follows the rules of the game (via more eyes watching) is an unfair advantage?

Yeah, that's everything wrong with some TO mindsets at the moment.

It is no different than then a ref calling holding in football because the crowd says it happened. Also yes if one player has extra people to watch for rules mistakes and the other does not it is an unfair advantage. One players mistakes are more likely to be caught than the other players. Unless your assumption is only one player is making mistakes how is this not unfair?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The issue is consistency the game must be judged consistently. Either the judge watch and correcting all rules misplay, or not doing so. Once they only do some it becomes unfair.

Judges should obviously enforce rules otherwise cheating can occur and possibly bias.

I'm not certain what the Judge should have done... well other than stop making silly comments. By the time he heard about it the game state was changed.

Breng77 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with a judge stepping in is that unless it was made clear that they would be actively judged then it is up to the players to ask for rulings. This was pointed out to the judge, but whose to say other mistakes were not. Should this get intervention just because an observer noticed it?

I very much think judges should interfere if they notice or are notified of a mistake being made.

Is there any other game where a judge will not actively interfere unless asked for?

Imagine if football referees only threw a flag if the other team complained about it... I imagine we'd have many more contact injuries than we do already.

Imagine if football referees threw flags if the crowd called foul. That is what people are calling for here. Now a judge could be assigned to actively judge the game but then using the football analogy the teams don’t get to call foul. 40k judges aren’t refs they are there to arbitrate disputes on rules. The game is self judged much more like high school tennis (at least near me) or ultimate frisbee in most events. Both are competitive but judged by players with higher judges just there to arbitrate disputes.

It is no different than then a ref calling holding in football because the crowd says it happened. Also yes if one player has extra people to watch for rules mistakes and the other does not it is an unfair advantage. One players mistakes are more likely to be caught than the other players. Unless your assumption is only one player is making mistakes how is this not unfair?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The issue is consistency the game must be judged consistently. Either the judge watch and correcting all rules misplay, or not doing so. Once they only do some it becomes unfair.

Actually a football player can get suspensions after the game if they committed a big foul that the ref missed.

Still not called by the crowd. What you are talking about is akin to a higher judge or TO making a ruling post game. Perhaps after an appeal by one of the players. Which in the case of blatant cheating is fine. See the DQ/resignation by one of the top 16 after the determination that his list was illegal. My point is that no 3rd party should be making calls about a game, just the players and any judges, and for the most part we don’t actively judge games, because of lack of judges (so judges are not trained to do so). If you think say the final table should be actively judged that is fine. But even then no outside party should be giving info to the judge because it is inherently unfair for that to happen.

In this case tournament was not actively judged and so the judge made the right call. Especially after the fact.

The situation is the same in Magic the Gathering. I disagree with it for how things are done.

For example I was at an event once with my partner. She and her opponent were the only people left to finish, so we were all watching. She had a thing that dealt her opponent damage, if he did a certain thing automatically, and he kept doing the certain thing, but not taking the damage. I opened my mouth to start to make a comment and got taken aside by the judge.

He politely pointed out if I finished my comment I'd be disqualified from the event, and it was my partners responsibility to ensure her opponent was following the rules, not his, and not any spectators.

Needless to say, my partner lost, and her opponent went on to win the event.

I personally feel it's important for judges to enforce the rules of the game as much as to make judgement calls, otherwise this promotes a cluture of, 'Let's hope my opponent doesn't notice' which swifts into a full blown 'Let's distract my opponent so they don't notice me blantantly not following the rules of the game to their advantage.'

If I'm playing Warhammer with you, my aim and reason for being there is to give you the best damn game of warhammer possible. It's not to stare at your every move to check you're not cheating. Rules enforcement isn't supposed to be part of the skillset for playing competatively. Or we're just going to spend the game arguing like it's a YMDC Thread.

MtG has the advantage of having a ruleset that's so solid you could cut through a tank with it though. Plus, if you (generic you) have an effect that triggers that deals damage to the enemy it's your effect doing something, and thus your job to keep track of.

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
That is where I disagree, the players (and if the judge is actively judging the table) are the only ones who should catch and correct mistakes. Otherwise is it fair to have my buddies watch my opponent for rules mistakes and get the judge, when he doesn’t have the same. You either need an active judge and that judge is the only one make rules calls, or you have players self judge and they are the only ones making rules calls. Both of those systems get use in other competitive environments, in no environment does the crowd call the game.

The crowd isn't calling the game, the crowd is notifying the authority to call the game. HUGE difference.

And you're seriously arguing that having the ability to make sure someone follows the rules of the game (via more eyes watching) is an unfair advantage?

Yeah, that's everything wrong with some TO mindsets at the moment.

You're misrepresenting what he said; he said it could lead to one player having eyes helping him form the side and the other not having them.

Coming from BJJ, I agree with him entirely. It sucks when you have twenty people shouting every mistake you make in a match and how to capitalize on it when you don't have anyone to do the same for you. I'd prefer to play against the person I'm playing against, with the ref abritrating and the spectators silent; whatever sport im playing.

Which is why those people should be talking to the judge about it rather than just blurting it out, but that was done and still nothing.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Which is why those people should be talking to the judge about it rather than just blurting it out, but that was done and still nothing.

Really no difference though it would still be an advantage for one player over another. Bystanders should never impact the game in any way. If a judge is actively judging it is up to them to catch things not the crowd.

Given most judges don’t actively judge it lies on the players themselves to catch rules mistakes.

I feel like people are treating g “competitive” 40k as something much larger than it really is. Even at the highest level it is still a hobby, people treat these events like their the Olympics when the reality is they are closer to your local over 40 softball league than professional athletics.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with a judge stepping in is that unless it was made clear that they would be actively judged then it is up to the players to ask for rulings. This was pointed out to the judge, but whose to say other mistakes were not. Should this get intervention just because an observer noticed it?

I very much think judges should interfere if they notice or are notified of a mistake being made.

Is there any other game where a judge will not actively interfere unless asked for?

Imagine if football referees only threw a flag if the other team complained about it... I imagine we'd have many more contact injuries than we do already.

You'd need a change in the status quo vis a visit number of complaints to number of actual fouls.

Oh, wait, American football. Yeah. You're on point.

So if the guy is using loaded dice or an illegal list, and the judge spots it, but the opponent is too busy to notice, then the cheater should get a pass?

That's just stupid.

The judge should have stepped in and rectified the situation, with a further penalty due to the player not catching their own error first.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
So if the guy is using loaded dice or an illegal list, and the judge spots it, but the opponent is too busy to notice, then the cheater should get a pass?

That's just stupid.

The judge should have stepped in and rectified the situation, with a further penalty due to the player not catching their own error first.

you'd kinda expect more than 1 judge at the final table, isn't the bold adage 4 eyes are better than one?(not 4 carnifexs)

I'd certainly expect active judging for the final table, rather than judges who have fallen foul of the Decree Passive...

I once played on the final table for Warmachine at Templecon. At the time this was one of the premier tournaments for Warmachine, and there was plenty of official presence. Two judges watched the entire game and intervened constantly, measuring out anything that wasn't immediately obvious (measurements are more important in Warmachine than in 40K) and reminding the players about any compulsory interactions that we might have forgotten (in Warmachine compulsory events are resolved even if the players forget about them).

I found this to be annoying, as I'd rather resolve disputes with my opponent and not have a third party stick his nose into everything. However, a high-level tournament is a different kettle of fish from a casual game, so I didn't mind it being held to a different standard. There is absolutely no question that everything was resolved according to the rules.

What is more, the preceding year I was playing in the loser's bracket of the final tournament (so, very low stakes) but my opponent was a complete dick. This was apparently known to the judges, as a judge monitored our game as closely as his duties allowed to rein in my opponent's cheating. I appreciated that as well.

Breng77 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with a judge stepping in is that unless it was made clear that they would be actively judged then it is up to the players to ask for rulings. This was pointed out to the judge, but whose to say other mistakes were not. Should this get intervention just because an observer noticed it?

I very much think judges should interfere if they notice or are notified of a mistake being made.

Is there any other game where a judge will not actively interfere unless asked for?

Imagine if football referees only threw a flag if the other team complained about it... I imagine we'd have many more contact injuries than we do already.

Imagine if football referees threw flags if the crowd called foul. That is what people are calling for here. Now a judge could be assigned to actively judge the game but then using the football analogy the teams don’t get to call foul. 40k judges aren’t refs they are there to arbitrate disputes on rules. The game is self judged much more like high school tennis (at least near me) or ultimate frisbee in most events. Both are competitive but judged by players with higher judges just there to arbitrate disputes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
That is where I disagree, the players (and if the judge is actively judging the table) are the only ones who should catch and correct mistakes. Otherwise is it fair to have my buddies watch my opponent for rules mistakes and get the judge, when he doesn’t have the same. You either need an active judge and that judge is the only one make rules calls, or you have players self judge and they are the only ones making rules calls. Both of those systems get use in other competitive environments, in no environment does the crowd call the game.

The crowd isn't calling the game, the crowd is notifying the authority to call the game. HUGE difference.

And you're seriously arguing that having the ability to make sure someone follows the rules of the game (via more eyes watching) is an unfair advantage?

Yeah, that's everything wrong with some TO mindsets at the moment.

It is no different than then a ref calling holding in football because the crowd says it happened. Also yes if one player has extra people to watch for rules mistakes and the other does not it is an unfair advantage. One players mistakes are more likely to be caught than the other players. Unless your assumption is only one player is making mistakes how is this not unfair?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The issue is consistency the game must be judged consistently. Either the judge watch and correcting all rules misplay, or not doing so. Once they only do some it becomes unfair.

It's completely different than a ref making a call in football because of the crowd. In football, they record the events and the refs can (and do) check the recordings. They even pause the game to do it. You're mischaracterizing the other side of this debate as well. They're not saying the ref should blindly issue a penalty based on a crowd statement, but he can go ask the players what happened. The OP makes it sound like all of his events were fairly contemporaneous so there was still plenty of time to retroactively resolve the psyker explosion and undo the harm if the players said they did not do an explosion.

But you're saying it'd make an unfair advantage for a ref to even go do that, which is crazy. It is never an unfair advantage to make sure the game is played by the rules. Maybe it creates an advantage for someone who built and plays according to the rules, but that's what we want. That's called playing the game.

And FYI, if a large segment of the crowd at a football game started chanting about a foul, you can bet your britches at least one ref would be tasked to go watch the video and report back for potential corrective action. So the analogy fails there too.

 davou wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
That is where I disagree, the players (and if the judge is actively judging the table) are the only ones who should catch and correct mistakes. Otherwise is it fair to have my buddies watch my opponent for rules mistakes and get the judge, when he doesn’t have the same. You either need an active judge and that judge is the only one make rules calls, or you have players self judge and they are the only ones making rules calls. Both of those systems get use in other competitive environments, in no environment does the crowd call the game.

The crowd isn't calling the game, the crowd is notifying the authority to call the game. HUGE difference.

And you're seriously arguing that having the ability to make sure someone follows the rules of the game (via more eyes watching) is an unfair advantage?

Yeah, that's everything wrong with some TO mindsets at the moment.

You're misrepresenting what he said; he said it could lead to one player having eyes helping him form the side and the other not having them.

Coming from BJJ, I agree with him entirely. It sucks when you have twenty people shouting every mistake you make in a match and how to capitalize on it when you don't have anyone to do the same for you. I'd prefer to play against the person I'm playing against, with the ref abritrating and the spectators silent; whatever sport im playing.

I'm not and you're whole post is colored by an off-the-mark personal experience that is likely clouding your judgment. We're not talking about a shouting crowd. We're talking about a ref privately being notified of a rules error and then investigating it + taking necessary corrective action.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
So if the guy is using loaded dice or an illegal list, and the judge spots it, but the opponent is too busy to notice, then the cheater should get a pass?

That's just stupid.

The judge should have stepped in and rectified the situation, with a further penalty due to the player not catching their own error first.

Another reason not to waste time and money to play there.

Breng77 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Which is why those people should be talking to the judge about it rather than just blurting it out, but that was done and still nothing.

Really no difference though it would still be an advantage for one player over another. Bystanders should never impact the game in any way. If a judge is actively judging it is up to them to catch things not the crowd.

Given most judges don’t actively judge it lies on the players themselves to catch rules mistakes.

I feel like people are treating g “competitive” 40k as something much larger than it really is. Even at the highest level it is still a hobby, people treat these events like their the Olympics when the reality is they are closer to your local over 40 softball league than professional athletics.

This is another problem you and I repeatedly butt heads over. I get it, 'competitive 40k' used to be brohammer and you're part of the good old boys club, but that's not what it is anymore. There is a large and growing group that reads "competitive event" and actually takes that at face value. TO's can't manipulate that for ticket/pass sales and then cry foul when people actually expect them to live up to it.

Say you're brohammer, say you're beer and chips hammer, say you're competitive hammer, it doesn't matter, but accurately advertise your category and own up to what you say you are.

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
That is where I disagree, the players (and if the judge is actively judging the table) are the only ones who should catch and correct mistakes. Otherwise is it fair to have my buddies watch my opponent for rules mistakes and get the judge, when he doesn’t have the same. You either need an active judge and that judge is the only one make rules calls, or you have players self judge and they are the only ones making rules calls. Both of those systems get use in other competitive environments, in no environment does the crowd call the game.

The crowd isn't calling the game, the crowd is notifying the authority to call the game. HUGE difference.

And you're seriously arguing that having the ability to make sure someone follows the rules of the game (via more eyes watching) is an unfair advantage?

Yeah, that's everything wrong with some TO mindsets at the moment.

Actually it can be if the others are only watching that rules of games are followed ONLY when it benefits one player but happily turn blind eye when their side player ignores rules.

 Ordana wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with a judge stepping in is that unless it was made clear that they would be actively judged then it is up to the players to ask for rulings. This was pointed out to the judge, but whose to say other mistakes were not. Should this get intervention just because an observer noticed it?

I very much think judges should interfere if they notice or are notified of a mistake being made.

Is there any other game where a judge will not actively interfere unless asked for?

I have very limited 'competitive' experience, but I recently (within this year) read on relevant Reddit site about Magic the Gathering Pro-Tour qualifier drama where one player had joked about giving his opponent something if he wins. We all understand that Joke is a Joke, Fantasy Card Game is a Fantasy Card Game etc. However in serious adult world this sort of offer is considered bribing suggestion, and in many countries can carry actual significant penalties in serious adult setting.

Anyway, some bystander/judge had heard the 'bribe offer' and reported it to judge, then both players were promptly questioned and later DQ'ed as the rules apparently specifically forbid bribing etc. So essentially breaking of rules happened, the breaking of rules was not brought to attention of Judges by one of the players himself and the judges acted.

Personally I'm of the opinion that Judges should act on any report, not only on challenges initiated by one the players himself. Otherwise the game will turn into this sort of Lawyer vs. Lawyer duel where cheating essentially is ALLOWED if the opponent does not notice and challenge it himself.

On another note, this Adepticon Disqualification drama:
Breaking of rules was noted on the list by someone. Following the logic of the subject judge of this thread, any Lists breaking rules Could only be challenged by the opposing player. You cannot have a rules enforcement system where in some cases 3rd party reports are noted and in others only reports by opposing player are noted. You need to have consistency on rules enforcement.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
So if the guy is using loaded dice or an illegal list, and the judge spots it, but the opponent is too busy to notice, then the cheater should get a pass?

That's just stupid.

The judge should have stepped in and rectified the situation, with a further penalty due to the player not catching their own error first.

This is good example.

So If someone gets caught having dice with no 1's but two 6's among the dice he is using but this goes unnoticed and unreported by the opponent it is allowed? Seriously the whole aspect of "competitive" game will crumble if cheating is allowed unless noticed and reported to judge by the opponent.

I must stress also that all sort of rule breaking should be equally punished. There really is no point in starting to judge how deliberate the player was. What does it matter if someone is a "good guy"? This 'good guy' mentality is also the reason why you see these affluenza rulings and outrages in media. You play the game according to rules, if you fail to follow rules there is punishment. They don't need to be super harsh, but reduction of points for every breaking of rules. Then players who can consistently follow the rules will consistently place higher than those who fail to follow the rules. It's pretty simple stuff really.
Obviously special cases like loaded dice, 2 6's in single dice and '1.2" in an 1.0" ruler' rules breaking should be more severely punished, these are examples of tampering with the playing equipment.

Also everyone should understand that all spectator sports seem to have active judge, instead of this kind of blind passive judge. Now with Warhammer in Twitch making it more of a spectator 'sport' you just cannot have only blind passive judging.

I think if the judge had witnessed it and said nothing, this would be a totally different scenario. But keep in mind, this is a report from a bystander. This is not from one of the players involved in the match, nor another judge. If this were allowed to continue, anyone who THINKS they know the game would be allowed to inject their two cents into any table they surf by. The natural progression of things would lead to judges being swamped with the good old "RAI and RAW" arguments that always crop up at game shops between competitive types instead of assisting players with questions and ensuring the event flows just a tad bit smoother than the bedlam it would be without them.

The judge could have possibly been more tactful, but he was probably swamped with hundreds of these types of events throughout the days, so we'll give him a pass for being a bit stressed.

Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the opposing player. At a "final table", there is a reasonable expectation that both of them knows the rules. If the active player forgets something that is vital to the state of the game, then the player across from him should be: "Hey, man, Ahriman just blew his brains out. What about those guys around him?"

This whole argument about loaded dice and all is just too egregious. But even in a situation like that, the judge would probably surf around to see if there is any credibility to the claim. Once he witnesses the behavior, then he would likely interject. The only way he could "witness" the referenced event was to have the game state rewind exactly to that point and everything was played out again, which is something I'm sure he was unwilling to do.

Let's not give the crowd the power to adjudicate games.

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Which is why those people should be talking to the judge about it rather than just blurting it out, but that was done and still nothing.

Really no difference though it would still be an advantage for one player over another. Bystanders should never impact the game in any way. If a judge is actively judging it is up to them to catch things not the crowd.

Given most judges don’t actively judge it lies on the players themselves to catch rules mistakes.

I feel like people are treating g “competitive” 40k as something much larger than it really is. Even at the highest level it is still a hobby, people treat these events like their the Olympics when the reality is they are closer to your local over 40 softball league than professional athletics.

This is another problem you and I repeatedly butt heads over. I get it, 'competitive 40k' used to be brohammer and you're part of the good old boys club, but that's not what it is anymore. There is a large and growing group that reads "competitive event" and actually takes that at face value. TO's can't manipulate that for ticket/pass sales and then cry foul when people actually expect them to live up to it.

Say you're brohammer, say you're beer and chips hammer, say you're competitive hammer, it doesn't matter, but accurately advertise your category and own up to what you say you are.

A local softball league can be competitive that doesn’t make it the Olympics. 40k at its highest level is still a very low level of competition. It is a tiny hobbythe money involved is trivial, and even the best of the best put in minimal amounts of preparation when compared to high level competitions. Sorry it is and always will be what you call “bro-hammer” until such a point that someone starts playing 40k as their primary source of income and of GW (or some other body) decides to train and pay judges.

For what it is worth I’m part of no good old boys club. I was a slightly above average tournament player back in 5th/6th. Didn’t play at all in 7th, play only small events now. I used to run my own GT back when I was more active so I’m going off that experience. If I needed to actively judge that event never happens because I had limited staff, I was the only real judge (only 32 players), and it would have been less enjoyable for those involved. Now I would sit on contentious games, but if someone else needed a ruling I’d be off to another table. At RTTs I hosted I would even play as a ringer if needed because people getting to play is more important than active judging to 90% of players at these events. Let me put it this way the Internet crowd cares far more about these things then I’ve ever heard from people at events. Those guys care about playing the game and having fun. There are maybe 5 guys at most events that really care about winning, and even most of them still prefer relaxed games to rules lawyered games.

As for the unfair advantage I keep talking about. Picture it like this I make it to the final table with you. We both make mistakes during the game. You however have 10 friends from your club watching and telling the judge when I make a mistake, I have no one doing that for me. Explain to me how only one of us being held accountable by a 3rd party not involved in the game is fair. Either the judge(s) need to watch and only players and judges can catch rules errors (no third party involvement) or only players can do it. Any other system is patently unfair.

To the person that mentioned instant replay. That largely only happens when a team (involved party) challenges a ruling, not everything is even reviewable, only during the final 2 min of a half do things get reviewed without challenge. None of it is based on crowd reaction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can say this I have little to no desire to play actively judged 40k. You think the game takes a long time now, imagine it if the judge was interjecting to make sure all rules were followed at all times. “Can I check that measurement and make sure you didn’t move 6.1 inches”.

As to loaded dice that is why I believe all major events should supply dice that must be used. I have gone to events like this and it is great never needing to question an opponents dice.

On the contrary, imho a competitive game at the top tables should have the crowd with the power to adjudicate the game via bringing things up immediately to a judge. Players can miss things. Judges can miss things. Clean gameplay is a good thing if a game wants to be taken seriously as a competitive game.

So if that crowd favors one player that is ok to you? I can say for what it is worth if that were the case I’m glad I’m likely not ever to play at that level.

So it really comes down to if we think being popular because of the way the public sees you behaving is more important than constantly trying to be aware if your opponent is cheating you?

Wayniac wrote:
On the contrary, imho a competitive game at the top tables should have the crowd with the power to adjudicate the game via bringing things up immediately to a judge. Players can miss things. Judges can miss things. Clean gameplay is a good thing if a game wants to be taken seriously as a competitive game.

So what? Part of competive game will be having groupies to spot opponents mistake while you hopefully can avoid having yours pointed because obviously your groupies won't notify judges when you would benefit from judge staying quiet?

Much as it pains me to write this..

I think that judges should be watching and enforcing the game rules but third parties should be ignored during the game. I'd love to see every game played by the rules with no rule mistakes but it isn't going to happen. People are distracted by their own thoughts or just the pressure of the event. Judges should intervene if they see a rule mistake so that the game goes forward as it should. However, even judges miss things or don't recognize a mistake being made 100% of the time.

After the game if a thrid party noticed a mistake then he should go to the judge and tell him what he thinks he saw. If it was an egregious violation that can be proven then the player should be penalized. For anything else the complaint should make the judges aware of the situation and they can watch out for it in the future.

Unbelievable. We're actually at the point where people are seriously arguing that it would be unfair to correct a blatant and indisputable rules violation and resulting illegal gamestate just because there might be some hypothetical violation by the other player that isn't getting called. I thought competitive play was supposed to be about playing by the rules, not just the same old BEER AND PRETZELS 4+ ALL YOUR RULES QUESTIONS nonsense that the CAAC crowd advocates.

Sorry watched enough games to know that that mistake your opponent makes on the rules is not hypothetical it happens all the time on both sides. I don’t think I’be seen a ton of rules perfect games.

 Peregrine wrote:
Unbelievable. We're actually at the point where people are seriously arguing that it would be unfair to correct a blatant and indisputable rules violation and resulting illegal gamestate just because there might be some hypothetical violation by the other player that isn't getting called. I thought competitive play was supposed to be about playing by the rules, not just the same old BEER AND PRETZELS 4+ ALL YOUR RULES QUESTIONS nonsense that the CAAC crowd advocates.

Hence why "competitive" 40k is a joke.