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.

Wayniac wrote:

 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.

So because competitive 40k is a joke and 'amateur' we shouldn't try to do better?
F no.
The scene should keep trying to be and do better.

Not what you want =\=joke

A tourney player cheated? WHAT?

Breng77 wrote:

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.

"Bro-hammer" is reference to a small community of personal acquaintances and friends juxtaposing their preference on top of the community at large due to their insider status. So no, I do not think it will always be bro-hammer and I can only hope that insider influence gets washed out like a tide.

That said, your criteria is all wrong. "Competitive" is determined solely by how hard the competitors are trying. You say the top has not and never will try-hard, I vehemently disagree. There is an active class of players who ARE trying to make it more competitive, but they're being squelched by the attitude of the old club as expressed in this thread.

Not to mention, an income from it means nothing. Starcraft was at some of its most competitive in the Western Hemisphere when it was ICCUP (the equivalent of ITC). Back then, ICCUP was a fan run service based on volunteers, entry fees and donations. Blizzard had no role in it and it didn't even have an association with KESPA, which managed Starcraft in Korea. Yet the ICCUP gave us some of the best Western pro-gamers we've ever seen including Artosis, Tasteless, Day9 and Idra, most of whom were at their peak BEFORE they could play professionally.

You are now and have in the past equated 40k with where e-sports is now when it should be equated to where e-sports WAS. We're in the ICCUP days. That does not mean we can't be competitive and it does not mean GW isn't trying to boost the competitive scene (they VERY much are as evidenced by marketing moves and community articles).

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.

You think this because you ARE part of that club. You don't have to be an exceptional player to be there, you just have to be part of the inner social circle, which you've gained access to as a TO and veterancy in the community. That's why your perception is skewed and this is what your personal experience tells you: you're not talking to a representative body.

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.

I would love for a live judge to watch every table and every match. Until that day, there's nothing unfair about what you said. Did it give me an advantage? Yes, absolutely. Is it an unfair one? No. It is and cannot ever be unfair to have the game be played correctly in the rules. My error was missed? That's unfortunate. Hopefully it gets caught later and I suffer a points reduction or DQ to compensate, but trying to decrease the error rate of a table from 5% to 2.5% is not a bad thing.

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.

The crowd doesn't challenge much simply because you can't HEAR them in those massive stadiums. If a chant got taken up by enough people, however, you can bet the judges would do a review to make sure they had their bases covered. The integrity of the game matters.

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”.

That's fine and no one has a problem with it. Competitive players say there can be different kinds of tournaments and gatherings. Just label yourself accordingly so they don't waste our time going to events billed as competitive that are not competitive when they could go to an event that actually is competitive. It only seems to be the non-competitive players, particularly insiders, who want to keep calling themselves competitive and receiving all the benefits thereof without any of the cost or effort it also entails. That's deceptive and it's wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Not what you want =\=joke

Please keep this mentality in mind next time you want to chastise competitive players for wanting something the game can't be, in your words.

Off topic devil's advocate. Idra was the only good player out of those you named. When artosis and day9 tried to play in... what was it.. the NASL? It was some painful cringe.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Off topic devil's advocate. Idra was the only good player out of those you named. When artosis and day9 tried to play in... what was it.. the NASL? It was some painful cringe.

Day9 was past his prime by that point. He was an A+/A Zerg through multiple accounts, probably one of a few people in the western hemisphere who could claim that. He also got 1st in the WCG Pan-American Championship for 2007 and then 2nd and 1st in prior WCG USA's. The dude was really, really good at SC1:Brood War. Even in SC2 he hit Grandmaster League with all 3 races individually. Artosis was a frequent finalist in the same WCG tournaments for, like, 7 years consistently. Even Tasteless, who is probably weakest of the list, made it to the WCG grand finals 4 times. They were all operating at a hyper competitive level back when the scene wasn't flooded with cash or Blizzard support.

Competitive 40k is serious stuff, what do you think they are doing? Moving plastic models on a table and rolling dice?

People really need to stop treating 40k like it's an eSport and every loss results in lost revenue with their sponsors.

The game has never been, and probably never will be written with tournament play in mind that some of the people in this thread are expecting.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Competitive 40k is serious stuff, what do you think they are doing? Moving plastic models on a table and rolling dice?

People really need to stop treating 40k like it's an eSport and every loss results in lost revenue with their sponsors.

The game has never been, and probably never will be written with tournament play in mind that some of the people in this thread are expecting.

Neither were esports back in the day and people said the same thing. "It's just pixels/computer games, why so serious?" blah blah blah. My point was the parallel between where they used to be and where some tabletop games (like 40k) are now. Anyway, we're getting a bit esoteric from how this relates to Adepticon.

Audustum wrote:
That said, your criteria is all wrong. "Competitive" is determined solely by how hard the competitors are trying.

That's definitely not how I'd define "competitive". How "hard" the players "try" isn't really relevant. The important distinction is whether the competition is actively refereed by an impartial authority, according to an undisputed set of rules. Those are key aspects of every competitive sport.

Currently, 40k definitely doesn't have an undisputed set of rules, because GW is terrible at writing and clarifying them. This can be worked around by individual events who produce their own FAQs that all their officials agree on.

Most games of 40k are also not refereed. They might be adjudicated, as in this case, but that is very much not the same thing. Trying to retroactively call misplays based on second-hand evidence does not make for a "competitive" game. A referee needs to be watching the game at all times. Heck, Blood Bowl even makes light of this principle - what the Ref doesn't see can't be punished, even if the other guy gets dragged off the field in a stretcher.

40k could be played competitively, but the cost to do so (mostly in terms of time) is too great for any major tournament to do so. Imagine having to train and coordinate 32 referees for a 64-player tournament, for example.

Kind of disappointing to hear more negative feedback from a major tournament; especially since it happened at a top/final table again. Though I guess its to be expected to some degree when there's no impartial third party to enforce/regulate the game except when explicitly asked to step in.

Most of the negative feedback is from people that weren't there. So far the OP is the only actual witness.

I mean, I hear SO many stories like this about "top level guys" at events.

Illegal lists, "forgetting" critical rules, incorrectly using strategems because the players "forgot" a word etc etc. It seems like a totally toxic nature of trying to get away with anything and everything they can at the top level, rather then actually playing by the rules and being excellent players.

I mean, if the OPs anecdote is true, then yeah, competitive 40k is a joke and any 'skill' the top finishers may have is a complete sham. I cannot simply fathom how you can legit call yourself a 'tournament' if the fething judges aren't enforcing the rules. I mean, that's just shameful. You're not a tournament, just a weird 40k variant with strange scoring systems.

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

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.

"Bro-hammer" is reference to a small community of personal acquaintances and friends juxtaposing their preference on top of the community at large due to their insider status. So no, I do not think it will always be bro-hammer and I can only hope that insider influence gets washed out like a tide.

That said, your criteria is all wrong. "Competitive" is determined solely by how hard the competitors are trying. You say the top has not and never will try-hard, I vehemently disagree. There is an active class of players who ARE trying to make it more competitive, but they're being squelched by the attitude of the old club as expressed in this thread.

Not to mention, an income from it means nothing. Starcraft was at some of its most competitive in the Western Hemisphere when it was ICCUP (the equivalent of ITC). Back then, ICCUP was a fan run service based on volunteers, entry fees and donations. Blizzard had no role in it and it didn't even have an association with KESPA, which managed Starcraft in Korea. Yet the ICCUP gave us some of the best Western pro-gamers we've ever seen including Artosis, Tasteless, Day9 and Idra, most of whom were at their peak BEFORE they could play professionally.

You are now and have in the past equated 40k with where e-sports is now when it should be equated to where e-sports WAS. We're in the ICCUP days. That does not mean we can't be competitive and it does not mean GW isn't trying to boost the competitive scene (they VERY much are as evidenced by marketing moves and community articles).

So a few things you definition of "competitive" as how hard the players are trying is nonsense. By that definition 2 kids running a race in their back yard that are trying hard to win is the same level of competition as the Olympic marathon. Sorry you are flat out wrong. But even by that definition you are wrong, no 40k player is trying as hard to win as an Olympian, a pro-gamer, a professional athlete. heck even a college or top level highschool athlete. They don't practice near as much, don't often change sleep habits, don't change their eating habits (many get drunk during "high level" competitions), pretty sure no one is "training" 8 hours a day for the sake of winning events. SO even on your own measure people are not trying has hard to win. Until significant money is involved the top will never try as hard as people in other competitions, I also think you are dreaming if you believe the esports "athletes" back in the free days were as good as they are when it is their job. As talented, sure, but no way do they get as much practice in when it is not their main job.

GW is only boosting the competitive scene to sell models. They are not going for esport level, just watch their stream and it is enough to figure that out. They don't stream top tables at many events, their own stream is mostly casual type games not top level play. They don't have their own tournament format that they are pushing. They have accepted that there is money to be made from competitive players as part of the hobby, but that is about the level they are pushing competitive play at.

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.

You think this because you ARE part of that club. You don't have to be an exceptional player to be there, you just have to be part of the inner social circle, which you've gained access to as a TO and veterancy in the community. That's why your perception is skewed and this is what your personal experience tells you: you're not talking to a representative body.

SO any TO ever is part of the "bro-hammer" club, good to know. Is Dakka, with it's like 5 posters who really care the representitive sample I should look at? Is it the stream commenters that don't attend tournaments that I should listen to? Let me know. I'm really trying to see where this great number of people that want a different competitive community are and what they are doing about it beyond bitching online.

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.

I would love for a live judge to watch every table and every match. Until that day, there's nothing unfair about what you said. Did it give me an advantage? Yes, absolutely. Is it an unfair one? No. It is and cannot ever be unfair to have the game be played correctly in the rules. My error was missed? That's unfortunate. Hopefully it gets caught later and I suffer a points reduction or DQ to compensate, but trying to decrease the error rate of a table from 5% to 2.5% is not a bad thing.

Sorry nope still unfair, if only one of us has outside help, that is the definition of an unfair advatage, it matters little if half of the game is played by the rules if the other half is not. I guess in your mind (using this example.) it would be ok if Nick got called on his rule, but if a tyrant had perilsed earlier and the did not explode that would be ok, because at least we elimiated 1 error in play. Oh but I guess then if Nick complains about something that cannot be retroactively fixed, his opponent should get DQ'd for that right? Or docked points. But Nick already lost because of the difference in play between the 2 of them so that doesn't help him much. Should he be given the win? Wanting to reduce errors in not a bad thing, how you do it absolutely can be.

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.

The crowd doesn't challenge much simply because you can't HEAR them in those massive stadiums. If a chant got taken up by enough people, however, you can bet the judges would do a review to make sure they had their bases covered. The integrity of the game matters.

Nope, they wouldn't because it is not part of the rules, and yes frequently in games in many sports you can hear the crowd complain about a call, loud boos etc. They don't stop to check the calls do to booing.

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”.

That's fine and no one has a problem with it. Competitive players say there can be different kinds of tournaments and gatherings. Just label yourself accordingly so they don't waste our time going to events billed as competitive that are not competitive when they could go to an event that actually is competitive. It only seems to be the non-competitive players, particularly insiders, who want to keep calling themselves competitive and receiving all the benefits thereof without any of the cost or effort it also entails. That's deceptive and it's wrong.

It isn't deceptive because no events exist that you would deem competitive so you should know what to expect. TO my knowledge no event exists that has active judging on every table, chess clocks, and checking of every list prior to the event. IT doesn't exist so if you go in expecting that, that is a you problem not an event problem. Especially when you yourself would describe these events as competitive, because people are "trying hard to win". There is no rule to calling yourself competitive, heck even using ITC as a brand comes with basically no strings that require anything. In fact given that all events work the same way calling the most difficult to win events the most competitive is a fair and accurate description. Just because it isn't what you want, doesn't make it deceptive at all.


TO my Knowledge "competitive" players are doing nothing about this. You want it to change, start your own CTC (competitive tournament circut) start running events, require anyone who wants to be part of it to hold to certain standards to get the stamp of approval, by your reasoning this should have a large target market of competitive players who are chomping at the bit to play in events that are clearly competitive with clear standards and rules. Before you go saying "I shouldn't have to do that to have an opinion", you are right you don't need to do it to have an opinion, you can not like the way "competitive" 40k works now all you want, refuse to attend events, and complain online all you want. But if you actually want change, you (or someone who thinks similarly) will need to do something, put your own money on the line to build something, because those who already are doing so are doing what works for them, and it is working so why would they change to jump through hoops to make a (seeming) minority happy? So unless GW does what you think is a good idea, no one is changing without someone starting the movement like NOVA did back in the day with Win loss, or FLG did by starting the ITC and putting out an FAQ. Complaining on the internet doesn't create change.

Now maybe large events will decide they don't want rules mistakes on stream and streamed tables will get a judge, who knows, they certainly are going that way with slow play on top tables.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Not what you want =\=joke

Please keep this mentality in mind next time you want to chastise competitive players for wanting something the game can't be, in your words.

I chastise because they want other people to step up and make things what they want, instead of actually doing something.

Audustum wrote:

I would love for a live judge to watch every table and every match. Until that day, there's nothing unfair about what you said. Did it give me an advantage? Yes, absolutely. Is it an unfair one? No. It is and cannot ever be unfair to have the game be played correctly in the rules. My error was missed? That's unfortunate. Hopefully it gets caught later and I suffer a points reduction or DQ to compensate, but trying to decrease the error rate of a table from 5% to 2.5% is not a bad thing.

When your "mistakes"(which even could be deliberate "oops I forgot" attempts) aren't spotted not because they were missed but because your friends DELIBERATELY are skipping them to give help to you?

That's not fair by any definition of word.

Its one of the reasons I don't really see why so many like competitive 40k and view it as the bench mark for the game.
In the one sense its more pure than garage hammer and people just making up/forgetting the rules. But on the other I have seen a worrying number of games be determined by rules lawyering, or accidentally-on purpose forgetting something, or just bad sportsmanship. When you are playing to win I guess this is unavoidable, but it seems kind of disappointing.

I don't like the idea of a judge watching every game - but I really struggle with "the audience saw a guy try to cheat but they couldn't call it out because.... uh... reasons." I mean why not? This would apply to any other game too.

Tyel wrote:
Its one of the reasons I don't really see why so many like competitive 40k and view it as the bench mark for the game.
In the one sense its more pure than garage hammer and people just making up/forgetting the rules. But on the other I have seen a worrying number of games be determined by rules lawyering, or accidentally-on purpose forgetting something, or just bad sportsmanship. When you are playing to win I guess this is unavoidable, but it seems kind of disappointing.

I don't like the idea of a judge watching every game - but I really struggle with "the audience saw a guy try to cheat but they couldn't call it out because.... uh... reasons." I mean why not? This would apply to any other game too.

I mean the OP did call someone out for cheating and the judge said "it's not my job to interfere", that's madness.

Yeah, I'm not sure the problem isn't the Judge's actions as much as his words.

If the judge had just said "Sorry, I can't take 3rd party spectator's word for it and I didn't see it." or something more sensible than "It's not my job to ensure the integrity of the game."

The former illustrates a cautious and careful consideration of the situation, since the only apparent witness was an audience member. The former is essentially saying "The game's integrity doesn't matter to me (and by extension, the organizer)." That's a serious admission, and an indictment of competitive 40k. If tournament organizers are explicitly instructing their judges not to ensure the integrity of the game, but merely keep rules disputes to a minimum, then all trust I had in them is broken, because they don't have to know the rules - they just have to resolve disputes, regardless of accuracy or integrity.

Rolling a damn 4+ like the rules used to say "resolves disputes" and is probably more impartial.

Pancakey wrote:
A tourney player cheated? WHAT?

Lance Armstrong
Barry Bonds
Sochi Olympics
Countless other doping scandals both discovered and unknown

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure the problem isn't the Judge's actions as much as his words.

If the judge had just said "Sorry, I can't take 3rd party spectator's word for it and I didn't see it." or something more sensible than "It's not my job to ensure the integrity of the game."

The former illustrates a cautious and careful consideration of the situation, since the only apparent witness was an audience member. The former is essentially saying "The game's integrity doesn't matter to me (and by extension, the organizer)." That's a serious admission, and an indictment of competitive 40k. If tournament organizers are explicitly instructing their judges not to ensure the integrity of the game, but merely keep rules disputes to a minimum, then all trust I had in them is broken, because they don't have to know the rules - they just have to resolve disputes, regardless of accuracy or integrity.

Rolling a damn 4+ like the rules used to say "resolves disputes" and is probably more impartial.

Even if it is the first one, why was the judge not watching the top table?

 AaronWilson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure the problem isn't the Judge's actions as much as his words.

If the judge had just said "Sorry, I can't take 3rd party spectator's word for it and I didn't see it." or something more sensible than "It's not my job to ensure the integrity of the game."

The former illustrates a cautious and careful consideration of the situation, since the only apparent witness was an audience member. The former is essentially saying "The game's integrity doesn't matter to me (and by extension, the organizer)." That's a serious admission, and an indictment of competitive 40k. If tournament organizers are explicitly instructing their judges not to ensure the integrity of the game, but merely keep rules disputes to a minimum, then all trust I had in them is broken, because they don't have to know the rules - they just have to resolve disputes, regardless of accuracy or integrity.

Rolling a damn 4+ like the rules used to say "resolves disputes" and is probably more impartial.

Even if it is the first one, why was the judge not watching the top table?

Same reason referees in the super bowl miss gak. There's no evidence he wasn't watching. I'm perfectly willing to chalk it up to "human error/fallibility." It's when he admitted that it wasn't, in fact, human error, but rather tournament policy, that it gets nutty. That's less like a ref missing a call, and more like a ref seeing it, not hearing anyone complain, and ignoring it. Because he's only there to resolve disputes, after all.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
People really need to stop treating 40k like it's an eSport and every loss results in lost revenue with their sponsors.

The game has never been, and probably never will be written with tournament play in mind that some of the people in this thread are expecting.

Thank you for coming into a competitive thread an sharing your valuable insight about how this is a waste of time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure the problem isn't the Judge's actions as much as his words.

If the judge had just said "Sorry, I can't take 3rd party spectator's word for it and I didn't see it." or something more sensible than "It's not my job to ensure the integrity of the game."

The former illustrates a cautious and careful consideration of the situation, since the only apparent witness was an audience member. The former is essentially saying "The game's integrity doesn't matter to me (and by extension, the organizer)." That's a serious admission, and an indictment of competitive 40k. If tournament organizers are explicitly instructing their judges not to ensure the integrity of the game, but merely keep rules disputes to a minimum, then all trust I had in them is broken, because they don't have to know the rules - they just have to resolve disputes, regardless of accuracy or integrity.

Rolling a damn 4+ like the rules used to say "resolves disputes" and is probably more impartial.

Even if it is the first one, why was the judge not watching the top table?

Same reason referees in the super bowl miss gak. There's no evidence he wasn't watching. I'm perfectly willing to chalk it up to "human error/fallibility." It's when he admitted that it wasn't, in fact, human error, but rather tournament policy, that it gets nutty. That's less like a ref missing a call, and more like a ref seeing it, not hearing anyone complain, and ignoring it. Because he's only there to resolve disputes, after all.

Yeah, I mean like you said we don't know exactly what was said. I really hope it isn't a case of "It's not my job to make the players aware" as that's super sad for the integrity of competitive 40k.

There seems to be some confusion here about the difference between a judge and a ref. Th job of a judge is to resolve rules disputes, that is it. A referee (who watches the game closely and ensures the rules are followed) is what most people here are calling for. There is a difference between the two. In 40k right now we have judges if for no other reason that we lack the means to have refs. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

The first line of defense against improper play is going to be the player and the opponent. I’m sure if the one of the players in this case has said oops you periled, roll to see if you kill that demon prince, it would have happened.

If this is as big of deal as people are portraying it then maybe there should be a codification. If you’re a viewer and you see improper play, report it to a judge. The judge should then see if the game state has changed. If it has not, then they can enforce the action, if discussion with the players indicates that is what happened. If game state has changed, the judge should allow the play to continue without any action.

Breng77 wrote:
There seems to be some confusion here about the difference between a judge and a ref. Th job of a judge is to resolve rules disputes, that is it. A referee (who watches the game closely and ensures the rules are followed) is what most people here are calling for. There is a difference between the two. In 40k right now we have judges if for no other reason that we lack the means to have refs. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

So competitive 40k is literally a game played without referees, much like a game in my mum's basement against my best buddy.

I.e. a joke.

EDIT:
In fact, why is there a need for judges? Just put in the tournament packet: "rules disputes are resolved on a 4+" like the old rulebook. That way, you can "resolve rules disputes" without coordinating any judges at all.

Does anyone define what a Judge actually does in the Tourney packs?

I do think the whole - unless the players spot it ignore any breaches of the rules is not great, although you can go too far the other way - golf had to change its rules re people spotting stuff on TV and phoning in. Reading the thread It also looks like MTG and 40k have similar rules about what judges are there for - any other games run the same way?

I can see you don't want people interfering in a game all the time but sometimes in the heat of a game things get forgotten or missed, misremembered from previous editions. Tournament players are just as bad at the latter as casual.

One thing I despise in in at least one competitive player I know is that he has stated he will only correct a rules error in an opponent if it is to his direct advantage, even if he knows the rule is being played incorrectly. That to me is just wrong.

I take it nothing happened to the player who made the error?

Breng77 wrote:
There seems to be some confusion here about the difference between a judge and a ref. Th job of a judge is to resolve rules disputes, that is it. A referee (who watches the game closely and ensures the rules are followed) is what most people here are calling for. There is a difference between the two. In 40k right now we have judges if for no other reason that we lack the means to have refs. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

I mean, so the job of a judge is to watch a game and allow people to cheat because neither play disputes it? Sounds so stupid. Surely any rules official watch a gaming (ESPECIALLY) a top table game, there duty is to step in at any cheating at all?

Or is there this weird culture at 40k events where people just try to get away with anything and everything they can until they get called out? That's the impression I get from Dakka Dakka.

I you want to have actually competitive 40k, then every table must have its own dedicated judge to arbitrate every single game by being on top of the table 100% of the time and whistling to halt the players when he sees a misconduct. Especially if you go to table #1 in the grand final, you should have 2 people on top of the table at all times.

Unless you do that, any attempt to even consider 40k a competitive game is a joke.

I'm not disputing how hard it is to judge every table, etc etc. In fact I'm not even saying every table should have a judge (in a ideal you would but just practically it's impossible).

My bewilderment much more comes from the fact a judge was told about a error (intended or not) and his attitude was "It's not my place to get involved". Seems beyond stupid.