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.

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.

This. A thousand times this.
So many people here have unreasonable expectations of what a judge at a big tournament can do. It's ridiculous. I agree with the judges statement whole heartedly.


That said, I can see a strong argument for top tables at big events having actual referees. Especially with cash prizes on the line.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
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.

This makes me laugh - why do you care so much about an element of the game you don't like?

Outrage online is it's own reward.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
A tourney player cheated? WHAT?

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

I MUST CHEAT TO COMPETE.

Pancakey wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
A tourney player cheated? WHAT?

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

I MUST CHEAT TO COMPETE.

You should watch the documentary on the doping scandal. I assume everyone is cheating at all times. Often very innocently though. My first time playing Death Korps I was convinced that the riders were getting 4 attacks on the charge and that they could have both a lance and a chainsword. I have yet to face him again so I have no idea if he was blowing smoke up my ass or seriously confused.

Have you memorized the warp charges of all the spells in the other books? I bet you haven't and you might have no idea if a 7 actually succeeded for an uncommon spell. And quite possibly your opponent just didn't remember it correctly.

This game has so many moving pieces and that we don't have a computer to keep it in check, which makes it even more precarious.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
A tourney player cheated? WHAT?

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

I MUST CHEAT TO COMPETE.

You should watch the documentary on the doping scandal. I assume everyone is cheating at all times. Often very innocently though. My first time playing Death Korps I was convinced that the riders were getting 4 attacks on the charge and that they could have both a lance and a chainsword. I have yet to face him again so I have no idea if he was blowing smoke up my ass or seriously confused.

Have you memorized the warp charges of all the spells in the other books? I bet you haven't and you might have no idea if a 7 actually succeeded for an uncommon spell. And quite possibly your opponent just didn't remember it correctly.

This game has so many moving pieces and that we don't have a computer to keep it in check, which makes it even more precarious.

If there's competition, people are cheating.

This is at the core of all disputes between "casual" and "tourney" players.

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 could be wrong, but didn't they "active judge" the final of the previous big event, after it all kicked off during the semi-finals?

It can be done, it just needs spelling out that this will happen (and to what degree, which will depend on available staffing - top X is more likely than every table).

 AaronWilson wrote:

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.

No it is not his job to watch the in thgame first place (he can though) it is to be present if a rules disagreement comes up to resolve the issue, or potentially hand down punishment if a found infraction is bad enough. That is the whole point. He isn’t a ref, he isn’t there to make rulings unless asked to do so. It would be wonderful to HQ e refs on every table but it is so unrealistic that it could possibly happen. The game is now and essentially will always be self judged, the best any tournament is likely to do is are f the streamed games, and maybe the top table. And even then it won’t be close to perfect.

Breng77 wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:

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.

No it is not his job to watch the in thgame first place (he can though) it is to be present if a rules disagreement comes up to resolve the issue, or potentially hand down punishment if a found infraction is bad enough. That is the whole point. He isn’t a ref, he isn’t there to make rulings unless asked to do so. It would be wonderful to HQ e refs on every table but it is so unrealistic that it could possibly happen. The game is now and essentially will always be self judged, the best any tournament is likely to do is are f the streamed games, and maybe the top table. And even then it won’t be close to perfect.

So your point is that a 40k 'tourney' is actually a deceptive name for casual 40k games with houseruled scoring, right?

 AaronWilson wrote:
I'm not disputing how hard it is to judge every table, etc

Sure, but it's not hard to judge the FINAL table.

 Dysartes wrote:

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 could be wrong, but didn't they "active judge" the final of the previous big event, after it all kicked off during the semi-finals?

It can be done, it just needs spelling out that this will happen (and to what degree, which will depend on available staffing - top X is more likely than every table).

The did for time not rules errors to my knowledge, and yes you can do it on one table to a decent effect. But that needs to be made clear and still would not involve the crowd point out errors. The issue with active judging is then the event assumes all responsibility for any errors that occur. This is the same reason why list checking is iffy. It sets the idea that if the ref doesn’t call it, everything is fine. Now that may not matter and I’m not against judging the top table if an event wants to do that, just don’t expect it beyond maybe 2 tables, it simply is not possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

quentra wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:

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.

No it is not his job to watch the in thgame first place (he can though) it is to be present if a rules disagreement comes up to resolve the issue, or potentially hand down punishment if a found infraction is bad enough. That is the whole point. He isn’t a ref, he isn’t there to make rulings unless asked to do so. It would be wonderful to HQ e refs on every table but it is so unrealistic that it could possibly happen. The game is now and essentially will always be self judged, the best any tournament is likely to do is are f the streamed games, and maybe the top table. And even then it won’t be close to perfect.

So your point is that a 40k 'tourney' is actually a deceptive name for casual 40k games with houseruled scoring, right?

No my point is a tournament has nothing to do with the presence of officials at any level. I used to play competitive ultimate frisbee, those tournaments were all self officiated by the teams on the field. Having a referee does not define something as a tournament. It is simply an option that one might choose to use or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
I'm not disputing how hard it is to judge every table, etc

Sure, but it's not hard to judge the FINAL table.

Sure it is, you can easily station a judge at the table, but let’s not pretend having every rule in 40k committed to memory and noticing the error is anything but difficult.

Breng77 wrote:
Sure it is, you can easily station a judge at the table, but let’s not pretend having every rule in 40k committed to memory and noticing the error is anything but difficult.

But that's not what he said.

He didn't say "Good point, audience, but you're an audience and I made the call. My bad, human error & all that." He said it's literally not his job. So they're not even trying to adjudicate the rules correctly at the top table.

EDIT:
It's like the difference between someone being unknowledgeable but willing to learn and wilful ignorance.

No it is the difference between the judge know his role as a judge and not. As a judge his role is not to interfere to ensure correct play, it is to resolve rules disputes.

If he was a ref you would have a point but he isn’t he made the right call.

Breng77 wrote:
No it is the difference between the judge know his role as a judge and not. As a judge his role is not to interfere to ensure correct play, it is to resolve rules disputes.

If he was a ref you would have a point but he isn’t he made the right call.

Why do tournaments have judges? Dice are more impartial and can easily give a binary "you're right, Player A" or "you're right Player B" answer.

Because dice are able to be gamed. I don’t like a rule, I’ll disagree with it, then we dice off 50-50 it goes in my favor. Judge actually reads said rule, and any references and makes a ruling. I mean why do courts have judges, coinflips are more impartial right?

Breng77 wrote:
Because dice are able to be gamed. I don’t like a rule, I’ll disagree with it, then we dice off 50-50 it goes in my favor. Judge actually reads said rule, and any references and makes a ruling. I mean why do courts have judges, coinflips are more impartial right?

Yeah but this judge (unlike legal judges) outright stated the integrity of the game is irrelevant. So why do so much extra work, if you literally don't care what the rule says since integrity is not your job? Resolving disputes is a whole different skill set from knowing and understanding the rules.

A person whose sole purpose is to resolve disputes is required to have about as much knowledge of the rules as any given d6 is. Because they're not actually there to enforce the rules at all.

So, if one player is obviously slowing play down the judge has to wait until the other player complains before warning the first player? Even if the judge is sitting right there and is watching the delay he won't say anything per Adepticon. That's nuts. Maybe the second player just assumes that the judge will step in because he's a judge and shouldn't allow rule breaking to occur.

That's the point of the whole chess clock controversy. With the clock you don't have to have a judge intervene at all. At least that's was my take from the ITC stance. Judges can't watch all the tables so we'll make it easier on them by removing one of their responsibilities.

All this tells me that if I go to an event I should ask whether the judges will be active or passive.

That is simply untrue, and just because the judge did not make a ruling he was not asked to make does not make him a bad judge. Legal judges don’t make rulings they aren’t asked for either. Again judge not ref. He is resolving a dispute, in doing so he is expected to use the rules. That doesn’t require him to know all the rules. Being a ref would require him to know all the rules.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
So, if one player is obviously slowing play down the judge has to wait until the other player complains before warning the first player? Even if the judge is sitting right there and is watching the delay he won't say anything per Adepticon. That's nuts. Maybe the second player just assumes that the judge will step in because he's a judge and shouldn't allow rule breaking to occur.

That's the point of the whole chess clock controversy. With the clock you don't have to have a judge intervene at all. At least that's was my take from the ITC stance. Judges can't watch all the tables so we'll make it easier on them by removing one of their responsibilities.

All this tells me that if I go to an event I should ask whether the judges will be active or passive.

The point of the clock controversy is that it's often hard to see slow play. Clocks put a number on it.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
So, if one player is obviously slowing play down the judge has to wait until the other player complains before warning the first player? Even if the judge is sitting right there and is watching the delay he won't say anything per Adepticon. That's nuts. Maybe the second player just assumes that the judge will step in because he's a judge and shouldn't allow rule breaking to occur.

That's the point of the whole chess clock controversy. With the clock you don't have to have a judge intervene at all. At least that's was my take from the ITC stance. Judges can't watch all the tables so we'll make it easier on them by removing one of their responsibilities.

All this tells me that if I go to an event I should ask whether the judges will be active or passive.

Slow playing is not against the rules, unless stated, and with all the tables judges rarely pay attention to it unless notified. No event will be actively judged, events don’t have enough staff for that.

Breng77 wrote:
That is simply untrue, and just because the judge did not make a ruling he was not asked to make does not make him a bad judge. Legal judges don’t make rulings they aren’t asked for either. Again judge not ref. He is resolving a dispute, in doing so he is expected to use the rules. That doesn’t require him to know all the rules. Being a ref would require him to know all the rules.

I guess a better question would be should 40k have refs instead of judges?

i know that originally 40k had a bit of a DM. should "competitive" warming have a ref to sit there and carefully watch the game? at least for the top tables.

If the idea is that you want all games to have as few mistakes as possible then yes it should. That said it is an unrealistic expectation beyond maybe the top table or 2 as staffing is far too light and very few people would be qualified to be refs. For example I have a decent knowledge of the game, but not every faction all their rules, stratagems etc, so while I am comfortable in the role of judge, I would not be as a ref because I’m sure there are things I would miss.

Breng77 wrote:
That is simply untrue, and just because the judge did not make a ruling he was not asked to make does not make him a bad judge. Legal judges don’t make rulings they aren’t asked for either. Again judge not ref. He is resolving a dispute, in doing so he is expected to use the rules. That doesn’t require him to know all the rules. Being a ref would require him to know all the rules.

You are missing my point. I'm not talking about him being told by a 3rd party to do something. I'm talking about him saying rules integrity is not important.

If the integrity of the rules is unimportant, surely the content of the rules is unimportant, and therefore, a dice is as equally capable of dispute resolution.

You can't say "the rules are important" and then say "but the judges aren't required to enforce them."

Sure you can, the law is important but judges don’t go out and enforce it. You are missing the point where the judge said it is not his job to correct gameplay errors, even those that break rules. It is his job to arbitrate rules disagreements, using said rules.

What you want -judge sees someone misplay a rule, he must stop the game and fix it. If he doesn’t do this in your opinion the rules don’t matter.

What I want from a judge- to only partake in a game if asked, and when doing so resolve issues using the rules of the game.

What you are saying is akin to “well if the judge didn’t apprehend the robber at the bank he doesn’t care about the law.” That simply isn’t his job. You may not like that job, or think he should have a different job, but his job is not as a ref/rules enforcer. It is as a rules arbiter.

Breng77 wrote:
Sure you can, the law is important but judges don’t go out and enforce it. You are missing the point where the judge said it is not his job to correct gameplay errors, even those that break rules. It is his job to arbitrate rules disagreements, using said rules.

What you want -judge sees someone misplay a rule, he must stop the game and fix it. If he doesn’t do this in your opinion the rules don’t matter.

What I want from a judge- to only partake in a game if asked, and when doing so resolve issues using the rules of the game.

What you are saying is akin to “well if the judge didn’t apprehend the robber at the bank he doesn’t care about the law.” That simply isn’t his job. You may not like that job, or think he should have a different job, but his job is not as a ref/rules enforcer. It is as a rules arbiter.

Except he didn't say he was a rules arbiter. He said he was there to resolve disputes. Dispute resolution has nothing to do with making the right call, or even knowing the rules. I could sit two Frostgrave players having a rules dispute and say "look, Fred here is right, and Bob, if you don't like it, you get to go suck ice until you cool off." I have no idea how to play Frostgrave.

That's dispute resolution. Not the same thing as arbitration.

He said his job was to resolve disputes and that the "integrity of the game didn't matter." This tells me that he's perfectly willing to sacrifice the integrity of the game (i.e. following the rules) on the altar of solving (or not having in the first place) a dispute!

I guess it is too much to ask players to know the core rules (this wasn't a detachment or codex specific rule violation) before going to a high-level event where such behavior COULD have manifested, whether intentional or not.

Nope, let's just assign baby-sitters to every table to make sure everyone gets fair and equal treatment.

I mean, not that knowing the rule-set is the best defense against this kind of play. Or asking questions when out-of-place things happen during a game.

Nope, more baby-sitters.

Maybe they'll be nice and help me move my 200 models during my movement phase, too.

Helps conserve time so I can beat that chess clock.

Yeah, that'd be nice.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
I guess it is too much to ask players to know the core rules (this wasn't a detachment or codex specific rule violation) before going to a high-level event where such behavior COULD have manifested, whether intentional or not.

Nope, let's just assign baby-sitters to every table to make sure everyone gets fair and equal treatment.

I mean, not that knowing the rule-set is the best defense against this kind of play. Or asking questions when out-of-place things happen during a game.

Nope, more baby-sitters.

Maybe they'll be nice and help me move my 200 models during my movement phase, too.

Helps conserve time so I can beat that chess clock.

Yeah, that'd be nice.

"Git gud" is rarely an ingredient you want to include in your recipe to attract casual players.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Sure you can, the law is important but judges don’t go out and enforce it. You are missing the point where the judge said it is not his job to correct gameplay errors, even those that break rules. It is his job to arbitrate rules disagreements, using said rules.

What you want -judge sees someone misplay a rule, he must stop the game and fix it. If he doesn’t do this in your opinion the rules don’t matter.

What I want from a judge- to only partake in a game if asked, and when doing so resolve issues using the rules of the game.

What you are saying is akin to “well if the judge didn’t apprehend the robber at the bank he doesn’t care about the law.” That simply isn’t his job. You may not like that job, or think he should have a different job, but his job is not as a ref/rules enforcer. It is as a rules arbiter.

Except he didn't say he was a rules arbiter. He said he was there to resolve disputes. Dispute resolution has nothing to do with making the right call, or even knowing the rules. I could sit two Frostgrave players having a rules dispute and say "look, Fred here is right, and Bob, if you don't like it, you get to go suck ice until you cool off." I have no idea how to play Frostgrave.

That's dispute resolution. Not the same thing as arbitration.

He said his job was to resolve disputes and that the "integrity of the game didn't matter." This tells me that he's perfectly willing to sacrifice the integrity of the game (i.e. following the rules) on the altar of solving (or not having in the first place) a dispute!

i

That is you reading a lot into an account of what was said, and the term “resolve disputes.” That could just as well mean using the rules as not. And not being there to ensure the integrity of the game could just as much be a comment on not being an active ref as anything involving the actual dispute resolution.

Breng77 wrote:

That is you reading a lot into an account of what was said, and the term “resolve disputes.” That could just as well mean using the rules as not. And not being there to ensure the integrity of the game could just as much be a comment on not being an active ref as anything involving the actual dispute resolution.

This is me taking what he said at face value. If he didn't mean what he said, he should've been more careful. "Dispute resolution" is a completely different ball-game (lol) from "rules arbitration" and requires an entirely different skill set and level of rules-knowledge. And he could have just said "It's not my place to enforce the rules, merely arbitrate them.", instead of outright admitting that the integrity of the rules isn't important.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


"Git gud" is rarely an ingredient you want to include in your recipe to attract casual players.

Casual players are the top table of Adepticon? Right...

You realize this was a 200+ player tournament and not a GW advertising pitch, right? While having people notice the game is advertising, the intended function was not to cater to newbies on the street, at least on the tabletop.

In this case, and a regional+ level event, "git gud" is actually an intended ingredient, it is why the gud players have prestige in their circle (the gaming environment).

I mean, the extension of the judge at every table is that I could let my 7 year-old who can barely read loose on adepticon, and it is fine because there is a ref there to play rails for him.

And I mean... it is entirely possible that the "offended" player in this scenario saw it and totally went along with the misplay because it precisely benefited him in that specific context. Maybe he intentionally missed calling it out on purpose.

Maybe the player who forgot to perils actually got cheated because the other guy scored 3 more VPs due to the "blunder". These are things that are considered at that level of play, and that even a judge/ref cannot account for.

Staying out of it and letting the social contract between the players play out naturally is the best method. If they miss something... shame on them. If the ref misses something? Shame on the ref, shame on the TOs, shame on the brand! If you get cheated due to a rules fabrication... then by all means: git gud, bet you won't forget that rule next time.