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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

So the second hand quote is enough for you to go on for that determination. Further these people aren’t professionals, it is a much more reasonable expectation that he (or the OP) misspoke, rather than making your leap to “the rules don’t matter might as well D6 it.” I mean are you trying to apply RAW level scrutiny to a quote from a volunteer at a convention posted on dakka? Seems like a stretch to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heck it isn’t even a quote in the OP. And even in that no -quote the word arbitrate is mentioned. Based on context it seems very clear that the idea is that he is ther to arbitrate rules disputes, and no to referee the game. Which is exactly his job.

We should all remember that mistakes / errors / omissions are a natural part of 40k, just as important as WS and BS. The best players I know are far from perfect.

The fact 2 experienced players on the final table were allowed to play on despite a mistake, IMHO, is absolutely the correct call. Doesn't matter if people are being called judges or refs, interfering in a contest between two people for a championship is bad form.

The audience should be ashamed of itself.

Also remember fatigue is a thing, after 7 games it is hard to be super sharp.

Breng77 wrote:

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.

Really, I'm not:

"Strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same". All that matters is how hard they're trying and there are people who are beginning to take those steps of "try-hard" for 40k. That's why you're encountering this resistance and backlash.

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.

I can't speak for every 40k tournament attendee out there and neither can you. To make a broad statement of "no one is" or "everyone is" or even "most are" or "most aren't" would be purely speculative on either of our parts. All we can say conclusively is there are some who are and are increasing their changes and there are some who aren't. The goal should be to let each player go to types of events that fit into what they're striving for, which we can't do when you mislabel stuff.

And for record, e-sports didn't need money to get involved to reach that point. They got there while holding down day jobs and losing money to attend major tournaments. They were just as talented. 40k will get there too if the old buddy club doesn't smash the nascent scene in a tantrum.

GW is only boosting the competitive scene to sell models.

So the exact reason Blizzard, Valve, Riot, et al do it: to sell a product. Got ya. Same motivation.

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.

Yeah, they're stream looks just like the beginning days of e-sports. Like I said, you keep falsely equating where e-sports are NOW when you should be looking at where e-sports WERE.

They don't have their own tournament format that they are pushing.

Except, you know, the Heats and Grand Tournament, right?

https://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

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.

Right, so same as every other content provider.

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.

Nonsense. I didn't say EVERY TO is. I said YOU were and I've based that on how major organizers treat you on this forum and your own posting history. It's pretty apparent.

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.

Penalties need to be proportionate to the behavior. You're jumping off a hyperbolic bridge of results because you don't like the premise. You do know one of the literal definitions of unfair is: "not following the rules of a game or sport". It's not unfair to prevent definitional unfairness. It's not outside help when the crowd notifies a TO: it's compliance.

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.

You're still getting lost and confused. The crowd complaining about a call means a call was made. We're talking about waaaaay before that. Boos are nonspecific and targeted towards results: they aren't specifically notifying an authority of a rule violation. So yes, if the crowd started chanting "encroachment" you can bet the refs would look around to see if anyone was encroaching.

It isn't deceptive because no events exist that you would deem competitive so you should know what to expect.

I'm sorry, what? Picture Timmy. Timmy is brand new to the hobby and just bought and painted his army. He wants to jump into a competitive league and begin playing competitively (expecting to get stomped, but hopefully grow). How on EARTH is Timmy supposed to know that when ITC/NOVA say "competitive" they don't ACTUALLY mean competitive? This is your insider bias showing again: you assume we've all been here forever and know the unwritten rules. Players haven't. Get your perspective out of your insular group if you really want to understand.

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.

Now you're just off the deep end. Nobody said any one of those was specifically a deal breaker nor that they are all required.

Especially when you yourself would describe these events as competitive, because people are "trying hard to win".

And the point is to give competitive people a competitive venue. A laissez-faire attitude or judges who don't feel like the integrity of the game matters are not places where you CAN really try because the facility itself is smothering it all as a dampener.

There is no rule to calling yourself competitive,

Except, you know, what the word means.

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.

We'll snip here because you're regurgitating and thus my answers would be to.

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.

And some people probably will, eventually, maybe. The maybe being because you're making a burnout cycle now with deception. Competitive players hear about competitive tournaments, try them out, realize they're not competitive after repeated attempts, burnout and say screw it. This wouldn't happen if we weren't deceiving them.

I also never said there was a large market. There is a market. It's a market that will grow if not killed first (and one GW certainly wants to grow).

Before you go saying "I shouldn't have to do that to have an opinion",

And I wasn't going to. We're going to snip here because you're just off tilting at a windmill as opposed to engaging anything said by an actual poster at this point.

Complaining on the internet doesn't create change.

Though I WILL laugh at this because ICCUP and Team Liquid (which was more than just a team) created and did more through "complaining on the internet" then any actual, physical, organizer ever did for Western gamers.

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

They will, like I said, this is much like infant e-sports. That took almost 2 decades to get moving. For now, major organizations should stop preying on people with deceptive labeling.

tneva82 wrote:

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.

Having people deliberately ignore your oversights is a brand new consideration you just introduced in this post for the purposes of making a bash. Breng's argument is that simply by virtue of having more eyes, regardless of intent, there is an unfair advantage.

Say it with me: it is never unfair to have players playing by the rules of the game.

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.

Does anything in the Adepticon rules pack (which I've not looked at) back that up?

Judge isn't a term just used by your definition, btw - here's a quote from the FFG-produced Imperial Assault Tournament Rules document:

JUDGE
An event may have any number of judges, including none. A judge is well-versed in the game’s rules and regulations. A judge’s responsibilities include assisting players to resolve disputes and answering questions regarding the game’s rules. When a judge is not actively performing judge duties, he or she is a spectator and should communicate this change in status clearly.

When a judge is observing a game or an issue is brought to his or her attention, the judge should inform players when they are not following the game rules. Players have an initial opportunity to resolve any situation among themselves, but any player may alternatively ask the judge to make a ruling. At a player’s request, a marshal can review a judge ruling and provide a final determination.

Important sentence is in bold.

The same, from experience, is true at Magic events - I've helped run events for 1-300 people, and the judges there will issue warnings to players based on things they've seen as they've walked past tables and observed games in progress.

Judge - you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Say it with me “all along I have been talking about one player being held to a different standard because the other side has more eyes.” Just because you ignored the implications doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of the discussion.

You are still wrong about people being misled about anything. If they are it is willful. No event has claimed to have active judging, if your first tournament attendance is adepticon or LVO or NOVA, you are very unique having not done any local events to prepare, even then you have expectations about things that have never been said by anyone ever. Are these events competitive, absolutely even by your own definition of competitive. Also the idea that someone who knows about any of these events has no idea what they might be like and is willing to spend hundreds of dollars to attend seems a stretch to me.

As to the “I don’t know every tournament player and cannot speak for them. You’re right it is an assumption founded on the fact that to play this game you need money (far more than most esports to get started), which means you have a job, which mean you likely don’t have 8+ hour per day of preparation. Now I don’t know you but give. You cast knowledge of esports i’m guessing that is the arena you come to as far as competition, mine was national level cross country, trust me I put in no where near the amount of time into this as I did that. I couldn’t I have too many other commitments as do most others. I don’t have 30-35 hours every week to train 40k. Maybe someone does, but even what I hear top players maybe get 2-3 games in a week on average. So sure there might be a few outliers but I can assure the norm is not 30 hours of practice per week.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess my biggest issue is that you seem to be inventing this group of budding 40m as a Esport crowd that I just don’t see in any of my interactions with any part of the community outside of dakka. I don’t see those people running events. I don’t see them attending events, just trying to drag those events down. You say they don’t care as long as those events don’t say the magic words “competitive” or tournament. When these events are both these things just not the way you want them to be. No big TOs are squashing anyone or preventing them from running events. You seem to believe they are because they won’t run things your way, while being “competitive” events.

Until I see someone run an event “your” way successfully I’ll hold on to my belief that it is not feasible to do so on any large scale.

lol competitive 40k

/Thread

I've read the thread, in its entirety. Here's all I have to contribute: 1) The judge was correct in his response to the spectator. 2) The judge, if he spoke bluntly, might have given a more politic response. I am often rather blunt myself. 3) The judge's response in no way indicates a disregard for the rules, or the game. 4) Changing the approach to adjudication for top tables, after the cut to the top 16, invites a different set of problems. 5) A discussion of whether 40K should have referees rather than judges (as I understand those terms), and whether it is in any way feasible to implement could be instructive. Point of reference for that potential discussion: The AdeptiCon 40K championships was sold out at 256, with a wait list of ~48, and ran at ~250 after drops, pulling players off the waitlist, and taking walk-ins. Also, judges are not paid.

@Breng77: Thank you for your efforts in this thread. You spent much more time, and many more words on this topic than I would have, or that I will. Cheers.

Breng77 wrote:
Say it with me “all along I have been talking about one player being held to a different standard because the other side has more eyes.” Just because you ignored the implications doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of the discussion.

I didn't ignore it. I elaborated on how ridiculous the position of saying making people adhere to the rules is a bad thing and then provided a definition to show that your are, effectively, saying that curing definitional unfairness is itself unfair.

You are still wrong about people being misled about anything. If they are it is willful. No event has claimed to have active judging, if your first tournament attendance is adepticon or LVO or NOVA, you are very unique having not done any local events to prepare, even then you have expectations about things that have never been said by anyone ever. Are these events competitive, absolutely even by your own definition of competitive. Also the idea that someone who knows about any of these events has no idea what they might be like and is willing to spend hundreds of dollars to attend seems a stretch to me.

This is all just your narrow perspective coloring your judgment. It's not willful when you look at the pushing and hyping at a superficial level. And yeah, people do.

I will say you're crossing thought streams too. Active judging, as you call it, is one component some people have expressed support for, but it is not the be all-end-all and was not specifically cited as a make-or-break object newbies were looking for.

As to the “I don’t know every tournament player and cannot speak for them. You’re right it is an assumption founded on the fact that to play this game you need money (far more than most esports to get started), which means you have a job, which mean you likely don’t have 8+ hour per day of preparation.

Yeah but MtG needs money for the big leagues too, I'd say more than 40k even if you want to do it at that tier, so just because 40k is has a cost attached has little bearing on this.

Now I don’t know you but give. You cast knowledge of esports i’m guessing that is the arena you come to as far as competition, mine was national level cross country, trust me I put in no where near the amount of time into this as I did that.

Yes and no. E-sports was something I did to relieve stress in graduate education. I started out as a champion fencer/swordsman and a martial artist. Anyway, tangent aside:

I couldn’t I have too many other commitments as do most others. I don’t have 30-35 hours every week to train 40k. Maybe someone does, but even what I hear top players maybe get 2-3 games in a week on average. So sure there might be a few outliers but I can assure the norm is not 30 hours of practice per week.

The norm ain't that in anything. Most gamers don't dedicate 30 hours a week. Not for Starcraft, LoL, Overwatch, whatever. Same goes for MtG. Even most pro-gamers don't do that (much as you hear stories about team houses) unless you count streaming time, but it's pretty well know streaming is garbage practice. They do that for money.

Most of the original e-sports legends worked other careers and practiced in their spare time back in the day. Different people need to practice different amounts. You can't just write in an arbitrary time limit and say it's the cut-off.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess my biggest issue is that you seem to be inventing this group of budding 40m as a Esport crowd that I just don’t see in any of my interactions with any part of the community outside of dakka. I don’t see those people running events. I don’t see them attending events, just trying to drag those events down. You say they don’t care as long as those events don’t say the magic words “competitive” or tournament. When these events are both these things just not the way you want them to be. No big TOs are squashing anyone or preventing them from running events. You seem to believe they are because they won’t run things your way, while being “competitive” events.

I'm not inventing them, I'm noting similarities between where this community is now and where another community on a similar path was 20 years ago. You don't see it because, as I've said, you're part of an insular group that will be highly resistant to change simply by virtue of inertia and the fact that your roots are deep. You'd have to step outside of it. The evidence, of course, is there in GW's behavior from streaming to marketing to balancing and the blogosphere's marketing in promoting the 'best players' and 'top lists'. GW certainly has better marketing data on the community than even both of us combined to boot.

My counter to your statement would be that these people aren't hosting events right now because: 1. They're (relatively) new to the hobby and still getting their sea legs. 2. They don't think they need to because of these deceptive labelings. As time goes on, they'll grow into #1 and start doing their own for #2 UNLESS they get totally burnt out or driven out by naysayers.

And if you can't see them getting squashed you've really got to take a step back and open your eyes. In three of the last four tournament scandals the response was some form of "he's a good guy so ignore it" or "you're crazy for thinking tournaments would do something shocking like enforce the rules". That's going to kill competitive spirit. You need only look in this very thread for further proof. How many comments are there equivalent to "lol competitive 40k", "40k can't be competitive" and/or "why would people waste their time with competitive toy soldiers". Dakka is actually one of the more pro-competition forums and yet I'd say close to half of the vocal userbase is what I would classify as 'militant-casual', that is, a casual player who demands all other play adhere to their preferred style. It's worse on other forums. That is poison to a community.

E-Sports faced much of this same ridicule and derision ("sports require sweat!" was a popular one). In 20 years, they finally made it, when the first wave started entering their 30's. 40k will probably take at least as long if not longer for an organic growth to do the same thing. GW can speed it up if they engage as hard as Riot, Valve or Wizards did.

Finally, you throw out 'my way' a lot in your statements, but that's punching at straw. While I've said I think it'd be great to have a judge cover every table, I haven't really articulated a 'my way' for you to attack. I'm just noting what I see as a natural historical parallel and, trying at least, to explain to people like you why you repeatedly step into controversy and backlash after every tournament. Perhaps it's futile, but here I am trying regardless. Your problem always has, from the very start, been one of mismatched perceptions.

Until I see someone run an event “your” way successfully I’ll hold on to my belief that it is not feasible to do so on any large scale.

That's...fine and I really doubt the vast majority of people in this thread care. This thread is largely about broad ideas and preferences with our tangential discussion of community character makeup. I certainly wasn't engaging your personal beliefs on feasibility in the slightest.

Judges are not referees.

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Say it with me “all along I have been talking about one player being held to a different standard because the other side has more eyes.” Just because you ignored the implications doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of the discussion.

I didn't ignore it. I elaborated on how ridiculous the position of saying making people adhere to the rules is a bad thing and then provided a definition to show that your are, effectively, saying that curing definitional unfairness is itself unfair.

Uneven curing of definitional unfairness is by definition unfair. Look at it this way, if a ref only called legitimate fouls on one side of a game, is that fair or unfair? Crowds may or may not be impartial and thus even if point out legitimate rules issues cannot be counted on to do so evenly. If not done evenly the practice is the definition of unfair. You seem to think that less rules played incorrectly is somehow more fair, when that simply isn't the case. It is only the case when reducing the errors is applied impartially by a ref, not potentially skewed to one side. The crowd has no place in adjudicating fair play in a game.

You are still wrong about people being misled about anything. If they are it is willful. No event has claimed to have active judging, if your first tournament attendance is adepticon or LVO or NOVA, you are very unique having not done any local events to prepare, even then you have expectations about things that have never been said by anyone ever. Are these events competitive, absolutely even by your own definition of competitive. Also the idea that someone who knows about any of these events has no idea what they might be like and is willing to spend hundreds of dollars to attend seems a stretch to me.

This is all just your narrow perspective coloring your judgment. It's not willful when you look at the pushing and hyping at a superficial level. And yeah, people do.

I will say you're crossing thought streams too. Active judging, as you call it, is one component some people have expressed support for, but it is not the be all-end-all and was not specifically cited as a make-or-break object newbies were looking for.

The thing you and others have expressed support for is requiring games to never have errors, and if errors are caught they must always be punished severely so they don't happen again. The problem is that they will happen again, or will only decrease because players will stop attending events because of harsh punishment for making them, or because refs have been assigned to every table to prevent them from happening. I know which one I think is more likely to happen.

As to the “I don’t know every tournament player and cannot speak for them. You’re right it is an assumption founded on the fact that to play this game you need money (far more than most esports to get started), which means you have a job, which mean you likely don’t have 8+ hour per day of preparation.

Yeah but MtG needs money for the big leagues too, I'd say more than 40k even if you want to do it at that tier, so just because 40k is has a cost attached has little bearing on this.

fair enough, I will state that magic requires quite a bit less money to chase the meta than I would say 40k does, and or at least less effort in time (you can play what 5-10 games of magic easily in the time it takes for one 40k game for practice, you don't need to paint your cards etc (or pay someone else to do so).

Now I don’t know you but give. You cast knowledge of esports i’m guessing that is the arena you come to as far as competition, mine was national level cross country, trust me I put in no where near the amount of time into this as I did that.

Yes and no. E-sports was something I did to relieve stress in graduate education. I started out as a champion fencer/swordsman and a martial artist. Anyway, tangent aside:

I couldn’t I have too many other commitments as do most others. I don’t have 30-35 hours every week to train 40k. Maybe someone does, but even what I hear top players maybe get 2-3 games in a week on average. So sure there might be a few outliers but I can assure the norm is not 30 hours of practice per week.

The norm ain't that in anything. Most gamers don't dedicate 30 hours a week. Not for Starcraft, LoL, Overwatch, whatever. Same goes for MtG. Even most pro-gamers don't do that (much as you hear stories about team houses) unless you count streaming time, but it's pretty well know streaming is garbage practice. They do that for money.

Most of the original e-sports legends worked other careers and practiced in their spare time back in the day. Different people need to practice different amounts. You can't just write in an arbitrary time limit and say it's the cut-off.

sure I can if I am comparing the type of commitment people make to a hobby, I'd be surprised if most 40k players play more than 5 hours a week, with top guys maybe hitting 10-15 if they go to local tournaments. I would wager most pro-gamers play quite a bit more than that in an average week. I could be wrong, but seems likely.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess my biggest issue is that you seem to be inventing this group of budding 40m as a Esport crowd that I just don’t see in any of my interactions with any part of the community outside of dakka. I don’t see those people running events. I don’t see them attending events, just trying to drag those events down. You say they don’t care as long as those events don’t say the magic words “competitive” or tournament. When these events are both these things just not the way you want them to be. No big TOs are squashing anyone or preventing them from running events. You seem to believe they are because they won’t run things your way, while being “competitive” events.

I'm not inventing them, I'm noting similarities between where this community is now and where another community on a similar path was 20 years ago. You don't see it because, as I've said, you're part of an insular group that will be highly resistant to change simply by virtue of inertia and the fact that your roots are deep. You'd have to step outside of it. The evidence, of course, is there in GW's behavior from streaming to marketing to balancing and the blogosphere's marketing in promoting the 'best players' and 'top lists'. GW certainly has better marketing data on the community than even both of us combined to boot.

My counter to your statement would be that these people aren't hosting events right now because: 1. They're (relatively) new to the hobby and still getting their sea legs. 2. They don't think they need to because of these deceptive labelings. As time goes on, they'll grow into #1 and start doing their own for #2 UNLESS they get totally burnt out or driven out by naysayers.

And if you can't see them getting squashed you've really got to take a step back and open your eyes. In three of the last four tournament scandals the response was some form of "he's a good guy so ignore it" or "you're crazy for thinking tournaments would do something shocking like enforce the rules". That's going to kill competitive spirit. You need only look in this very thread for further proof. How many comments are there equivalent to "lol competitive 40k", "40k can't be competitive" and/or "why would people waste their time with competitive toy soldiers". Dakka is actually one of the more pro-competition forums and yet I'd say close to half of the vocal userbase is what I would classify as 'militant-casual', that is, a casual player who demands all other play adhere to their preferred style. It's worse on other forums. That is poison to a community.

E-Sports faced much of this same ridicule and derision ("sports require sweat!" was a popular one). In 20 years, they finally made it, when the first wave started entering their 30's. 40k will probably take at least as long if not longer for an organic growth to do the same thing. GW can speed it up if they engage as hard as Riot, Valve or Wizards did.

Finally, you throw out 'my way' a lot in your statements, but that's punching at straw. While I've said I think it'd be great to have a judge cover every table, I haven't really articulated a 'my way' for you to attack. I'm just noting what I see as a natural historical parallel and, trying at least, to explain to people like you why you repeatedly step into controversy and backlash after every tournament. Perhaps it's futile, but here I am trying regardless. Your problem always has, from the very start, been one of mismatched perceptions.

So judging by your join date you are pretty new to the scene. This insular group that you harp on so much did exactly what I am saying I see no one from this "esport" group doing, seeing something they want to change and doing it. I'm not sure when you joined but I assume that maybe it was after GW basically tried to squash (far more actively than anything you cite) the competitive scene. They were the ones that harped on 40k not being competitive, stopped running events, supporting local event, made terrible missions, never faq'd anything etc. So people that wanted a "competitive" scene stepped up, created events from nothing and grew them into the majors/GTs of today. Marketing of top players in the blogsphere isn't new it has been happening for a long time, nothing about it has changed, except some of the names.

You talk about resistance to change for older gamers, none I know are resistant to change, they are resistant to being made to be the ones to make those changes. People like you come on after events and rail on these events when mistakes happen, and they don't respond the way you want them to, you accuse them of deception, and tear down the tons of work they do, because you want something else. Well guess what, they don't owe you anything, you want something else build it. You talk about relatively new to the scene? How new, a month?, 6 months? 2 years? I started running tournaments at my local shop maybe 2 years into my competitive gaming history, I knew plenty of people who did it earlier than me. So what is stopping these people from doing it? Someone already runs the events? The community at their store doesn't want to change? Maybe. Most of what I hear from people is "I shouldn't have to do it, it should just be that way." maybe that is not how you feel, but it is a common excuse. "I want to play I don't want to run events, so someone who is already doing it needs to change their ways."

Does that seem reasonable to you? To put all the impetus on people that already fought and built something to risk their event to change things for a crowd that may or may not attend?

As to you inventing this esport crowd and my view being skewed by my insular group. I'm not even talking about top players, or anything, I rarely talk to or see what you define as the brohammer group, I don't have time to go to big events these days. Do I know some top players as acquaintances, Sure I do. But I don't play with them basically ever, I rarely talk to them. So my not seeing these esports people outside dakka is mostly small stores and tournaments. My local area has lots of new players, none of them complain about how the store runs events, and these events don't even have a judge at all. 85% or more are super casual, don't even play tournaments, will never go to NOVA or Adepticon, don't watch 40k streams of events etc. The last 15% might go to one of these events, but most will just play local events. So when you say that half the vocal user base is "militant-causual", you are probably right, but that is an under representation of the casual/militant casual crowd IME, not an over representation. That isn't to say 40k could not evolve into an esport, but to be fair that is a lot harder to pull off without a ton of money than it was for video games, you are selling to a smaller audience with a harder to watch product.

Has streaming helped get people visualizing the game. Sure but that has been a thing on and off since 5th ed. It isn't new, it is just better quality now. Who started it? Those same "insular" old hats you think are "destroying the competitive spirit"

As for my mismatched perceptions, maybe, but you are guilty of that as well when it comes to tournaments, your perception is that most people that attend them are super serious about winning, and feel cheated when someone makes a mistake on the top tables. My assertion is that 90+% don't care what happens on the top tables, they are there for fun.

I think the only way for "esport" 40k to happen won't be through convention tournaments, it will need to be through teams and leagues, where there are fewer games happening at any one time, allowing for reffing, streaming of all top players, and tighter standards. OR maybe at an invite only event with fewer games to judge. Big events will never be able to pull it off, it is too hard to get it right, and DQing someone on the top table for a mistake on a regular basis will do more to kill the following than anything. Honestly other than the big following, I think 40k is one of the worse minis games for streaming and watching.

Until I see someone run an event “your” way successfully I’ll hold on to my belief that it is not feasible to do so on any large scale.

That's...fine and I really doubt the vast majority of people in this thread care. This thread is largely about broad ideas and preferences with our tangential discussion of community character makeup. I certainly wasn't engaging your personal beliefs on feasibility in the slightest.

They only matter insofar as people keep expecting judges to be something they are not intended to be and a large reason they aren't is because it isn't feasible for them to be that.

 techsoldaten wrote:
We should all remember that mistakes / errors / omissions are a natural part of 40k, just as important as WS and BS.

Then so-called "competitive" 40k is a joke. Your statement speaks for itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DCannon4Life wrote:
3) The judge's response in no way indicates a disregard for the rules, or the game.

It absolutely does. The judge openly said "I am aware that the rules have been violated and an illegal game state has been generated, giving a considerable advantage to one player, but it is not my job to do something about it". How can you possibly say that this position is anything but disregard for the rules?

 Dysartes wrote:

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.

Does anything in the Adepticon rules pack (which I've not looked at) back that up?

Judge isn't a term just used by your definition, btw - here's a quote from the FFG-produced Imperial Assault Tournament Rules document:

JUDGE
An event may have any number of judges, including none. A judge is well-versed in the game’s rules and regulations. A judge’s responsibilities include assisting players to resolve disputes and answering questions regarding the game’s rules. When a judge is not actively performing judge duties, he or she is a spectator and should communicate this change in status clearly.

When a judge is observing a game or an issue is brought to his or her attention, the judge should inform players when they are not following the game rules. Players have an initial opportunity to resolve any situation among themselves, but any player may alternatively ask the judge to make a ruling. At a player’s request, a marshal can review a judge ruling and provide a final determination.

Important sentence is in bold.

The same, from experience, is true at Magic events - I've helped run events for 1-300 people, and the judges there will issue warnings to players based on things they've seen as they've walked past tables and observed games in progress.

Judge - you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

No the only thing in the packet I see is the their rulings are final.

However, in the Conduct policy for adepticon under cheating it states that

"Players are expected to have a solid grasp of the rules and are responsible for challenging their opponent(s) when those
rules are broken. If the players cannot come to a resolution, then the matter must be brought to the attention of a Floor
Judge DURING the game. At that point the Floor Judge(s) will weigh the evidence and take appropriate action (which might
result in anything from a warning to expulsion). Please remember, this is a complex game and honest mistakes are often
made. Every attempt to resolve the issue should be made prior to calling over a Floor Judge (see Rules Disputes above).
Claiming your opponent is cheating to simply influence the outcome of the game is cheating in and of itself."

Which seems pretty clear that catching "cheating" is on the players and no one else.

there is also this which isn't 100% relevant but

"Observing Games: As some of the larger tournaments enter the final rounds, it is often tempting to seek out and watch
the ‘top tables’. Simply observing a game in progress is fine, but observers should NEVER interject their own commentary,
rules interpretations or tactical advice to either player involved in the game."

So potentially even a judge would be subject to this.

So the judge was really just another observer?

 Primark G wrote:
So the judge was really just another observer?

No but the rules from the con are fairly clear. It was the players fault to see this, to bring it to the other players attention, to attempt to fix the situation, then summon a judge to deal with the issue.

Might not be the best path, but it is what adepticon has in place.

If you don't like it, run your own con with different rules.

It's nice to have someone to arbitrate rules disputes for casual pick-up games with strangers! What a nightmare it would be if I came in expecting fair competitive venue!

Honestly, the arguments against having fairly judged games is ridiculous.

A) It's too hard!

Well, tough gak, don't run a tournament if you can't spare the resources to ensure that its a fair playing field.

B) But what if one of the players has a bunch of friends?

That is the most non-sequitur argument I've seen in a while. Put up a red line or enforce silence or something, if you think a competitive 40k game can be disrupted because one of the players has friends that came to watch him play.

quentra wrote:
It's nice to have someone to arbitrate rules disputes for casual pick-up games with strangers! What a nightmare it would be if I came in expecting fair competitive venue!

Honestly, the arguments against having fairly judged games is ridiculous.

A) It's too hard!

Well, tough gak, don't run a tournament if you can't spare the resources to ensure that its a fair playing field.

B) But what if one of the players has a bunch of friends?

That is the most non-sequitur argument I've seen in a while. Put up a red line or enforce silence or something, if you think a competitive 40k game can be disrupted because one of the players has friends that came to watch him play.

a.) So no tournaments above maybe 30 players will exist. Got it.

B.) That is an argument against why the crowd should not have input into judging a game (right or wrong), not an argument against having a judge ref a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
We should all remember that mistakes / errors / omissions are a natural part of 40k, just as important as WS and BS.

Then so-called "competitive" 40k is a joke. Your statement speaks for itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DCannon4Life wrote:
3) The judge's response in no way indicates a disregard for the rules, or the game.

It absolutely does. The judge openly said "I am aware that the rules have been violated and an illegal game state has been generated, giving a considerable advantage to one player, but it is not my job to do something about it". How can you possibly say that this position is anything but disregard for the rules?

Because given the rules acting on that without a player asking is beyond the scope of the judges job. Again, you don't have to interfere in a game to regard the rules.

Yeah Breng, no tournaments above 30 players should exist, or they shouldn't advertise themselves as tournaments. Calling an unjudged casual game a tournament is just downright deceptive.

And honestly, I don't know why you can't just introduce a rule (like golf) if you're so worried about outside intereference. If I came to one your tournaments, I'd be more worried about being cheated by my opponent than whether or not they had a friend yelling 'DOUBLE MEASURE THE CHARGE RANGE!'

quentra wrote:
Yeah Breng, no tournaments above 30 players should exist, or they shouldn't advertise themselves as tournaments. Calling an unjudged casual game a tournament is just downright deceptive.

Yes because throwing the baby out with the bath water is clearly the best decision. My favorite part of all these threads is watching people who've never organized a 10 man event, much less a a larger scale 200+ player event talk about what tournaments should do and if they can't then they just quit trying all together.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

quentra wrote:
Yeah Breng, no tournaments above 30 players should exist, or they shouldn't advertise themselves as tournaments. Calling an unjudged casual game a tournament is just downright deceptive.

Yes because throwing the baby out with the bath water is clearly the best decision. My favorite part of all these threads is watching people who've never organized a 10 man event, much less a a larger scale 200+ player event talk about what tournaments should do and if they can't then they just quit trying all together.

My favorite part of this thread is where people defend cheating because they can't figure out a better way to host events, and claim that a better way cannot in principle exist. I've hosted DnD games at cons, hearthstone tournaments at bars...Granted, never a wargame, but I'd love to see you DM 3 tables of 6 people each simultaneously of 3.5ed DnD. I have some idea of what it takes to organize something, and what my limits are.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

quentra wrote:
Yeah Breng, no tournaments above 30 players should exist, or they shouldn't advertise themselves as tournaments. Calling an unjudged casual game a tournament is just downright deceptive.

Yes because throwing the baby out with the bath water is clearly the best decision. My favorite part of all these threads is watching people who've never organized a 10 man event, much less a a larger scale 200+ player event talk about what tournaments should do and if they can't then they just quit trying all together.

I think people and organizations should attempt to improve in all things. If Adepticon can improve its competitive spirit by upgrading its judges to referees (or even just making them care about the game's integrity) then that's an improvement, no?

Or I guess it's too hard so they shouldn't even try.

quentra wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

quentra wrote:
Yeah Breng, no tournaments above 30 players should exist, or they shouldn't advertise themselves as tournaments. Calling an unjudged casual game a tournament is just downright deceptive.

Yes because throwing the baby out with the bath water is clearly the best decision. My favorite part of all these threads is watching people who've never organized a 10 man event, much less a a larger scale 200+ player event talk about what tournaments should do and if they can't then they just quit trying all together.

My favorite part of this thread is where people defend cheating because they can't figure out a better way to host events, and claim that a better way cannot in principle exist. I've hosted DnD games at cons, hearthstone tournaments at bars...Granted, never a wargame, but I'd love to see you DM 3 tables of 6 people each simultaneously of 3.5ed DnD. I have some idea of what it takes to organize something, and what my limits are.

Yeah that's still organizing 18 people as opposed to over 200. And certainly DnD is a different animal where cooperative storytelling is the core of the event so mediation is expected and welcome. And regarding my defending cheating - that's an assumption on your part, I'm not going to address it because its the position you've chosen from an emotional point of view rather than a logical one. Ultimately I'm not even weighing in on the specific occurrence at Adepticon, the judge handled the situation poorly no matter how you look at it, his language was poor and open to misinterpretation. I'm simply weighing in on how absolutely ludicrous it is that it be suggested that there not be events larger than 30 people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

quentra wrote:
Yeah Breng, no tournaments above 30 players should exist, or they shouldn't advertise themselves as tournaments. Calling an unjudged casual game a tournament is just downright deceptive.

Yes because throwing the baby out with the bath water is clearly the best decision. My favorite part of all these threads is watching people who've never organized a 10 man event, much less a a larger scale 200+ player event talk about what tournaments should do and if they can't then they just quit trying all together.

I think people and organizations should attempt to improve in all things. If Adepticon can improve its competitive spirit by upgrading its judges to referees (or even just making them care about the game's integrity) then that's an improvement, no?

Or I guess it's too hard so they shouldn't even try.

Or you could not make emotional assumptions about my point of view and instead understand I was addressing a specific point made by a poster.

quentra wrote:

My favorite part of this thread is where people defend cheating because they can't figure out a better way to host events, and claim that a better way cannot in principle exist. I've hosted DnD games at cons, hearthstone tournaments at bars...Granted, never a wargame, but I'd love to see you DM 3 tables of 6 people each simultaneously of 3.5ed DnD. I have some idea of what it takes to organize something, and what my limits are.

As long as nobody pays people to judge, there is no other option. It's already hard enough to find people that are a) knowledgeable enough to be a judge and b) don't want to play themselves at an event that lasts several days and usually takes along trip to get to.

Even big Warhammer tournaments do not really create any revenue, if you want more professional judges entry fees will need to be raised or GW needs to do like Wizards and start handing out free models to judges who do it for a living and not just as hobby. And as soon as there is money involved things get even uglier, I wouldn't like this direction at all.

Ushtarador wrote:

quentra wrote:

My favorite part of this thread is where people defend cheating because they can't figure out a better way to host events, and claim that a better way cannot in principle exist. I've hosted DnD games at cons, hearthstone tournaments at bars...Granted, never a wargame, but I'd love to see you DM 3 tables of 6 people each simultaneously of 3.5ed DnD. I have some idea of what it takes to organize something, and what my limits are.

As long as nobody pays people to judge, there is no other option. It's already hard enough to find people that are a) knowledgeable enough to be a judge and b) don't want to play themselves at an event that lasts several days and usually takes along trip to get to.

Even big Warhammer tournaments do not really create any revenue, if you want more professional judges entry fees will need to be raised or GW needs to do like Wizards and start handing out free models to judges who do it for a living and not just as hobby. And as soon as there is money involved things get even uglier, I wouldn't like this direction at all.

But that quite clearly isn't a tournament. It's one thing to run big Warhammer events, but calling it a 'tournament' (much less making balancing decisions based on those results) just smacks of false advertising to me. You can't even hope to generate any legitimate competitive or otherwise data because the premise of the event (fair play) is not there.

I'm not arguing that running big Warhammer events isn't hard or shouldn't happen, but that it is wrong to call it those events a tournament (the word implies fair play and an even playing field).

quentra wrote:
Yeah Breng, no tournaments above 30 players should exist, or they shouldn't advertise themselves as tournaments. Calling an unjudged casual game a tournament is just downright deceptive.

And honestly, I don't know why you can't just introduce a rule (like golf) if you're so worried about outside intereference. If I came to one your tournaments, I'd be more worried about being cheated by my opponent than whether or not they had a friend yelling 'DOUBLE MEASURE THE CHARGE RANGE!'

A judged game does not a tournament make. Not sure what makes people think it does. A tournament is simply an event where players advance based on results to determine a winner. Now if you don't want to play in an event without a ref, I don't know what to tell you. As for the later you are missing the point where people said the crowd should be catching rules mistakes and that it makes the game more fair.

quentra wrote:

Ushtarador wrote:

quentra wrote:

My favorite part of this thread is where people defend cheating because they can't figure out a better way to host events, and claim that a better way cannot in principle exist. I've hosted DnD games at cons, hearthstone tournaments at bars...Granted, never a wargame, but I'd love to see you DM 3 tables of 6 people each simultaneously of 3.5ed DnD. I have some idea of what it takes to organize something, and what my limits are.

As long as nobody pays people to judge, there is no other option. It's already hard enough to find people that are a) knowledgeable enough to be a judge and b) don't want to play themselves at an event that lasts several days and usually takes along trip to get to.

Even big Warhammer tournaments do not really create any revenue, if you want more professional judges entry fees will need to be raised or GW needs to do like Wizards and start handing out free models to judges who do it for a living and not just as hobby. And as soon as there is money involved things get even uglier, I wouldn't like this direction at all.

But that quite clearly isn't a tournament. It's one thing to run big Warhammer events, but calling it a 'tournament' (much less making balancing decisions based on those results) just smacks of false advertising to me. You can't even hope to generate any legitimate competitive or otherwise data because the premise of the event (fair play) is not there.

I'm not arguing that running big Warhammer events isn't hard or shouldn't happen, but that it is wrong to call it those events a tournament (the word implies fair play and an even playing field).

But they are tournaments - by definition as a matter of fact. Per websters a tournament is a series of contests between a number of competitors, who compete for an overall prize. Regardless of if you think they're fair or not they meet the criteria of a tournament.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

quentra wrote:

Ushtarador wrote:

quentra wrote:

My favorite part of this thread is where people defend cheating because they can't figure out a better way to host events, and claim that a better way cannot in principle exist. I've hosted DnD games at cons, hearthstone tournaments at bars...Granted, never a wargame, but I'd love to see you DM 3 tables of 6 people each simultaneously of 3.5ed DnD. I have some idea of what it takes to organize something, and what my limits are.

As long as nobody pays people to judge, there is no other option. It's already hard enough to find people that are a) knowledgeable enough to be a judge and b) don't want to play themselves at an event that lasts several days and usually takes along trip to get to.

Even big Warhammer tournaments do not really create any revenue, if you want more professional judges entry fees will need to be raised or GW needs to do like Wizards and start handing out free models to judges who do it for a living and not just as hobby. And as soon as there is money involved things get even uglier, I wouldn't like this direction at all.

But that quite clearly isn't a tournament. It's one thing to run big Warhammer events, but calling it a 'tournament' (much less making balancing decisions based on those results) just smacks of false advertising to me. You can't even hope to generate any legitimate competitive or otherwise data because the premise of the event (fair play) is not there.

I'm not arguing that running big Warhammer events isn't hard or shouldn't happen, but that it is wrong to call it those events a tournament (the word implies fair play and an even playing field).

But they are tournaments - by definition as a matter of fact. Per websters a tournament is a series of contests between a number of competitors, who compete for an overall prize. Regardless of if you think they're fair or not they meet the criteria of a tournament.

Ah, I suppose I'm at fault for assuming that tournaments in 40k should generate fair and unbiased results.

quentra wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:


But they are tournaments - by definition as a matter of fact. Per websters a tournament is a series of contests between a number of competitors, who compete for an overall prize. Regardless of if you think they're fair or not they meet the criteria of a tournament.

Ah, I suppose I'm at fault for assuming that tournaments in 40k should generate fair and unbiased results.

Correct, you've injected your own bias into the definition. A 40k tournament cannot generate fair and unbiased results because players of varying skills use armies of varying power levels in variable scenarios (which are often specific to the given event and reflect the biases of the organizer). Furthermore no organized sporting event ever generates fair and unbiased results by your definition because mistakes happen at that level as well.

Assuming mistakes make the game unfair or biased is a faulty assumption. Guess every tournament ever in basically every sport is not a tournament then because there have been bad ref calls/non calls, that effect the outcome.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

quentra wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:


But they are tournaments - by definition as a matter of fact. Per websters a tournament is a series of contests between a number of competitors, who compete for an overall prize. Regardless of if you think they're fair or not they meet the criteria of a tournament.

Ah, I suppose I'm at fault for assuming that tournaments in 40k should generate fair and unbiased results.

Correct, you've injected your own bias into the definition. A 40k tournament cannot generate fair and unbiased results because players of varying skills use armies of varying power levels in variable scenarios (which are often specific to the given event and reflect the biases of the organizer).

I...I'm not sure what to say to that. Bravo!