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.

Slipspace wrote:
There are 2 separate issues in play here:

1. What the rules of the event should be
2. What the penalty should be for breaking those rules

The problem being that some here are of the opinion that any rules are set in stone with no room for accommodation, and they want those rules to reflect their version of "How the Game SHOULD be Played".


Some of these same people also feel that the rules are a hard line. Violate them, cross that line and "It's the BANHAMMER for you!! Get out and don't come back!"

They don't WANT a sliding scale. They want DQs and Bans for ANY violation of their version of the rules. Black and White, no Gray areas.

 helgrenze wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
There are 2 separate issues in play here:

1. What the rules of the event should be
2. What the penalty should be for breaking those rules

The problem being that some here are of the opinion that any rules are set in stone with no room for accommodation, and they want those rules to reflect their version of "How the Game SHOULD be Played".


Some of these same people also feel that the rules are a hard line. Violate them, cross that line and "It's the BANHAMMER for you!! Get out and don't come back!"

They don't WANT a sliding scale. They want DQs and Bans for ANY violation of their version of the rules. Black and White, no Gray areas.

That's why I think point 2 is more important than point 1. I don't think hard bans and instant DQs are as good for the tournament scene as others would assert. I think what's important is that there is enforcement and it is seen to be done.

Slipspace wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
There are 2 separate issues in play here:

1. What the rules of the event should be
2. What the penalty should be for breaking those rules

The problem being that some here are of the opinion that any rules are set in stone with no room for accommodation, and they want those rules to reflect their version of "How the Game SHOULD be Played".


Some of these same people also feel that the rules are a hard line. Violate them, cross that line and "It's the BANHAMMER for you!! Get out and don't come back!"

They don't WANT a sliding scale. They want DQs and Bans for ANY violation of their version of the rules. Black and White, no Gray areas.

That's why I think point 2 is more important than point 1. I don't think hard bans and instant DQs are as good for the tournament scene as others would assert. I think what's important is that there is enforcement and it is seen to be done.

I agree, but several here don't just want that, they want the DQ's and Bans. Perhaps to weed out some of the stiffer competition?

A hard line can be very important if a community has gotten to a point where a casual line won't be respected. It can be the necessary stick to push things back to what they should be if the carrot is rejected or ignored.

Honestly I don't think the wargame world is in that state quite yet; if anything the more critical issue appears to be the practicalities and realities of enforcement. Especially when this thread is talking about TO in a very catch-all manner and thus is comparing those which have an actual budget and money to spend with those that just above cover the venue and prize money from the entrance fee.


There's also grey areas regarding Pre event actions. Eg registering army lists, reviewing army lists, reviewing custom models etc...

The problem being that some here are of the opinion that any rules are set in stone with no room for accommodation, and they want those rules to reflect their version of "How the Game SHOULD be Played".


Some of these same people also feel that the rules are a hard line. Violate them, cross that line and "It's the BANHAMMER for you!! Get out and don't come back!"

Who has actually said that? Who's actually said "One minor infraction and you should get a lifetime ban from all tournaments"? If someone's said it, quote it. Because from what I see, that's not a problem at all. The problem I see is that, rather than have a serious discussion, some people prefer to throw out ridiculous strawmen arguments.

They don't WANT a sliding scale. They want DQs and Bans for ANY violation of their version of the rules. Black and White, no Gray areas.

A lot of people I've seen have been talking about sliding scales. I haven't seen a single case of anyone stating "INSTANT LIFETIME BAN FOR ONE OFFENSE!!1!". Maybe I missed that persons post, in which case please quote that post for me. What I have seen is people saying "If your list is incorrect your previous games become losses and your list is adjusted for future games. If the problem persists then you're disqualified from that event", and so on. That's a sliding scale.

 Peregrine wrote:
The idea that cheating is only a point reduction or "correct it and keep playing" is a joke. Cheating, including an illegal list, should be an immediate DQ and removal from the event space. No playing, no watching your friends play, go sit in your hotel room and think about your failure. And in the case of multiple offenses it should be a blacklisting from all events. Stop going easy on cheaters and people will stop doing it.

Peri here is one of the most vocal about it. This was on page 3. You can review his other posts at your leisure.

Ah so you do know how to use the quote feature. Then why are you being disingenuous and acting like it's a large part of the thread? Your also not even bothering to read his quote are you? It clearly says multiple offenses, you bolded it even yet heres your take away:

 helgrenze wrote:


Some of these same people also feel that the rules are a hard line. Violate them, cross that line and "It's the BANHAMMER for you!! Get out and don't come back!"

They don't WANT a sliding scale. They want DQs and Bans for ANY violation of their version of the rules. Black and White, no Gray areas.

A ban after MULTIPLE offenses IS a sliding scale mate.

Your also ignoring the one glaring weakness in your own argument. As others have pointed out, if an event explicitly outlines WYSIWYG in it's packet and you sign up to the event you are agreeing to play by that tournaments rules. If you either didn't bother reading the guidelines or worse yet ignored those guidelines then your breaking the event rules. If you want to play your counts as squats get it cleared by the TO, if they say no dice then I guess your not playing at that event. Your not entitled to play at someone else event without following the rules everyone else has to.

Your conflating two things, peoples opinions on WYSIWYG and repercussions for breaking an events rules. Your entitled to your opinions on WYSIWYG all you want, but if your opinion isn't in line with the rules of an event your still outta luck and that's your problem.

So after reading this whole thread, my thoughts (for the record, I wrote this while the previous comment was also being posted, it is not included in whole, but does not change my opinions in any real way)

I personally like some leeway in WYSIWYG

I personally feel that it is the player's responsibility to follow the guidelines of the tournament

I personally feel that a TO should pre-approve any model not strictly WYSIWYG, but reasonable leeway should be applied when evaluating the miniature. EDIT: it should be mentioned that reasonable is subjective and reasonable people wlll have disagreements on what is reasonable.

I personally feel that if there is room for confusion that it is the responsibility of the player to reduce this as far as reasonable (at a minimum announcing anything that might be confusing as it is placed (ie my CC: This is my Warlord he has Trait X, Relic Y, and while he has no weapons on the miniature he is armed with a A & B).

I personally feel the arguments about modeling for advantage are a bit ridiculous (within reason, a cm here or there is not a big deal, and there are advantages/disadvantages to smaller and larger miniatures that fairly balance each other...within reason)

I personally suspect that Team Happy was trying to use grey zones for their advantage, which I disagree with. Removing grey areas between opponents is important and trying to capitalize on them is unsporting

Slipspace wrote:

Things like points limits are obvious, uncontroversial parts of point 1. WYSIWYG is, apparenly, more controversial though I'm really not sure how.

It just comes down to the fact that the game demands too many repeated models, which makes small changes major projects. Weapon configurations don't really reward variety, so when they change, its not a matter of getting a few new models; its often close to replacing the whole army. The selling point of customizing your models down to the weapon sounds cool, right up to the point where the game changes a basic weapon that demands replacing everything, particuilarly if that comes in the form of point changes that actually demand something else to fit. That's ultimately why people resist or seek leniency on WYSIWYG. I get it; even if I agree it should be expected.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Ah so you do know how to use the quote feature. Then why are you being disingenuous and acting like it's a large part of the thread? Your also not even bothering to read his quote are you? It clearly says multiple offenses, you bolded it even yet heres your take away:

 helgrenze wrote:


Some of these same people also feel that the rules are a hard line. Violate them, cross that line and "It's the BANHAMMER for you!! Get out and don't come back!"

They don't WANT a sliding scale. They want DQs and Bans for ANY violation of their version of the rules. Black and White, no Gray areas.

A ban after MULTIPLE offenses IS a sliding scale mate.

Your also ignoring the one glaring weakness in your own argument. As others have pointed out, if an event explicitly outlines WYSIWYG in it's packet and you sign up to the event you are agreeing to play by that tournaments rules. If you either didn't bother reading the guidelines or worse yet ignored those guidelines then your breaking the event rules. If you want to play your counts as squats get it cleared by the TO, if they say no dice then I guess your not playing at that event. Your not entitled to play at someone else event without following the rules everyone else has to.

Your conflating two things, peoples opinions on WYSIWYG and repercussions for breaking an events rules. Your entitled to your opinions on WYSIWYG all you want, but if your opinion isn't in line with the rules of an event your still outta luck and that's your problem.

First, let me apologize for not quoting every single, middling post I am replying to. I can see it has caused you some level of confusion.


Second, Define Multiple. When does the ban hit? After 2? in the previous quote, Peregrine states he wants a ban from continued play at the event after the DQ for any infraction.

Third, If I sign up for an event, I double check if those models would be allowed, even to the point of taking them to the TO when I arrive. I do have a second army I can play, but it is not set up the same way. Because of that, I make sure to ask the to beforehand if I can submit a secondary list. Also, I am aware that those models are shorter and some may claim 'modelling for advantage'. I allow that if your model cannot see mine, then mine cannot see yours, unless either one moves after LOS is checked.

Lastly, I was not conflating anything. YOU read that into posts on different subjects.

Honestly, I am on the side of a sliding scale. Any straight up Ban should be after multiple (more than 2) infractions over multiple (more than 2) events.

Your still trying to be disingenuous here. I never required you to quote everyone, in fact feel free not to quote anyone, just don't lie about what people are asking for and certainly don't lump every poster in here into some extreme strawman that is convenient for you to argue against. I mean, your literally putting your own emphasis on part Peregrins quote which says multiple issues, then going on to make a strawman about folks getting perma ban for a single offense.

And yes, you are making several arguments and ascribing them broadly. You disagreeing with others opinions on what the rules should be and then also disagreeing with what the penalties for breaking those rules should be.

In regards to your sliding scale opinion. Fair enough, I respect your opinion but I think it is far to light. More then two mistakes is a minimum of 3 but still undefined and same goes for the number of events. So you think folks should be caught (a key issue) screwing up 3 separate events before someone tells them not to come back? For one of events like adepticon that would mean a guy could have an illegal list three straight years? Why bother even trying to curb cheating?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 helgrenze wrote:

First, let me apologize for not quoting every single, middling post I am replying to. I can see it has caused you some level of confusion.

BTW, please try to refrain from being petty here. Most people in this thread have been quite civil. You hadn't even bothered quoting a single person until called out, then you managed to misquote them entirely, not supporting your original claim. So please don't project your on confusion onto myself or others.

Kdash wrote:
In the Banner Bearer example, if you took a Command Squad with a Banner, then, as the Lasgun is standard equipment, there would be no need to find a way to model a Lasgun. But, if you then took your Banner Bearer as a standard trooper in an Infantry squad, I’d likely raise an eyebrow (in a tournament event) as it represents something completely different.

Yes, this. This reasonable and what I experience.

Kdash wrote:
On the other side, I’d be perfectly fine with Brothererekose’s Hawks as Scourges, as a player and a TO, IF they were running as standard using the Shardcarbine. The moment they wanted to use blasters or haywire, then, I’d ask for them to be modelled as such. Especially if there is more than 1 unit of them on the table with different loadouts.

And the 2 units painted overwhelmingly blue have haywires and the 3rd purple unit shown carry heat lances (painted orangey, fiery hot!).

Good post, Kdash.

I don't think a difference in paint color should be the standard. Folks are already mixing detachments in this addition and as a DE player myself, this army in particular already has up to three different army components before splitting up by obsessions. You can have multiple like units identified as a different obsession by color (and in fact should be), having gear denoted as well by color seems too confusing. This doesn't even factor in the lack in painting standards currently which further muddies the water.

Earlier you also mentioned discussing with your local TO (thanks for doing this and sharing btw) and you mentioned leniency based on performance. Basically, you would get away with less WYSIWYG models so long as your not winning the event. I can't disagree with this policy more. Justice and fairness requires the rules are applied equally, you cannot have one standard for someone at the bottom of the pack and one for somebody at the top. Regardless of how this hashes out, I think this is most important. This just validates those events where someone that knows the TO gets away with cheating (deliberate or not) and most folks agree that's something that needs to stop.

Red Corsair, I said "some", "several", "some of". Not once did I say "ALL." Peregrine is but one of those.
The Peregrine quote shows a call for Blacklisting after multiple infractions. Not a ban for a few events, a blacklisting from ALL events. It also calls for a ban from the remainder of the event for a single infraction.

Many of the "Pro Players" attend multiple events during the year. For instance, Wasn't the guy who won LVO also at ATC? In fact, I believe most of Team Happy were at LVO, as were many others who were at ATC.
If a person only attends one event a year, and gets called for a violation of the event rules once per event, then yeah it might take three years. But since many tourneys are either part of or follow ITC, then those that attend multiple events a year are likely to get caught more often and thus restricted or banned faster.

Peregrine wrote:
The idea that cheating is only a point reduction or "correct it and keep playing" is a joke. Cheating, including an illegal list, should be an immediate DQ and removal from the event space. No playing, no watching your friends play, go sit in your hotel room and think about your failure. And in the case of multiple offenses it should be a blacklisting from all events. Stop going easy on cheaters and people will stop doing it.



Peri here is one of the most vocal about it. This was on page 3. You can review his other posts at your leisure.

And.... you are still making things up. He is only advocating DQ's for black and white cheating. please see below for more of his posts.

]Of course it should be noted that the cases where I've advocated a zero tolerance, immediate DQ and removal from the event policy are cases where the situation is black and white. If you bring an illegal list you are 100% unambiguously at fault. There is nothing unclear in, to use the example that happened at this event, the 0-3 limit on copies of a single datasheet. The list was clearly illegal, with no possible argument that it wasn't. And there is nothing preventing them from putting in the effort to get it right.
The player either cheated deliberately or didn't give a about following the rules, and in either case they should be removed.

Also, there's a difference between cheating and plausible mistakes. An illegal list is cheating, the situation is black and white and there is no excuse for failing to bring a correct list. Making the wrong roll for a unit could be a mistake by both players (for example, forgetting that a unit moved and has the -1 penalty to its heavy weapons), and the penalty wouldn't be a DQ. But if you're consistently trying to use your BS 4+ unit as BS 3+ then yeah, that's a DQ. Either you're cheating, or you're so hopelessly uninformed about the rules of your own army that you don't belong in a tournament.

 helgrenze wrote:
The Peregrine quote shows a call for Blacklisting after multiple infractions. Not a ban for a few events, a blacklisting from ALL events.

since many tourneys are either part of or follow ITC, then those that attend multiple events a year are likely to get caught more often and thus restricted or banned faster.

And the problem with that is what, exactly? Cheaters getting booted from the circuit sooner is somehow a bad thing?

Red Corsair, I said "some", "several", "some of". Not once did I say "ALL." Peregrine is but one of those.
The Peregrine quote shows a call for Blacklisting after multiple infractions. Not a ban for a few events, a blacklisting from ALL events. It also calls for a ban from the remainder of the event for a single infraction.

Try "none", "no one", "none at all" You are making up stuff he did not say and no one else has. He only advocates DQ's and bans for people caught outright cheating, black and white, as they should be. No one is advocating the ban hammer for anything else.

@helgrazen, you've continued to demonstrate your lack of comprehension in regard to other posters remarks. You have even flat out misrepresented them.

You also just demonstrated a lack of understanding in regard to the ITC. The ITC is a template put forth for free as a guide. They don't adjudicate for every ITC event. Currently there is no such thing as a ban from every ITC event unless every TO that uses the ITC pack decides independently to ban a particular player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to add, that second part highlights for me why more then 2 infractions is required for action is a bad policy, because it assumes every ITC event is organized and judged by a single body which it isn't

 helgrenze wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The idea that cheating is only a point reduction or "correct it and keep playing" is a joke. Cheating, including an illegal list, should be an immediate DQ and removal from the event space. No playing, no watching your friends play, go sit in your hotel room and think about your failure. And in the case of multiple offenses it should be a blacklisting from all events. Stop going easy on cheaters and people will stop doing it.

Peri here is one of the most vocal about it. This was on page 3. You can review his other posts at your leisure.

What you just quoted is a sliding scale. At no point does he say one offense is immediate ban for all offenses. It's disqualification for that one event. He never says that person should never be allowed to compete in tournaments ever again. In fact, he states the exact opposite, that it should require multiple offenses before an actual ban takes place. So yeah, you are strawmanning and misrepresenting the points of others.

 Chief Librarian Mephiston wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The idea that cheating is only a point reduction or "correct it and keep playing" is a joke. Cheating, including an illegal list, should be an immediate DQ and removal from the event space. No playing, no watching your friends play, go sit in your hotel room and think about your failure. And in the case of multiple offenses it should be a blacklisting from all events. Stop going easy on cheaters and people will stop doing it.

Peri here is one of the most vocal about it. This was on page 3. You can review his other posts at your leisure.

What you just quoted is a sliding scale. At no point does he say one offense is immediate ban for all offenses. It's disqualification for that one event. He never says that person should never be allowed to compete in tournaments ever again. In fact, he states the exact opposite, that it should require multiple offenses before an actual ban takes place. So yeah, you are strawmanning and misrepresenting the points of others.

So, "removal from the event space. No playing, no watching your friends play, go sit in your hotel room" does not constitute a ban? A DQ does not prevent you from enjoying other areas of the event. Removal from the event space does.
Blacklisting is an entirely different situation from banning.


The real issue here isn't what I posted or how you perceived it.

Yet again in needs to be pointed out that this was his prescribed measure for BLATANT CHEATING... But sure keep ignoring inconvenient details like that, your doing great

I might agree that "removal from event space" may be a little too much (especially for cons which have multiple events going on, etc.) for only one infraction, but "it depends" is really an appropriate caveat here. The reaction of the player to any DQ may cause sufficient drama to warrant asking them to just leave.

DQ is totally warranted for illegal lists, IMO. Almost all events publish some kind of "bring a legal list of X points, 2 detachments, whatever", so not following that and showing up and expecting to still play is arrogant and asking for special treatment. For events without a pre-approval process for lists, I could see a TO giving some allowance of "oh, you're actually over a bit here, do a quick tweak to fix it and you're ok" and that would be ok IMO so long as it was done before any games with said list were played.

The real issue here isn't what I posted or how you perceived it.

Actually, it is 100% what you posted and the problem is how you are perceiving things. The other posters in this thread are doing just fine.

 helgrenze wrote:
So, "removal from the event space. No playing, no watching your friends play, go sit in your hotel room" does not constitute a ban? A DQ does not prevent you from enjoying other areas of the event. Removal from the event space does.
Blacklisting is an entirely different situation from banning.

Why should cheaters be allowed to enjoy other areas of the event? Why do you want cheaters to be welcome at all?

 helgrenze wrote:


So, "removal from the event space. No playing, no watching your friends play, go sit in your hotel room" does not constitute a ban? A DQ does not prevent you from enjoying other areas of the event. Removal from the event space does.
Blacklisting is an entirely different situation from banning.


The real issue here isn't what I posted or how you perceived it.

Unfortunately it's pretty risky to remove someone from the tournament and not the event. That's how you getting mumring mobs and politics just outside your event space. what is a disreputable group is do but punish the event organizers by organizing thier own soapbox? That's what Team Happy is accusing people of right now and is what they are trying to do after the fact.

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:
Actually, it is 100% what you posted and the problem is how you are perceiving things. The other posters in this thread are doing just fine.

Yay! I must be one of the ones doing well! Thanks, ChainswordHeretic. <----- very light-heartedly intended. <3

Today, this happened:




Not only did a lot of our discussion win me over to replacing the blue hawks, but:
a. the scourges cheaper price than I originally thought (I said so myself!)
b. damned fragility and weight of the old models made me realize that I do not want to keep worrying about dropping them, when they are constantly Deep Struck on the edge.
c. and of course WYSIWYG for its own sake

*waits for the Slow Clap*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Of course, each box only has one haywire blaster, so I'll be converting, snipping, and such, because it'd be 8 boxes before I'd be able to field 2 units with 4 HWs each, that's $200; so I can be 100% WYSIWYG modeling the haywire blasters.

Do you guys see how nuts that is?

"Yes, Casey, it is nuts, but it has been that way for all of GW's run. Take Devastator squads for example. You had to buy four boxes before you could field a matching 4 ML unit or 4 LasCan team. That's just the way it is. Unless you bought back in 4e, when single LasCan marines came in a clamp package."

That counter argument given, using some of the expressions you guys have used (not sarcastically, but demonstrating that I am trying to listen and internalize and accept your reasons), I am going to do my opponent the courtesy of time and conversion. I am looking at my many sprues of DE bits. There's no haywires there, but other guns that will 'come close' to make the unit look like they all have haywire. I hope she or he will see I was thinking of them, in the spirit that several of you have voiced. srsly

Still, I wonder, would an opponent know a haywire from a shredder from a heat lance from a shard carbine? Quiz, anybody? Not you Red Corsair, you already play DE so , no ringers!

You can help me keep score, though.






Answers:



I created the quiz to illustrate a point:
WYSIWYG or not, a lot of opponents won't know one of those guns from another. I wouldn't know and still don't, any of the Imperial Knights guns and what they do. I ask my opponents to recite the stats, and if I forget, I ask again, next turn.

Buy bits if you need extra haywires. That's what everyone else does with models like Scions that don't come with enough weapons.

Your opponent not realizing your model isn't WYSIWYG isn't a reason to break a clearly spelled out policy that your models have to be WYSIWYG.

Most players can only tell the weapons their own army(ies) uses and any really deadly ones of other armies that they regularly face (or faced in an epic manner). However if every Dark Elf player uses the same weapon visually it increases awareness and casual learning.

It also makes it easier to jog their memory when playing your army and they take a glance - ask you what it is - and instead of just telling them you are also half reminding them (if they've played against your faction before).


Consistency helps whilst inconsistency hurts.

This isn't going against conversions, but rather goes for using official parts in the right places (and if they are used wrong giving them some kind of alteration visually to try and help out note the difference from the normal).

@Brothererekose

How have you not bought tons and tons of scourge boxes until now! They are probably the best model in the DE Range, and one of GW's best bits for conversions! Scourge wings look fantastic on everything from Battle Sisters to Chaos Space Marines...

I think the key messages here are:

'Don't care.'
'Can't be bothered.'