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.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, Horseback riding, Helicopter flying, and Space jumping might be more expensive than 40k. But lets go into the math of 40k.

Models alone: $750 to $1k - Especially if you plan on having back up models incase you come across different types of armies. Three full troop squads of marines is at least 150, un painted.

Paint - This can vary depending on skill and army. If you are going black templars - $100 bucks. If you are going deathwatch or 1Ksons, 350? If you don't buy GW magic paints, 200.

Carrying cases - High side professional grade travel cases - 250. Cardboard box with bubblewrap: 50/

Tools - about 150 if you get every brush and snip.

BOOKS - 250.(Battlescribe = 0)

Travel costs - Vary, but there are no professional players, so you eat this. No sponsors in 40k.

So we get about 1500-2500. Not far off my original estimate. That is 2k points of ONE ARMY. My GW store guy made it easy. Points=Dollars. 2k point lists cost about 2k dollars.

That is not an amateur level investment.

not only does your estimate seem incredibly high (for example $100 starting off with paint???? im doing a simple scheme on my Necrons right now, $5 primer and 4 different paints that are like $2 each.... a beginner doesn't need $100 in paint watch some of the miniac youtube vids on starting the hobby cheap)

But seriously im curious of a single hobby that you could actually get into cheaper than 40k

You can buy a 2000 point army on craigs list or ebay for like $300-$400 and strip it and buy everything else you need for like $50. There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard

Asmodios wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard

You can spend quite a bit on birdseed and over winter they'll gobble it down fast! Granted its not a big upfront cost, but over time it can add up - as can some good books on birding and binoculars or a scope.

And that's the thing, few people get into 40K with the full intention of building a 2K competitive army right out of the door. Most steadily grow their armies with purchases here and there. On that front it can be quite cheap; esp today with GW pushing things like Killteam. One box of models, blade, clippers, brush, paint set and you're easily in for well under £100. Expand that with a few more models here and there and you can easily be on your way to 500 and 1K points.


A good few other hobbies can require more upfront cost to get into and some require far less. There's always variation; its jsut that Warhammer has a bad reputation for itself which isn't as deserving. Heck even if you compare it to a lot of other models and toys its not "that" expensive. Even Lego kits are darn pricey these days; Meccanno probably is (its sort of vanished most places) and Hornby is on the pricey side too in comparison (and even shares a lot of costs if you get into custom terrain making_)

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Did anyone see the article on BoLS about cheating at tournies? One of the points was about Castellan cheating in regards to House rules, and their detachments. Basically this seems to have resulted from a top 8 finalist having a bit of a tizzy when he got called out on it. But I can't find the specifics?

Did anyone watch the feed and see what they were referencing? I need to review to see if it was a honest mistake or if it was infact cheating. To be honest, shouldn't this sort of thing be handled clearly in the army list reviews? If you walk up to a game, with x unit, and don't know the rules, isn't that on the player?

I don't want to name the player, for interest of shaming. But I think you can likely find it off a search of the googles or at least reviewing the article on BoLS.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/02/40k-the-subfaction-keywords-are-enabling-cheaters.html

Thoughts?

This is secondhand, but I was told by a friend I drove with who followed all the final tables that - firstly - the guy you're referencing was kind of a jerk about his opponent making a minor mistake and not allowing him to undo it. Something to the tune of his opponent starting his shooting phase and accidentally skipping his psychic phase, and not allowing him to go back to the psychic phase.

His opponent accepted his mistake, and continued on.

Later, the guy you mentioned advanced with a Castellan (and used Order of Companions, a 3 CP stratagem I think) out of a super-heavy auxiliary detachment whose house lets you advance and fire weapons without penalty. My friend said that you only get house benefits if you take 3 super heavies in a detachment, and that simple auxiliary detachments don't confer house benefits. That's a pretty damned subtle difference in my book.

However.........this meant that the guy in the article advanced his Castellan but couldn't shoot with it. And his opponent wasn't feeling too gracious about mulligans.

In the end, the judges were called and allowed to refund the guy his CP for the wasted stratagem, but wouldn't let him un-advance his castellan, because it was mistake. And he was kind of pissed about it.

To me, that was a golden example of don't be a dick about rules - because you never know when you'll need a mulligan too. I mean, enforce the rules, but if someone skipped over something that isn't going to make a huge difference, I let them go back and do it.

And I get that at high levels of play, you really should know your rules and be prepared for people to know them too. But this is still just a game, and a pretty complicated one at that, and playing for 8 hours a day for 3 days in a row can tend to confuse anyone.

Hell, my friend said that on day 2, they had too many people who were undefeated, so the bottom 8 of the final 12 or so had to play ANOTHER round from like 9pm to midnight to get them down to just 8 players. Ugh.

The easies way to know if somebody is legitimately forgetting rules is by how many times those rules he forgots benefit him or his opponent.

 Galas wrote:
The easies way to know if somebody is legitimately forgetting rules is by how many times those rules he forgots benefit him or his opponent.

I was watching the final round of my friend play an ork player (My army is orks), and the warboss was doing the brutal but kunning + killa klaw + fist of gork to neutralize my friend's knights. It's a good combo.

Now, I was keeping quiet other than friendly banter (how do you like smasha guns, that relic SAG is pretty decent, etc). But I did notice the ork player was giving his warboss an extra attack. I checked the index to make sure, then politely told him that warbosses only have 4 attacks, not 5. He responded with 'Attack squig!', and I said 'uhhhhhhhhhh, that's not what attack squigs do anymore', and I saw his eyes get wide a bit.

I legitimately thought that was an 100% honest mistake, but my friend was a bit miffed about it. He thought he could have won that final game (and the $100) if the warboss hadn't gotten the extra attack over 4 rounds of combat or so.

He did call a judge, who basically said they couldn't do anything but yellow card the ork player.

I have know a good bunch of "Oh I'm sorry I forgot" kind of cheaters that casually only forgot rules when they beneffit himself.

At least for me the difference is pretty obvious. Is harder when it only happens once in a game, but if you can see that player playing a couple of games then it becomes clear.

I'm lucky enough that my brain remembers rules easily, so it's pretty common for me to know my opponents' rules better than they do, especially in casual games. It's usually pretty clear when someone is forgetting rules on purpose or legitimately, if anything most special rules are beneficial so there is a skew towards forgetfulness being harmful rather than beneficial.

Asmodios wrote:
There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard

Tell that to the people who buy Swarovski binoculars for birding

 Cheexsta wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard

Tell that to the people who buy Swarovski binoculars for birding

that's why I clarified in your backyard the scary thing is I have a friend whos into birdwatching and star gazing and he drops more on a set of binoculars or a telescope then you would spend on an entire army. Ive actually had this discussion in depth before and for the amount of hobby and how long your investment lasts i think 40k is one of the cheapest hobbies you can get into

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
OK, but again, Soup army, three books at least, plus the rule book, too much.

I always suggest that GW take the 14 or so pages of actual rules, put them in the army codex for free, sell pretty picture book on the side for lore hobbits.

But don't tell me I need to buy a $50 book that really only 10-20 pages of are actually rules, most of which is faq'd and outdated. It's one of the hardest things about getting new people into the hobby. Buying the books. And to be DEAD honest, the only reason I buy the books is so I can play at the FLGS without getting tossed because I cheated and downloaded them off the interwebs. You legit can't play at my store if you didn't buy the books, and the rep will call you on it.

Then don't play an army with allies. Very simple solution, huh?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
BOOKS - 250.(Battlescribe = 0)

I'm not keen on people using Battlescribe for putting lists together - the output format bugs me, for some reason - but I can accept it.

But on the day, at the event, you should have a physical copy of the rules for your army, along with the core rules. Relevant FAQs in a Pocket Display Book, for preference.

I guess this is one of those you have money or you don't, but I probably spend around £300~ per year, putting together around 1k points. At say £25 per month its a reasonable commitment, but not that much.

Asmodios wrote:
...But seriously im curious of a single hobby that you could actually get into cheaper than 40k

You can buy a 2000 point army on craigs list or ebay for like $300-$400 and strip it and buy everything else you need for like $50. There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard

You mean aside from every other wargame ever released?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
...But seriously im curious of a single hobby that you could actually get into cheaper than 40k

You can buy a 2000 point army on craigs list or ebay for like $300-$400 and strip it and buy everything else you need for like $50. There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard

You mean aside from every other wargame ever released?

That doesn't count remember? People will use anything and everything to avoid comparing Warhammer to any other wargame. I expect the usual counters ("models look like gak", "not as good as GW", "not played here", etc.) to discredit this point.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
...But seriously im curious of a single hobby that you could actually get into cheaper than 40k

You can buy a 2000 point army on craigs list or ebay for like $300-$400 and strip it and buy everything else you need for like $50. There are not many hobbies you can get into for cheaper then that outside of birdwatching in your back yard

You mean aside from every other wargame ever released?

What other wargames are way cheaper than warhammer? I played WMHs for a while and it was just as expensive if not more so than 40k. I tried infinity for a while as well and it was a bit cheaper but only in the fact that you only needed 6ish models to play the game. The models themselves were just as expensive as 40k models though. Ive looked at a few other wargames as well and as far as model price comparison goes they are all priced relatively close. I am actually legitimately curious about this. I love finding new amazing looking models as I love the modeling painting aspect.

I guess having thought about this more, 40k is in line, cost wise, with a lot of the hobbies I've had in my life. I guess it's what you personally get out of it.

I apologize for wrongly saying 40k costs more than other hobbies.

That being said, I don't want to derail this thread, which was getting some good feedback about the idea of self-policing the hobby in light of all the cheating possibilities.

On topic:
The bloat of rules is part of what made late 7th edition unfun, and I agree with the premise of the article (in a way) that the more complicated the rules get, the easier it is to cheat either intentionally or otherwise. That part is basically on GW and their TO "advisors", but as far as the community goes the simplest response is to PUNISH CHEATERS. Period. People get mad when others "get away with stuff", add the current competitive e-sports push in 40K on top and you will produce the multi-week sprawling threads that Dakka has produced when these instances come up. You have clearly defined consequences for cheating, and you enforce them. There are obviously different degrees (misplayed a rule vs moving a model when it's not your turn, for example) but when cheating is obviously that then you've got to deal with it.

 greyknight12 wrote:
On topic:
The bloat of rules is part of what made late 7th edition unfun, and I agree with the premise of the article (in a way) that the more complicated the rules get, the easier it is to cheat either intentionally or otherwise. That part is basically on GW and their TO "advisors", but as far as the community goes the simplest response is to PUNISH CHEATERS. Period. People get mad when others "get away with stuff", add the current competitive e-sports push in 40K on top and you will produce the multi-week sprawling threads that Dakka has produced when these instances come up. You have clearly defined consequences for cheating, and you enforce them. There are obviously different degrees (misplayed a rule vs moving a model when it's not your turn, for example) but when cheating is obviously that then you've got to deal with it.

I partially disagree about 7th. It wasn't just that there were a lot of rules, it was that the rules were spread out across a vast number of different books and some of them were blatantly overpowered beyond any semblance of balance. You still can end up needing a lot of source material in 8th, especially compared to 5th, but it still only comes down to three books and a supplementary printout for most armies:
The Rulebook
The latest Chapter Approved
Your Codex
Relevant FAQs

Optional are:
The appropriate index
A Forge World index

The important thing here isn't the number of books, it's that this list of books can be applied to any army. If we compare to 7th edition rules bloat, you not only needed more books than this to run a monofaction army, it was difficult to keep track of the various source material for all those books. Multiple disparate supplement books with contradictory or overlapping rules made it difficult to know if your army was up to date, or if there were relevant rules that would effect your army that you didn't know about because they were in a supplement you hadn't heard about.

Big Mac wrote:If GW/we are trying to make this a T-sport sort of thing, then there are some major upgrades necessary to make it happen.
1) being a former competitive player and mostly a painter now I can’t stand watching the final at the LVO, as their armies looked bare minimum in term of painting requirements, I understand that most of us are not into the hobby side of things, but if the miniatures moving on the table look more like toys rather than gaming miniature=pro team wearing HS JV gear in the finals;

But how good should the painting be? I agree that armies at tournaments should not be oceans of grey (or whatever color the model's plastic is), but some people are just not good at painting. I personally am getting better but I have a long way to go before I can make my models look truly excellent. This is a game tournament, not an art show.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

Big Mac wrote:If GW/we are trying to make this a T-sport sort of thing, then there are some major upgrades necessary to make it happen.
1) being a former competitive player and mostly a painter now I can’t stand watching the final at the LVO, as their armies looked bare minimum in term of painting requirements, I understand that most of us are not into the hobby side of things, but if the miniatures moving on the table look more like toys rather than gaming miniature=pro team wearing HS JV gear in the finals;

But how good should the painting be? I agree that armies at tournaments should not be oceans of grey (or whatever color the model's plastic is), but some people are just not good at painting. I personally am getting better but I have a long way to go before I can make my models look truly excellent. This is a game tournament, not an art show.

I’m just saying if we as a community wants to showcase our hobby as a T-sport our models cannot be at the standards was shown, I also posted that I get that most of us are not talented painters, there are ways around this, commission artists, getting a team together/sponsors like nascar, some member play the game in tourneys, some do the coaching/tactics, some do the painting, play testing potential lists, double/triple check rules to be legal, split the winnings base on % of work etc. Just getting the idea out there.

 Big Mac wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

Big Mac wrote:If GW/we are trying to make this a T-sport sort of thing, then there are some major upgrades necessary to make it happen.
1) being a former competitive player and mostly a painter now I can’t stand watching the final at the LVO, as their armies looked bare minimum in term of painting requirements, I understand that most of us are not into the hobby side of things, but if the miniatures moving on the table look more like toys rather than gaming miniature=pro team wearing HS JV gear in the finals;

But how good should the painting be? I agree that armies at tournaments should not be oceans of grey (or whatever color the model's plastic is), but some people are just not good at painting. I personally am getting better but I have a long way to go before I can make my models look truly excellent. This is a game tournament, not an art show.

I’m just saying if we as a community wants to showcase our hobby as a T-sport our models cannot be at the standards was shown, I also posted that I get that most of us are not talented painters, there are ways around this, commission artists, getting a team together/sponsors like nascar, some member play the game in tourneys, some do the coaching/tactics, some do the painting, play testing potential lists, double/triple check rules to be legal, split the winnings base on % of work etc. Just getting the idea out there.

Finding Sponsors and splitting the winnings sound a bit crazy. What is the winning for your AVG tornament, is it even feasible for the biggist ones. Sponsorship and commission painting is a whole other thing, Money has to come from somewhere.
With GW changing the rules at a whim, Any Spnsorship would be hesitant to be putting money down. To say nothing of the painter that may suddenly need to paint up to a high quality 10 new units in a month.

For any of this to happen, i think the whole hobby would have to grow a lot. That would include the viewership by a lot.

So this is just another tournament, another cheater. How can anyone be shocked by this, you get a group of people together and put money/prizes on the line and you'll get a good 50% cheating in some way.

Apple fox wrote:

 Big Mac wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

Big Mac wrote:If GW/we are trying to make this a T-sport sort of thing, then there are some major upgrades necessary to make it happen.
1) being a former competitive player and mostly a painter now I can’t stand watching the final at the LVO, as their armies looked bare minimum in term of painting requirements, I understand that most of us are not into the hobby side of things, but if the miniatures moving on the table look more like toys rather than gaming miniature=pro team wearing HS JV gear in the finals;

But how good should the painting be? I agree that armies at tournaments should not be oceans of grey (or whatever color the model's plastic is), but some people are just not good at painting. I personally am getting better but I have a long way to go before I can make my models look truly excellent. This is a game tournament, not an art show.

I’m just saying if we as a community wants to showcase our hobby as a T-sport our models cannot be at the standards was shown, I also posted that I get that most of us are not talented painters, there are ways around this, commission artists, getting a team together/sponsors like nascar, some member play the game in tourneys, some do the coaching/tactics, some do the painting, play testing potential lists, double/triple check rules to be legal, split the winnings base on % of work etc. Just getting the idea out there.

Finding Sponsors and splitting the winnings sound a bit crazy. What is the winning for your AVG tornament, is it even feasible for the biggist ones. Sponsorship and commission painting is a whole other thing, Money has to come from somewhere.
With GW changing the rules at a whim, Any Spnsorship would be hesitant to be putting money down. To say nothing of the painter that may suddenly need to paint up to a high quality 10 new units in a month.

For any of this to happen, i think the whole hobby would have to grow a lot. That would include the viewership by a lot.

I'm not sure the quality of the painting is such a big deal given that the stream made it almost impossible to see anything but the largest of models in most cases. I think the worst thing that could happen to 40k would be trying to turn it into an e-sport (or t-sport). Adding cash prizes to a game that's not fit for purpose as a tournament game is a recipe for disaster and I don't think there's enough money in the industry to sponsor people on the level that's being talked about here anyway.

The viewership for the LVO was pretty good but I'm not sure if there's much room for growth in that number and it wasn't anywhere near high enough to generate the sort of serious money that would be needed to make the event attractive to outside sponsors. In order to grow to that level there are some big technical issues to solve around how to best actually showcase 40k on a stream. I'm not even sure it's possible to do in such a way it would appeal to a more mainstream audience.

I think we are also forgetting a major component of cheating: Your opponent's understanding of your army's rules.

For instance, this thread alone indicates that if he were playing people one this thread, he would get away with it a lot of the time, because it's obscure. People didn't know it. Now, I bet if he was using Guard, and tried to give FRFSRF to his Knight, it would have been different.

A big part of what makes game prep so hard is not only knowing all the rules for your army, but also all the rules for your opponent. You don't just need YOUR army's codex, you are expected to know theirs as well, or spend half the time questioning every attack.

What makes this cheat so insidious is that he used it multiple times on multiple opponents, and very few knew about it. So is it my burden to have read and memorized the new GS codex in my next match, to prevent my opponent from mixing up Ambush and Underground types of reserves? Is it my job to police his rules?

That is where cheating happens.

Honestly what it shows is what most of us already know - that for major competitive events there need to be more Judges. Many competitive games at the pro end have one reff or judge or such per game. You can't easily cheat because someone impartial is overseeing every game.

If you also start to increase viewer numbers then that adds to it as well. It becomes a lot harder to cheat on rules if the game is being live-streamed to hundreds or thousands of viewers - many of which will know the game.

Couple that to a long term logging system that links up different events so that if player A is spotted doing the same or similar mistakes over and over or is seen to be making a lot in their favour this could work against them or might even void them entry into future events.
You don't even have to throw around the word "cheater" you can simply state that "due to the number and frequency of judge interventions we are revoking your right to participate in future 'insert name of event type' due to your inexperience."

If they tiered events you could block someone from a Level 3 or 4 event but let them compete in, say, a level 1 or 2 (ergo the entry level). Thus letting a person who is making repeat honest mistakes have the potential to earn back good scores and improve themselves and compete again.

I think one has to view it that cheating can be hard to spot; the rules are complicated and they are sometimes written in a very fuzzy language an that's before we get into rule interactions with each other and the fact that its very possible to remember the way a rule used to work and use it wrongly.


Increase the number of skilled judges; increase the viewership; introduce a method of logging and collating logs between events; established a tiered level of curtailing of entry with means to win back entry at a latter stage based on behaviour.

All that can come long before you have to start throwing the word cheater around.

 Overread wrote:
Honestly what it shows is what most of us already know - that for major competitive events there need to be more Judges. Many competitive games at the pro end have one reff or judge or such per game. You can't easily cheat because someone impartial is overseeing every game.

If you also start to increase viewer numbers then that adds to it as well. It becomes a lot harder to cheat on rules if the game is being live-streamed to hundreds or thousands of viewers - many of which will know the game.

Couple that to a long term logging system that links up different events so that if player A is spotted doing the same or similar mistakes over and over or is seen to be making a lot in their favour this could work against them or might even void them entry into future events.
You don't even have to throw around the word "cheater" you can simply state that "due to the number and frequency of judge interventions we are revoking your right to participate in future 'insert name of event type' due to your inexperience."

If they tiered events you could block someone from a Level 3 or 4 event but let them compete in, say, a level 1 or 2 (ergo the entry level). Thus letting a person who is making repeat honest mistakes have the potential to earn back good scores and improve themselves and compete again.

I think one has to view it that cheating can be hard to spot; the rules are complicated and they are sometimes written in a very fuzzy language an that's before we get into rule interactions with each other and the fact that its very possible to remember the way a rule used to work and use it wrongly.


Increase the number of skilled judges; increase the viewership; introduce a method of logging and collating logs between events; established a tiered level of curtailing of entry with means to win back entry at a latter stage based on behaviour.

All that can come long before you have to start throwing the word cheater around.

Your talking about a 700 player tournament. Your never going to get enough judges for that level of coverage. heck I would bet getting the bare minimum is a struggle for most tournaments.

 Ordana wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly what it shows is what most of us already know - that for major competitive events there need to be more Judges. Many competitive games at the pro end have one reff or judge or such per game. You can't easily cheat because someone impartial is overseeing every game.

If you also start to increase viewer numbers then that adds to it as well. It becomes a lot harder to cheat on rules if the game is being live-streamed to hundreds or thousands of viewers - many of which will know the game.

Couple that to a long term logging system that links up different events so that if player A is spotted doing the same or similar mistakes over and over or is seen to be making a lot in their favour this could work against them or might even void them entry into future events.
You don't even have to throw around the word "cheater" you can simply state that "due to the number and frequency of judge interventions we are revoking your right to participate in future 'insert name of event type' due to your inexperience."

If they tiered events you could block someone from a Level 3 or 4 event but let them compete in, say, a level 1 or 2 (ergo the entry level). Thus letting a person who is making repeat honest mistakes have the potential to earn back good scores and improve themselves and compete again.

I think one has to view it that cheating can be hard to spot; the rules are complicated and they are sometimes written in a very fuzzy language an that's before we get into rule interactions with each other and the fact that its very possible to remember the way a rule used to work and use it wrongly.


Increase the number of skilled judges; increase the viewership; introduce a method of logging and collating logs between events; established a tiered level of curtailing of entry with means to win back entry at a latter stage based on behaviour.

All that can come long before you have to start throwing the word cheater around.

Your talking about a 700 player tournament. Your never going to get enough judges for that level of coverage. heck I would bet getting the bare minimum is a struggle for most tournaments.

dont have a tournament then. if you cannot find enough judges, maybe there should be less players allowed? Other "sports"( have a hard time calling 40k that) have a defined judge/referee to player ratio. if GW(you know, who make the game) would actually put together a tournament standard/packet and not leave it up to a 3rd party whom has changed the rules to suit themselves (so much is different that it's not really GW's 40k). kinda hard to balance something when everyone isn't playing same ruleset.

if there is such a problem with "cheating" then why would anyone want to play in a tourney? Until people can figure out what exactly constitutes "cheating" in 40k and set specific guidelines/punishment for it, there will continue to be cheaters. maybe they should look to create a judge's association where the definition of "cheating" and consequences are laid out in B&W. unfortunately they currently seem unable to have procedures and record keeping established to let everybody know whom is not playing the game with the best intentions.

it seems to me that ITC doesnt have a way to actually record, track & punish repeat offenders(at least seriously). All it should take is a couple of very public examples of cheating(o wait....that's what's happening) to make the "body politic" take it seriously.

now, my POV is tournaments for a game that is inherently subjective(not set up for competitive) shouldn't happen. but people want to see who's best at toy soldiers, so we have this happening almost every tournament.

Misremembering a rule or interactions once, isnt weird or even bad, but consistently(for own benefit), that's another story entirely. most of the time it's for my opponents benefit. I dont know how many times ive forgotten psychic phase, to shoot with something, etc..

until the players get fed up with as sholes who cheat & consequences actually have teeth, this will continue happening ad nausea.

as someone who never has wanted to tournament nor ever will, this situation is of the players/itc own making. a couple lifetime bans might change the "culture" of cheating.

Implement a qualification system?

That said, still aexpensive.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly what it shows is what most of us already know - that for major competitive events there need to be more Judges. Many competitive games at the pro end have one reff or judge or such per game. You can't easily cheat because someone impartial is overseeing every game.

If you also start to increase viewer numbers then that adds to it as well. It becomes a lot harder to cheat on rules if the game is being live-streamed to hundreds or thousands of viewers - many of which will know the game.

Couple that to a long term logging system that links up different events so that if player A is spotted doing the same or similar mistakes over and over or is seen to be making a lot in their favour this could work against them or might even void them entry into future events.
You don't even have to throw around the word "cheater" you can simply state that "due to the number and frequency of judge interventions we are revoking your right to participate in future 'insert name of event type' due to your inexperience."

If they tiered events you could block someone from a Level 3 or 4 event but let them compete in, say, a level 1 or 2 (ergo the entry level). Thus letting a person who is making repeat honest mistakes have the potential to earn back good scores and improve themselves and compete again.

I think one has to view it that cheating can be hard to spot; the rules are complicated and they are sometimes written in a very fuzzy language an that's before we get into rule interactions with each other and the fact that its very possible to remember the way a rule used to work and use it wrongly.


Increase the number of skilled judges; increase the viewership; introduce a method of logging and collating logs between events; established a tiered level of curtailing of entry with means to win back entry at a latter stage based on behaviour.

All that can come long before you have to start throwing the word cheater around.

Your talking about a 700 player tournament. Your never going to get enough judges for that level of coverage. heck I would bet getting the bare minimum is a struggle for most tournaments.

dont have a tournament then. if you cannot find enough judges, maybe there should be less players allowed? Other "sports"( have a hard time calling 40k that) have a defined judge/referee to player ratio. if GW(you know, who make the game) would actually put together a tournament standard/packet and not leave it up to a 3rd party whom has changed the rules to suit themselves (so much is different that it's not really GW's 40k). kinda hard to balance something when everyone isn't playing same ruleset.

if there is such a problem with "cheating" then why would anyone want to play in a tourney? Until people can figure out what exactly constitutes "cheating" in 40k and set specific guidelines/punishment for it, there will continue to be cheaters. maybe they should look to create a judge's association where the definition of "cheating" and consequences are laid out in B&W. unfortunately they currently seem unable to have procedures and record keeping established to let everybody know whom is not playing the game with the best intentions.

it seems to me that ITC doesnt have a way to actually record, track & punish repeat offenders(at least seriously). All it should take is a couple of very public examples of cheating(o wait....that's what's happening) to make the "body politic" take it seriously.

now, my POV is tournaments for a game that is inherently subjective(not set up for competitive) shouldn't happen. but people want to see who's best at toy soldiers, so we have this happening almost every tournament.

Misremembering a rule or interactions once, isnt weird or even bad, but consistently(for own benefit), that's another story entirely. most of the time it's for my opponents benefit. I dont know how many times ive forgotten psychic phase, to shoot with something, etc..

until the players get fed up with as sholes who cheat & consequences actually have teeth, this will continue happening ad nausea.

as someone who never has wanted to tournament nor ever will, this situation is of the players/itc own making. a couple lifetime bans might change the "culture" of cheating.

Go ask the ~700 people who went to the LVO 40k tournament if they would rather play, with the chance of a few people cheating but overall a wonderful weekend or if they would rather stay home next year because someone on the internet whined about people being able to cheat at a tournament I can bet you what 99.99% of them are going to say. And that includes the people who got cheated on.

What strikes me as odd is the summation of all the facts.

1. We dont like cheaters
2. Cheating is easily and cheaply fixed
3. The Rules are too convoluted to ensure easy and rapid judgement


In Summary - Cheating will never stop so don't even try to address it. WUT?

To be honest, the overwhelming majority of people who play this game NEVER go to any tournaments. They play with unpainted proxy models, and take pains to have a fair and welcoming environment.

If you believe the tourney players outnumber the casuals, I've got a bridge in Spain I'd like to sell you.