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.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm claiming exactly that. GW runs events at a single location in the UK, events the vast majority of players have no realistic access to. As a percentage of the total competitive 40k scene they are effectively nonexistent.

Gotta agree with Peregrine here. A trip to the UK isn't trivial for anyone I know, and certainly not for something like a 40k tournament. At best it'd be a once in a life time thing.

I think this thread made Dakka jump the shark.

Nm

 Melissia wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm claiming exactly that. GW runs events at a single location in the UK, events the vast majority of players have no realistic access to. As a percentage of the total competitive 40k scene they are effectively nonexistent.

Gotta agree with Peregrine here. A trip to the UK isn't trivial for anyone I know, and certainly not for something like a 40k tournament. At best it'd be a once in a life time thing.

Whether you make it to the UK for a tournament is different from the original point - that the GT isn't worth the trip because it isn't ITC, which is a very subjective personal choice.

But I don't think it's fair to suggest the vast majority of players in the world are ITC playing Americans either.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
You're going to try to claim that the GW Grant Tournaments don't matter, just because they're not ITC?

I'm claiming exactly that. GW runs events at a single location in the UK, events the vast majority of players have no realistic access to. As a percentage of the total competitive 40k scene they are effectively nonexistent.

GW are rather limited by the size of warhammer world so they run heats and a final. The heats had over 100 players. So the GT as a whole has well over 400 competitors even in their rather limited facilities. The sheer scale of LVO means that this is no longer the largest singles 40K tournament in the world but it is still one of the largest.

Dismissing that as effectively nonexistent is just SOOO dakka dahling. Mwah. Kisses.

Or, y'know, maybe the LVO is a bit expensive for the rest of the world to get to and the ITC is not that big of a deal outside of North America.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Plenty of people from the UK travelled to the LVO - absolutely nothing stopping any of you Yanks coming over to the Grand Tournament (or possibly the Heats - I'll admit to not having looked at how they're running it this time).

Airline ticket to Las Vegas: ~$150

Airline ticket to the UK: minimum $700, average $1000-1500.

Yeah, nothing at all stopping us...

And I would say that it is strange that you'd like to discount a tournament run by the people who create the game, just because it doesn't fit your narrative, but then I remembered who I'm talking to...

I discount it because it's an absurdly tiny percentage of competitive 40k, existing only in a single location that most players have no realistic access to. If GW started doing worldwide tournaments again then I'd consider their event rules relevant, but for some reason they remain stubbornly opposed to that idea.

Ummm... I don't know where you are but a quick check of the internet found me a bunch of tickets to London for under $400, which in general is about the same as I found the same weekend for Vegas about $50 different (these are out of JFK in NY, for reference). SO for me the price would be about the same.

I realize it's probably not nice to bring up a page 1 comment on page 13 of a thread, but this time it fits with what I am trying to say, so...

There is a story by bullyboy on page 1 where he details how he played some rules wrong in a tournament.
And the rule apparently was 'that you can not use stratagems to target auxillery detatchments'.
According to him it is clearly written in the codex.

Except to me, it isn't written there at all.

This is on page 1, which I assume means a lot of people have read this and agree with the the story, because I could not find any reply that indicates otherwise.
So if all of you read this codex text and agree it obviously means what bullyboy describes there, yet I read it and would never come to that conclusion myself...

Then isn't it the case that I am bound to cheat in a tournament setting one way or another?

If I can not rely on my own understanding of the rules, the only option is to follow some mutual agreed upon interpretation. But any player who lacks that (say they play mostly in a small group) will inevitably 'cheat' with some rule or another.

I would say the unclear rules are to blame here, but this is why I bring up this example from page 1: To me this rules is absolutely clear as it is, it is not one of the many I consider ambigious. But apparently I am wrong.

So I'd conclude that no matter how 'clear' the rules are, players will probably have to undergo some introduction into the 'tournament interpretation' anyways.
And also that if I where to play in an LVO level event this week, many of my rule understandings would probably turn out to be wrong.

Peregrine wrote:Nobody gives a about dice. The dice are a means to an end, generating a random result, not the point of the game. As long as the digital dice are easy to use there's absolutely no reason not to use them.

I dunno, I really enjoy throwing around fistfuls of dice, the tactile aspects of Warhammer is one of the main appeals imho.

As regards dodgy dice rolling, picking up misses etc., I don't know how viable a solution this would be for tourneys, but for the sake of contributing to the discussion -- my group throw our dice into a rolling tray in a clearly visible area of the board/side-table, dice rolls that land out of sight or off the table are re-rolled. We pick up misses from the dice pool so the opponent can see all the dice remaining in the pool are hits and there's no accidentally adding misses to the next stage of dice rolling. Much in the same way there's guidelines about other aspects of playing in a tourney, maybe something along these lines could be added in.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Plenty of people from the UK travelled to the LVO - absolutely nothing stopping any of you Yanks coming over to the Grand Tournament (or possibly the Heats - I'll admit to not having looked at how they're running it this time).

Airline ticket to Las Vegas: ~$150

Airline ticket to the UK: minimum $700, average $1000-1500.

Yeah, nothing at all stopping us...

And I would say that it is strange that you'd like to discount a tournament run by the people who create the game, just because it doesn't fit your narrative, but then I remembered who I'm talking to...

I discount it because it's an absurdly tiny percentage of competitive 40k, existing only in a single location that most players have no realistic access to. If GW started doing worldwide tournaments again then I'd consider their event rules relevant, but for some reason they remain stubbornly opposed to that idea.

I don't really understand this argument. The GW store in England is just as access able to all of Europe as Las Vegas is to the NA. And you are really deluded if you think there are not a lot of competitive players in Europe. The population of Europe is more than double the population of the US. If we assume that the percentages that play 40k are roughly the same and if the percentages of those that play competitively are roughly the same then Europe is going to have a way larger number of competitive players. Also there were plenty of competitive players that came from Europe to LVO and if remember correctly there were a bunch of competitive players that made the trip the other way to go play in the GW event. If you want to discount them because they are not ITC events and you don't like them that is fine. But to imply that they are not valid events is just silly. I am willing to be a vast sum of money that GW looks at there own events when balancing the game more than they look at ITC events. Which is kind of frustrating this game would be some much easier to balance competitively if there was a single tournament rule set.

Anyways back to the topic of the thread at hand about getting lots of Judges. GW probably doesn't want to start running a world wide tourney scene for a few reasons. Once you have to have lots of trained judges and when you start asking people to receive special training and devote time for something eventually people are going to want to get compensated for their time. See the MTG lawsuit for a recent example of this. FLG could easily get hammered with the same thing as well if they are not careful. I know if I am going to spend hundreds of dollars on hotel rooms and flights I am going to be playing in the tournament not judging. I run events and TO with a couple other people for our local area and its just something you have to do if you want a healthy gaming group. One person can't always be responsible for running all the events. If I lived close enough to not require a hotel or airfare I would gladly volunteer to TO at an event such as this though because TOs are needed for a healthy game.

HMint wrote:

There is a story by bullyboy on page 1 where he details how he played some rules wrong in a tournament.
And the rule apparently was 'that you can not use stratagems to target auxillery detatchments'.
According to him it is clearly written in the codex.

Except to me, it isn't written there at all.

As far as I can see, bullyboy and his opponent are simply wrong and a victim of bad rules-reading. Nothing in the rule he's talking about says that the auxiliary detachment can't be the target of a stratagem, only that you can't access the stratagems for that army if you only have an auxilliary detachment. He should have read the rule more carefully and challenged his opponent instead of deferring to someone he believed to be 'more experienced'.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Unless you're talking about extreme outlier cases like defending encryption systems against state-level attackers software RNG is more than adequate, especially when compared to low-quality gaming dice that are known to deviate significantly from a theoretical "fair" die. And no, it isn't possible to rig a software RNG without creating your own app that is visually identical to the official app and hoping to never get caught (since obviously using a fake dice app would be grounds for an immediate lifetime ban from ever 40k event).

Software RNG is absolutely NOT "more than adequate" for serious gambling or lottery systems... in fact there is an entire industry behind trying to make computer generated numbers more random and fair.

https://www.random.org/

Here is a website that uses atmospheric white noise to generate a better random result then traditional RNG software. There is even a handy explanation of why computer generated strings of random numbers usually aren't good enough for most "fair" lottery or gambling systems on the main page. The issue is that even atmospheric white noise can have a pattern to it, and so even numbers generated using that system are still technically not truly random.

Also, your insistence that you would need to create an entirely separate dice app is incorrect. All you would need to do is decompile whatever app that the tournament uses with a disassembler, and only modify the code that generates the random number. It could be as easy as a simple mathematical weight that makes higher rolls more likely than lower rolls. Software integrity systems like checksums can be easily spoofed, and are not a solution against this.

As I said before, there is a reason that most "fair" lottery and gambling systems have retained using real-world dice and balls in the digital age. Computer systems are too easy to rig, too easily obfuscate what is really going on to generate the outputs, and even when they are totally "fair" they really aren't generating truly random outputs.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
1. I forgot FLG doesnt sell GW products

What does that have to do with anything? They sell GW products, but dice sales to competitive players can't be any meaningful percentage of their revenue. Dice are just too cheap and easily obtained at any random local store.

2. So now every game is also being streamed.... forget about the 700$ entry cost we are now getting into $10000 territory

Not every game, but cheating at the bottom tables is not as significant. Having the top few games on stream wouldn't be a substantial extra cost, especially since people are already streaming top games to promote their events/podcasts/etc.

3. nobody is talking about special treatment.... it was an example of how convoluted it would be to go back through every cheat/mistake that has happened to every player in the history of 40k. Everything seems to think you can snap your fingers and instantly have a rap sheet for every player ever. Guess what isnt impossible to do...... just keep track with the new system going forward

You absolutely are talking about special treatment. You're commenting on the cheater's contributions to the community as if that has anything to do with whether or not he should be punished, with the implication that someone who had used an illegal list and not done anything to help the community would be more deserving of punishment.

1. they simply aren't going to ban something they sell..... not even to mention that for small rolls dice are faster and time is always an issue
2. isnt this entire thread that this guy in the top 8 (who got caught miss playing a rule in the top 8 finals) might have used this rule incorrectly throughout the event. Now your saying all those climbing consolation games actually don't matter. Also, say you even have 8 streaming tables.... That's 8 more full rigs with 3 cameras each and 8 teams to run them..... yeah im not (and im sure most people) paying that entrance fee
3. good so now we have your stance that a guy that miss pointed something in a tournament is a cheater in life in your eyes and should be punished today.... thanks for making my point about how ridiculous looking back through 20 years of 40k is

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Unless you're talking about extreme outlier cases like defending encryption systems against state-level attackers software RNG is more than adequate, especially when compared to low-quality gaming dice that are known to deviate significantly from a theoretical "fair" die. And no, it isn't possible to rig a software RNG without creating your own app that is visually identical to the official app and hoping to never get caught (since obviously using a fake dice app would be grounds for an immediate lifetime ban from ever 40k event).

Software RNG is absolutely NOT "more than adequate" for serious gambling or lottery systems... in fact there is an entire industry behind trying to make computer generated numbers more random and fair.

https://www.random.org/

Here is a website that uses atmospheric white noise to generate a better random result then traditional RNG software. There is even a handy explanation of why computer generated strings of random numbers usually aren't good enough for most "fair" lottery or gambling systems on the main page. The issue is that even atmospheric white noise can have a pattern to it, and so even numbers generated using that system are still technically not truly random.

Also, your insistence that you would need to create an entirely separate dice app is incorrect. All you would need to do is decompile whatever app that the tournament uses with a disassembler, and only modify the code that generates the random number. It could be as easy as a simple mathematical weight that makes higher rolls more likely than lower rolls. Software integrity systems like checksums can be easily spoofed, and are not a solution against this.

As I said before, there is a reason that most "fair" lottery and gambling systems have retained using real-world dice and balls in the digital age. Computer systems are too easy to rig, too easily obfuscate what is really going on to generate the outputs, and even when they are totally "fair" they really aren't generating truly random outputs.

You are again failing to understand the difference between "mathematically perfect randomness sufficient for billion dollar lotteries, CIA top secret file encryption, etc" and "at least as good as the cheap gaming dice we regularly use" . A theoretical ability to predict atmospheric noise is irrelevant in a game where we're fine with D6s that roll 25% 1s

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
My local GW store owner refuses to allow modded units not made with his parts. Or with green goop. He says it's advertising competitors merchandise. I had one guy who made molds for base guardsmen, and had a bunch of painted green goop molded guard. They looked good, but not as sharp as a store bought. He wasn't allowed to play his army.

Storm cast look dumb to me.

I never wanted them.

Then someone showed me Stormcast with Spartan helmets.

I bought Stormcast.

The fact that selling an entire product to me and then saying I'm not allowed to play it at their stores and events because I glued something else to the complete product I just paid for is why Games Workshop should be told to kick rocks and piss off in the US. Stay away from my tables, please.

Back in the day in texas we always had a 90% rule on models (so 90% had to be official gw) i do wish they would return to that. But im not going to throw too much of a fit about it when literally all you have to do is not bring up your 3rd party bases and you get to play in one of the coolest stores in the country

Dudeface wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm claiming exactly that. GW runs events at a single location in the UK, events the vast majority of players have no realistic access to. As a percentage of the total competitive 40k scene they are effectively nonexistent.

Gotta agree with Peregrine here. A trip to the UK isn't trivial for anyone I know, and certainly not for something like a 40k tournament. At best it'd be a once in a life time thing.

Whether you make it to the UK for a tournament is different from the original point - that the GT isn't worth the trip because it isn't ITC, which is a very subjective personal choice.

But I don't think it's fair to suggest the vast majority of players in the world are ITC playing Americans either.

Lolwut? No, that wasn't my point at all. My point was that "GW wouldn't do it" (it, in this case, being a mandatory dice app when they sell dice) is a silly argument when GW hardly runs tournaments, and only in one UK location. It might matter if GW still had worldwide events, but as it is who cares what WHW policy is on dice.

Asmodios wrote:

The basketball analogy doesn't even really work (i didnt play basketball but played pro hockey) For example USA hockey has no real relation to to the KHL. If you lead the league in penalty minutes in the KHL then sign an NHL contract you don't all of a sudden get suspended in the NHL. Heck, I remember we had a bench-clearing brawl at a tournament in Canada when we were only like squirts. We had about 10 guys get a 3 game suspension. That only applied to USA hockey events and you could only serve the suspensions at USA hockey events. This meant we went to the state tournament 10 players down because the tournament we played in between the two wasn't USA hockey certified.

In the same way you want retroactive punishments for players that
1. didn't even happen at the same event
2. the other event isnt run by the same organization
3. there is no standard in this thread of how far back you would go/ the burden of proof needed/ how many times this happened/ what type of "cheating

The fact is its simply easier and fairer to start fresh with this new system. This system is meant to protect players into the future not go back threw 20 years of 40k and punish people for things that might or might not have even been "cheating"

I think you're conflating my argument with someone else's. I'm not talking about people claiming someone has cheated in a random tournament. I'm talking about a player who has been caught cheating in previous ITC events including last year's LVO. He's basically the reason ITC created the yellow card/red card system due to the internet backlash against his regular cheating. He was again caught cheating in LVO this year. This is the player I'm saying should have been banned from the tournament this year, not some random guy who someone said cheated once. He shouldn't have been given a clean slate because he was the reason a cheating deterrent was put in place. To put it in hockey terms, he failed a random drug test, then another, so the NHL puts a new policy in place saying players who fail multiple drug test can't participate in the playoffs the next year, then the NHL decides to let him participate in the playoffs the next year where he fails a random drug test.

Twilight Pathways wrote:

HMint wrote:

There is a story by bullyboy on page 1 where he details how he played some rules wrong in a tournament.
And the rule apparently was 'that you can not use stratagems to target auxillery detatchments'.
According to him it is clearly written in the codex.

Except to me, it isn't written there at all.

As far as I can see, bullyboy and his opponent are simply wrong and a victim of bad rules-reading. Nothing in the rule he's talking about says that the auxiliary detachment can't be the target of a stratagem, only that you can't access the stratagems for that army if you only have an auxilliary detachment. He should have read the rule more carefully and challenged his opponent instead of deferring to someone he believed to be 'more experienced'.

No, my opponent was entirely correct. The rule is at the beginning of the strategems which forbids access to harlequin strategems with just the addition of a harlequin auxiliary detachment to a battleforged army. What I needed to have done was add a vanguard or outrider etc to get access to those strategems. It's just one of those things that I've never encountered before since this was the first time I took an auxiliary detachment. Looking at the main rulebook, it mentions that you lose 1CP but doesn't talk about the possible loss of access to strategems (makes sense, rulebook came before codexes). As for strategems, I may have read the first part how to use them in the first codex I bought, but probably never gave it a second thought since. It was just a rule I had never noticed before, and in my practice games leading to event, not a single opponent mentioned that I couldn't use them. I wasn't the only one oblivious to this rule.

 bullyboy wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:

HMint wrote:

There is a story by bullyboy on page 1 where he details how he played some rules wrong in a tournament.
And the rule apparently was 'that you can not use stratagems to target auxillery detatchments'.
According to him it is clearly written in the codex.

Except to me, it isn't written there at all.

As far as I can see, bullyboy and his opponent are simply wrong and a victim of bad rules-reading. Nothing in the rule he's talking about says that the auxiliary detachment can't be the target of a stratagem, only that you can't access the stratagems for that army if you only have an auxilliary detachment. He should have read the rule more carefully and challenged his opponent instead of deferring to someone he believed to be 'more experienced'.

No, my opponent was entirely correct. The rule is at the beginning of the strategems which forbids access to harlequin strategems with just the addition of a harlequin auxiliary detachment to a battleforged army. What I needed to have done was add a vanguard or outrider etc to get access to those strategems. It's just one of those things that I've never encountered before since this was the first time I took an auxiliary detachment. Looking at the main rulebook, it mentions that you lose 1CP but doesn't talk about the possible loss of access to strategems (makes sense, rulebook came before codexes). As for strategems, I may have read the first part how to use them in the first codex I bought, but probably never gave it a second thought since. It was just a rule I had never noticed before, and in my practice games leading to event, not a single opponent mentioned that I couldn't use them. I wasn't the only one oblivious to this rule.

A lot of rules mistakes are people skimming or downright not reading parts of their codex.

This is one such case. It is clearly stated in the book (as you saw) but apparently no one bothers to read that bit of the page...

 EnTyme wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

The basketball analogy doesn't even really work (i didnt play basketball but played pro hockey) For example USA hockey has no real relation to to the KHL. If you lead the league in penalty minutes in the KHL then sign an NHL contract you don't all of a sudden get suspended in the NHL. Heck, I remember we had a bench-clearing brawl at a tournament in Canada when we were only like squirts. We had about 10 guys get a 3 game suspension. That only applied to USA hockey events and you could only serve the suspensions at USA hockey events. This meant we went to the state tournament 10 players down because the tournament we played in between the two wasn't USA hockey certified.

In the same way you want retroactive punishments for players that
1. didn't even happen at the same event
2. the other event isnt run by the same organization
3. there is no standard in this thread of how far back you would go/ the burden of proof needed/ how many times this happened/ what type of "cheating

The fact is its simply easier and fairer to start fresh with this new system. This system is meant to protect players into the future not go back threw 20 years of 40k and punish people for things that might or might not have even been "cheating"

I think you're conflating my argument with someone else's. I'm not talking about people claiming someone has cheated in a random tournament. I'm talking about a player who has been caught cheating in previous ITC events including last year's LVO. He's basically the reason ITC created the yellow card/red card system due to the internet backlash against his regular cheating. He was again caught cheating in LVO this year. This is the player I'm saying should have been banned from the tournament this year, not some random guy who someone said cheated once. He shouldn't have been given a clean slate because he was the reason a cheating deterrent was put in place. To put it in hockey terms, he failed a random drug test, then another, so the NHL puts a new policy in place saying players who fail multiple drug test can't participate in the playoffs the next year, then the NHL decides to let him participate in the playoffs the next year where he fails a random drug test.

1st off im like 90% sure that the new rules are in place due to what happened at the LGT not last years LVO. Last years LVO controversy was a legal play that wasn't in the spirit of the game and then a smaller controversy on a judges ruling of a terrain piece. I could be wrong but don't think so

secondly your kinda missing my point. The second you open the pandoras box of "we are going to hold players accountable in our new system for past violations" you have undoubtedly started a discussion about who this applies to and who it doesn't. the guy on table 400 of last years event who felt cheated with player y is going to want that guy banned. Just look at the ridiculous posts in this threads about know cheaters in local RTTs. In a perfect world we could pull up a history of what every player has done in the past and rule if they should or shouldnt be allowed to play buy unfortuantly we doing have that kind of perfect knowlege. FLG made the right call by simply starting fresh and anyone whos not playing by the rules will now have a system in place to punish them

 Ordana wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:

HMint wrote:

There is a story by bullyboy on page 1 where he details how he played some rules wrong in a tournament.
And the rule apparently was 'that you can not use stratagems to target auxillery detatchments'.
According to him it is clearly written in the codex.

Except to me, it isn't written there at all.

As far as I can see, bullyboy and his opponent are simply wrong and a victim of bad rules-reading. Nothing in the rule he's talking about says that the auxiliary detachment can't be the target of a stratagem, only that you can't access the stratagems for that army if you only have an auxilliary detachment. He should have read the rule more carefully and challenged his opponent instead of deferring to someone he believed to be 'more experienced'.

No, my opponent was entirely correct. The rule is at the beginning of the strategems which forbids access to harlequin strategems with just the addition of a harlequin auxiliary detachment to a battleforged army. What I needed to have done was add a vanguard or outrider etc to get access to those strategems. It's just one of those things that I've never encountered before since this was the first time I took an auxiliary detachment. Looking at the main rulebook, it mentions that you lose 1CP but doesn't talk about the possible loss of access to strategems (makes sense, rulebook came before codexes). As for strategems, I may have read the first part how to use them in the first codex I bought, but probably never gave it a second thought since. It was just a rule I had never noticed before, and in my practice games leading to event, not a single opponent mentioned that I couldn't use them. I wasn't the only one oblivious to this rule.

A lot of rules mistakes are people skimming or downright not reading parts of their codex.

This is one such case. It is clearly stated in the book (as you saw) but apparently no one bothers to read that bit of the page...

i think you're oversimplifying it (go figure). I probably read it when I bought my first codex (think it was chaos?) because the whole strategem thing was new, but I never used an auxiliary detachment so it was never relevant. Fast forward a year and half later, I'm adding an auxiliary unit for the first time. How many people are going to go back and read the entire introduction to strategems when you have been using harlequin strategems in your army since the codex came out? Not many I would bet. People will look at what strategems their new codex has, but probably never read the blurb on how to use them as it is generally repeated through each codex (except knights apparently)..

Imperial Knights are definitely a bit weird, bullyboy.

I've grabbed 3 Codex supplements (AdMech, Custodes and IK), along with the core rulebook to look at this.

Custodes - Traits are available regardless of detachment type. Stratagems are available unless the Custodes detachment is an Auxilary Support Detachment.

AdMech - Traits are available regardless of detachment type. Stratagems are available unless the AdMech detachment is an Auxilary Support Detachment. Also, AdMech Knights get the Imperial Knights faction keyword via errata. AdMech Knights as SHADs is an odd corner case, and I'm not quite sure what happens there now. Main thing to query is whether it could use Knight of the Cog (assuming another friendly AdMech character in play), or whether it just uses the IK stratagems instead.

Imperial Knights - Pg 106 states that you don't get access to their Abilities (which appears to be restricted to Knight Lances and Household Traditions) if you're using a single Knight in a SHAD. The Stratagems page doesn't have the usual wording about ASDs (which makes sense, as you can't use a Knight in an ASD, and everything in the book is a LoW or a Fortification).

Definitely an odd spot to be out of sync, so I can understand why someone new to playing IK could miss the distinction. Having said that, it is also the sort of thing I'd expect someone attending a tournament to be aware of.

Asmodios wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So here are neutral changes that I think would eliminate a lot of issues, and actually speed up play:

1. Digital dice rolls - This prevents picking up misses (Mercer)
2. Tracking those digital rolls
3. Digital trackers for wounds, CP, etc. This applies only to tracked numbers obviously. This prevents people (Mercer as an example) picking up his opponent's wound tracker and dropping it from a 5 to a 3.
4. No more tape measures. Only pre measured rods, which are verified to be the exact length. So basically range fans, or foot sticks. Take the measuring out of the hands of the player.

Basically, take the chances to cheat away from the players, and speed up the BS. No more dice shenanigans, no more "I thought he was at 4 wounds?", no more "range mistakes". Leave the ugly stuff up to the system, and leave the fun stuff to the players.

And before any neckbeards chime in to defend dice rolling, stop. This isn't FLG rules, this is Tournament rules. The game is Warhammer, with Models. Not Mathhammer with Dice.

1. Digital roles are already allowed but the game will never be reduced to mandated digital rolls ffs GW sells dice as one of their products and is marketed as a dice game
2. so we are now going to get an ipad mandated at every game table and have someone that develops this tracker and then what a judge at every table to make sure they are entered in correctly
3. once again whos going to front the cost to this/ you could also just change a counter on a digital trackpad when someone isnt looking just like moving a dice
4. "can you hand me the 24-inch stick for unit b wait I rolled a 5 for an advance.... crap we don't have a 29-inch stick. If only someone came up with some type of extendable stick with all the different combinations on it"

These have to be some of the worst ideas I've ever seen presented. Id love to see you run an event with all these pre-measured sticks and id love to read the reviews

Also this would make the game extremely unfun to play.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Play at a tournament. You'll make mistakes.

True thing. However anyone who has been around the block will start to see warning flags with certain types of behaviour. Patterns of mistakes shall we say.

If you make a bad mistake in your own favour and get caught out on it then that is a suitable situation for a yellow card - especially in a system like LVO where it was 2 yellows before it goes to red. It puts you on a warning that you need to be careful not to make any more serious mistakes that disadvantage your opponent.

The framework is the right framework IMO - the application of the framework falls into the same old pattern of thinking that you need to issue verbal warnings etc etc. The yellow card is a warning system, use it.

I agree. No problem issuing yellow cards, especially when it's at a higher table.

 Peregrine wrote:
You are again failing to understand the difference between "mathematically perfect randomness sufficient for billion dollar lotteries, CIA top secret file encryption, etc" and "at least as good as the cheap gaming dice we regularly use" . A theoretical ability to predict atmospheric noise is irrelevant in a game where we're fine with D6s that roll 25% 1s

While I am sure that "cheap gaming dice" that roll 25% on a single number are sufficient for casual games at a local GW store... I cannot believe that is allowed at actual tournaments. Real, weighted dice sometimes have smaller distributions then that, and those weighted dice would be absolutely considered cheating. So either you're exaggerating, or your dice manufacturer really fething sucks and you're basically saying that you can legally run loaded dice at tournaments.

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You are again failing to understand the difference between "mathematically perfect randomness sufficient for billion dollar lotteries, CIA top secret file encryption, etc" and "at least as good as the cheap gaming dice we regularly use" . A theoretical ability to predict atmospheric noise is irrelevant in a game where we're fine with D6s that roll 25% 1s

While I am sure that "cheap gaming dice" that roll 25% on a single number are sufficient for casual games at a local GW store... I cannot believe that is allowed at actual tournaments. Real, weighted dice sometimes have smaller distributions then that, and those weighted dice would be absolutely considered cheating. So either you're exaggerating, or your dice manufacturer really fething sucks and you're basically saying that you can legally run loaded dice at tournaments.

If you grab almost any set of dice you'll find that they roll 20%+ to a single number. The only good distributions come from casino dice, which are expensive.

Thankfully you can test your dice weights/randomness easily with water, kosher salt, and a glass. It also reveals cheaters dice.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Thankfully you can test your dice weights/randomness easily with water, kosher salt, and a glass. It also reveals cheaters dice.

How does that work?

Troy wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Thankfully you can test your dice weights/randomness easily with water, kosher salt, and a glass. It also reveals cheaters dice.

How does that work?

I don't think it identifies poorly weighted dice all that well. Just cheater's dice.

Boil the water first. This gets rid of any dissolved air, and also helps with the next step.

Divide the boiled water into two parts. Mix one of the parts with as much salt as it will dissolve. It helps to do this while the water is still hot, since salt dissolves faster and easier in hot water. You'll still have to do quite a bit of stirring to get a really saturated brine.

Let both batches of boiled water cool down. (You can speed this up with a cold water bath.) If the water looks dirty, run it through a coffee filter to get rid of any gunk.

(Come to think of it, if you had a coffee maker, you might be able to do all this just by filling the filter with salt and running a cup or two of water through it. Alas, I don't have one around to test it.)

Put the dice you want to test in a small cup, pour enough of the salty water in so they float nicely, and then gradually add non-salty boiled water until they float just barely.

Check that there are no visible air bubbles stuck on the dice (especially inside the pips / numbers) that could upset the balance. If there are, try to get rid of them. (Dripping single drops of salt water from above on top of the floating dice seems to be a fairly effective way to shake the bubbles off.)

Poke the dice a couple of times, and see if they consistently return to the same orientation. If so, they're unbalanced.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rolling all your dice 52 times and recording the numbers should reveal any biases...and it's much easier.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Troy wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Thankfully you can test your dice weights/randomness easily with water, kosher salt, and a glass. It also reveals cheaters dice.

How does that work?

I don't think it identifies poorly weighted dice all that well. Just cheater's dice.

Boil the water first. This gets rid of any dissolved air, and also helps with the next step.

Divide the boiled water into two parts. Mix one of the parts with as much salt as it will dissolve. It helps to do this while the water is still hot, since salt dissolves faster and easier in hot water. You'll still have to do quite a bit of stirring to get a really saturated brine.

Let both batches of boiled water cool down. (You can speed this up with a cold water bath.) If the water looks dirty, run it through a coffee filter to get rid of any gunk.

(Come to think of it, if you had a coffee maker, you might be able to do all this just by filling the filter with salt and running a cup or two of water through it. Alas, I don't have one around to test it.)

Put the dice you want to test in a small cup, pour enough of the salty water in so they float nicely, and then gradually add non-salty boiled water until they float just barely.

Check that there are no visible air bubbles stuck on the dice (especially inside the pips / numbers) that could upset the balance. If there are, try to get rid of them. (Dripping single drops of salt water from above on top of the floating dice seems to be a fairly effective way to shake the bubbles off.)

Poke the dice a couple of times, and see if they consistently return to the same orientation. If so, they're unbalanced.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rolling all your dice 52 times and recording the numbers should reveal any biases...and it's much easier.

It should be noted that clear dice (of any color) tend to be less biased than solid color dice due to the way they are processed during manufacturing. Most casino dice are of the clear variety for this reason.

Troy wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Thankfully you can test your dice weights/randomness easily with water, kosher salt, and a glass. It also reveals cheaters dice.

How does that work?

Youtube will explain it better, but if you make the water salty enough, the dice won't sink. Then you can flick the dice, and it will repeatedly go to the most weighted number. If it's a poorly weighted die for instance, it will always go back to a 3. If it's a well weighted die, it will be random.

Like Daedulus81 said, it's not perfect though. If you have wonky or edged dice like the Special army dice ythat GW sells, that can affect weight.