Cheating at Tournaments - LVO article

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.

**Ordana**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, I'm not sure how else to say this:

Cheating by mistake and cheating by intent are both cheating and should be given a warning. This ain't hobby night at the local garage. This is a major tournament. Accidently nudge the model? Warning. Misinterpret the rule regarding distance?. Accidently pick up the wrong dice? You're kicked out, and flagged.

And you need to understand that at a tournament like the LVO the top 50 and the bottom 300 are not playing for the same reasons.

**AlmightyWalrus**

"Cheating" by definition requires intent. You cannot "cheat by mistake". That doesn't mean that making mistakes should go without consequence.

**nurgle5**

Ordana wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, I'm not sure how else to say this:

Cheating by mistake and cheating by intent are both cheating and should be given a warning. This ain't hobby night at the local garage. This is a major tournament. Accidently nudge the model? Warning. Misinterpret the rule regarding distance?. Accidently pick up the wrong dice? You're kicked out, and flagged.
And you need to understand that at a tournament like the LVO the top 50 and the bottom 300 are not playing for the same reasons.

It's also a pretty tall order to expect people to not get tired and make mistakes over six odd hours of games, particularly with a byzantine rule set like 40k.

**Aelyn**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, I'm not sure how else to say this:

Cheating by mistake and cheating by intent are both cheating and should be given a warning. This ain't hobby night at the local garage. This is a major tournament. Accidently nudge the model? Warning. Misinterpret the rule regarding distance?. Accidently pick up the wrong dice? You're kicked out, and flagged.

By definition, cheating implies intent. What you call "cheating by mistake" is more accurately called "making a mistake".

That's not to say that people making mistakes shouldn't be penalised. But disqualifying someone from a tournament and flagging them for scrutiny in future events just because they misread a rule or accidentally pick up a miss as a hit? That's way too harsh. Jumping straight to DQ should be reserved for cases where the judges determine that someone has knowingly and deliberately broken the rules with an intent to gain an advantage.

I think the Caution - Warning - Game Loss - DQ escalation is appropriate over a tournament, with different infractions coming in at different levels, and with high-level play skipping Caution as an option. Warnings and higher get should tracked and taken into account across tournaments (if under the same overall organiser / TO group) and can help determine intent when investigating infractions in the future.

**Wayniac**

I think Fezzik is a little extreme in what he's saying, but the intent is right. At a major tournament, there should be an expectation of a certain level of play.

Sure, people make mistakes. 40k is way too bloated (IMHO) with its rules to not have this (compare to WMH or X-Wing or similar games that don't leave rules up to debate). However, there should be a common line where it's a warning or even a DQ depending.

Something like using a stratagem at the wrong time should perhaps be excused, but if it's done repeatedly or if the judges found out that in the semi-finals this person has been doing this all day even after it was said it's wrong, that's when you need to intervene and DQ.

If a model is accidentally moved, then IMHO the game needs to halt while you "rewind" to a correct game state. Same if you move a model where it can't actually move or whatnot. You need to ensure clean play.

Someone uses a relic they can't use in one game? Okay, if a judge finds out then give a warning. If the opponent says hey you can't do that, and the person who did is like Oh okay sorry then nullify that relic for the duration of that game and move on. Chalk it up to someone forgot/misread and was corrected. However, if the person then proceeds to do it in the next 4 games, that's when it becomes "cheating" if you ask me.

The sort of people who always seem to have these things happen needs suspensions. If it gets to such an extreme level, a permaban. You don't always forget that you can't take a relic on X model, especially when you've done it at other tournaments and likely been told that it's not correct. That IS cheating because it's doing something you were told was against the rules. You can validate if it's true or not in a case like this, so anything, where it happens, is either willfully trying to cheat or just not caring to read your rules; either way that sort of person probably doesn't belong in the finals of a tournament if they can't even remember that a Relic says it can't be given to a model they put it on game after game.

**Slipspace**

One thing systems like MtG do is not automatically ascribe motive or intent to mistakes, but recognise mistakes anyway. So the judge doesn't care if your deck list was submitted incorrectly by accident or in an attempt to cheat, the penalty is the same. IME this attitude carries over to the players. Mistakes aren't always seen as attempts to cheat but the general consensus is you get punished for it, with no judgement on the intent of the player so penalised. There's a bit too much hand-wringing in this thread over intent and cheating vs honest mistake. I don't think that's relevant, as long as there's a reasonable set of penalties in place and we don't go straight from a warning to lifetime ban there shouldn't be a problem.

I'm genuinely shocked by the attitude of the participant who posted on the last page and the general ignorance of how the rules work from some players. The sort of mistakes they're describing just shouldn't be happening, and I'm not buying the excuse of the game being complicated. We should expect better from people attending tournaments. In this case a simple "that's not how it works" is probably enough to correct the player, but if they take it further that's where judges should be involved.

**Breng77**

Slipspace wrote:
One thing systems like MtG do is not automatically ascribe motive or intent to mistakes, but recognise mistakes anyway. So the judge doesn't care if your deck list was submitted incorrectly by accident or in an attempt to cheat, the penalty is the same. IME this attitude carries over to the players. Mistakes aren't always seen as attempts to cheat but the general consensus is you get punished for it, with no judgement on the intent of the player so penalised. There's a bit too much hand-wringing in this thread over intent and cheating vs honest mistake. I don't think that's relevant, as long as there's a reasonable set of penalties in place and we don't go straight from a warning to lifetime ban there shouldn't be a problem.

I'm genuinely shocked by the attitude of the participant who posted on the last page and the general ignorance of how the rules work from some players. The sort of mistakes they're describing just shouldn't be happening, and I'm not buying the excuse of the game being complicated. We should expect better from people attending tournaments. In this case a simple "that's not how it works" is probably enough to correct the player, but if they take it further that's where judges should be involved.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of penalizing some mistakes. However I disagree with the notion that "we should expect better from people attending tournaments", a great majority of players attend tournaments with no expectation of winning (especially large events), they go because they enjoy the experience and get a number of good game against different opponents than their used too. The notion that if you are going to go to a tournament you should never make mistakes is silly because most people attending simply aren't that competitive. Now if you want to hold people that make the top bracket to a higher standard of play because they are top players, ok. If you want to penalize people for continually making the same mistake, ok. But punishments too harsh just create an elitist environment where many players get excluded, more games end in unsatisfactory results (DQs), and less fun being had.

**Karol**

nurgle5 wrote:
Ordana wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, I'm not sure how else to say this:

Cheating by mistake and cheating by intent are both cheating and should be given a warning. This ain't hobby night at the local garage. This is a major tournament. Accidently nudge the model? Warning. Misinterpret the rule regarding distance?. Accidently pick up the wrong dice? You're kicked out, and flagged.
And you need to understand that at a tournament like the LVO the top 50 and the bottom 300 are not playing for the same reasons.

It's also a pretty tall order to expect people to not get tired and make mistakes over six odd hours of games, particularly with a byzantine rule set like 40k.

But in all other games this is exactly what happens. The more I get to know about other table top games, the more GW seems to be full exeptions.

Chalk it up to someone forgot/misread and was corrected. However, if the person then proceeds to do it in the next 4 games, that's when it becomes "cheating" if you ask me.

What if this is game 4, he already played 3 games cheating? A "sorry" is suppose save people from any consequances. Someone gave the example of a dude using a relic in an illegal way, and then the same guy doing the same thing with a different army next event.

**Wayniac**

Karol wrote:
nurgle5 wrote:
Ordana wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, I'm not sure how else to say this:

Cheating by mistake and cheating by intent are both cheating and should be given a warning. This ain't hobby night at the local garage. This is a major tournament. Accidently nudge the model? Warning. Misinterpret the rule regarding distance?. Accidently pick up the wrong dice? You're kicked out, and flagged.
And you need to understand that at a tournament like the LVO the top 50 and the bottom 300 are not playing for the same reasons.

It's also a pretty tall order to expect people to not get tired and make mistakes over six odd hours of games, particularly with a byzantine rule set like 40k.

But in all other games this is exactly what happens. The more I get to know about other table top games, the more GW seems to be full exeptions.

GW *IS* the full exception. Always has been. Other companies can do this stuff without issues, yet for some reason GW can't but always gets a pass. Poor rules? They're not a game company (but they are and no amount of saying they aren't will change it). Tons of editing/proofreading mistakes? They aren't a publishing company (as though that excuses poor quality). Pricing without rhyme or reason? They're a business (as though that excuses it). Too vague previews (e.g. rumor engine) without any real substance or actual previews like their competitors? They used to not do anything (which 99% of the time comes from someone who started playing during the dark Kirby era so never saw GW when it wasn't like that to know this is a pale imitation of what they used to do) or GW puts out more models than <Competitor> (so they can be vague and play a guessing game with it?)

GW always gets excuses made for why they can't/shouldn't do things that other games seem to have no problem doing. Every single time.

**EnTyme**

Wayniac wrote:
GW *IS* the full exception. Always has been. Other companies can do this stuff without issues, yet for some reason GW can't but always gets a pass. Poor rules? They're not a game company (but they are and no amount of saying they aren't will change it).

I've never seen another game whose players pick apart every line of a rule just to find any loophole or something they can intentionally misinterpret. GW's rules writing is just fine for anyone not looking for reasons to complain, and the few rules that actually are confusing are taken care of in the FAQ/Erratta a couple weeks after release. Also, stop using a quote from the old administration. No one from GW has claimed they aren't a game company since Kirby resigned.

Tons of editing/proofreading mistakes? They aren't a publishing company (as though that excuses poor quality).

That thing you're looking at? It's closer to a mole hill than a mountain. You're looking for reasons to complain again. You can say it's unprofessional, and you may be right, but minor spelling and grammar errors don't take away from my enjoyment of the game.

Pricing without rhyme or reason? They're a business (as though that excuses it).

Basic supply and demand. They will charge what people are willing to pay. Don't like the price? Don't buy it.

Too vague previews (e.g. rumor engine) without any real substance or actual previews like their competitors? They used to not do anything (which 99% of the time comes from someone who started playing during the dark Kirby era so never saw GW when it wasn't like that to know this is a pale imitation of what they used to do) or GW puts out more models than <Competitor> (so they can be vague and play a guessing game with it?)

So you mean they don't post previews every single day on WarCom? The rumor engine is meant to be a fun little game for the fans to play where we try to make wild speculations on releases several months out. It's a marketing tool meant to get the community talking. When things get closer to release, they post full articles on the rules and design. I'm not sure how you can possibly say GW doesn't do previews.

**Breng77**

This largely has nothing to do with GW, we are talking about fan run events. IF GW wants to take over running official competitive games, they can do whatever they feel like as far as cheating. IN this case it is largely internet pundits screaming that volunteers should do better at making 40k into a high level competitive game or quit. When those volunteers are largely in the business of creating fun events for their attendees. For me the solution to this whole thing is seen in a few different things.

1.) If you don't like how an event handles cheating don't go. If it hurts attendance enough change will happen. If it doesn't then the target audience does not care.

2.) Don't take the results of these events so seriously - if cheating bothers you, then don't rate events in which it happens and find ones where it does not to talk about.

3.) Make your own event with whatever rules you want to have in order to make things as cheat proof as possible - after all plenty on here claim that it is easy. Before people chime in saying "I shouldn't have to work at or create events to expect people not to cheat." Apparently you do, because short of boycotting events you have little to no power to change how the runners of those events do things.

4.) Volunteer your time (and perhaps money) to go and judge at these large event - after all if you are not willing to do the job how can you expect enough other people to do so.

5.) Memorize all the rules (hey you are volunteering to judge right

) - that way at least you won't get cheated. If everyone knew all the rules by heart cheating would go away. People keep going back to "well what if it is game 4 when the mistake is found, how is that fair to the first 3 opponents." well why didn't they catch the mistake? "Well I shouldn't need to know my opponents rules, they should play them right." Sure, but obviously people are getting things wrong. Soooo...unless we get enough volunteer judges (who also have memorized every rule) to ref games, the only way cheating will get caught is by the opposing player noticing.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

So here is the thing about the "different players in top 8 vs top 300" argument. These weren't rubes "having mental mistakes" these are seasoned pros. Alex Mercer wasn't suffering fatigue when he got called out at GT. The other guy wasn't having a "whoopsie" after the 3rd warning of rules. Nor was he "experiencing first time jitters" when he lost his temper on the judge.

The same people who make these basal excuses for rule breaking through intent or honest error, aren't defending cheating, but it sure feels like you are defending known cheaters.

**Troy**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So here is the thing about the "different players in top 8 vs top 300" argument. These weren't rubes "having mental mistakes" these are seasoned pros. Alex Mercer wasn't suffering fatigue when he got called out at GT. The other guy wasn't having a "whoopsie" after the 3rd warning of rules. Nor was he "experiencing first time jitters" when he lost his temper on the judge.

The same people who make these basal excuses for rule breaking through intent or honest error, aren't defending cheating, but it sure feels like you are defending known cheaters.

Then quit. Compete in poker or car racing where the rules set is more tight.

**Ordana**

Troy wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So here is the thing about the "different players in top 8 vs top 300" argument. These weren't rubes "having mental mistakes" these are seasoned pros. Alex Mercer wasn't suffering fatigue when he got called out at GT. The other guy wasn't having a "whoopsie" after the 3rd warning of rules. Nor was he "experiencing first time jitters" when he lost his temper on the judge.

The same people who make these basal excuses for rule breaking through intent or honest error, aren't defending cheating, but it sure feels like you are defending known cheaters.

Then quit. Compete in poker or car racing where the rules set is more tight.

You have to play tournaments before you can quit playing tournaments. Pretty sure he hasn't played in anything bigger then a local store based on his 'solutions' earlier in this thread.

**babelfish**

Troy wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So here is the thing about the "different players in top 8 vs top 300" argument. These weren't rubes "having mental mistakes" these are seasoned pros. Alex Mercer wasn't suffering fatigue when he got called out at GT. The other guy wasn't having a "whoopsie" after the 3rd warning of rules. Nor was he "experiencing first time jitters" when he lost his temper on the judge.

The same people who make these basal excuses for rule breaking through intent or honest error, aren't defending cheating, but it sure feels like you are defending known cheaters.

Then quit. Compete in poker or car racing where the rules set is more tight.

People do the same things in poker. The rules are tighter but they still try to exploit them. They also freak out when things don't go there way, throw temper tantrums, act like dbags when they win, all of it.

People are people. They cheat, they lie, they attempt to get advantage in any way they can.

40k isn't a great rule set on the clarity/playability side of things. I would give it a 4/10 or so. I think that other people in the thread are overreacting, but your dismissal of the problem is just as harmful as blanket bans would be.

**Ginjitzu**

whembly wrote:
So... I read this thread from the beginning and as someone who went to LVO this year lemme just say this.

-This was a well run tournament and had a blast. Seriously, its well worth it.

-The judges were more than accessible... they were all easy to find and the one rule question I had literally only took around 3 minutes.

-No, there were no rage mobs.

-As a guy who went 1 and 5 in the tournament, my opponents and the folks around us were great and affable. If minute mistakes were made (oh, I forgot to move or shoot unit) and the other player's turn didn't really start, we all allowed us to "go back".

-Hell, I played 2 ork lists where both opponents played that Green Tide strategy wrong (they DS 9" away, rather than coming off the board edge). It was at the end of the day where one of them came up to me and apologized and offered to switch the Wins/Loss. This was an honest mistake and I in this case I refused because I missed it too. There was no way to determine if it had any impact and these sorts of misplay is expected. To me, a great general is being able to adapt and overcome the gaming in real-time.

-Another honest mistake was that the player thought he could cast smite twice in the same turn with Magnus via the "cast extra power " CP. I informed him that you cannot ever successfully manifest the same power twice on the same model. This was the 4th game of the tournament and he told me he played it wrong in all of previous his game (and a different player was doing this too!) and he was genuinely upset that he got it wrong and apologized profusely. (Seriously, if Magnus was able to cast his uber-smite twice a turn, I'd be taking him more often!)

-My other games were great, I was on the receive end of seeing plagebearers grenading to death my Renegade Knight in hilarious fashion.

-I very much favor the yellow/red card system that ITC is using. To me, it's the most practical and fair system.

-I think there's a wide chasm between honest mistakes and outright cheating. The former should involve some grace between the two players to resolve, failing that, use the Most Important Rule™ (roll it off). The latter definitely need to be called out and definitely incur tangible sanctions (ie, miss turn, Loss, DQ, etc...).

That's my 2-cent.

This really should just be /thread.

**DarknessEternal**

Slipspace wrote:
One thing systems like MtG do is not automatically ascribe motive or intent to mistakes, but recognise mistakes anyway. So the judge doesn't care if your deck list was submitted incorrectly by accident or in an attempt to cheat, the penalty is the same.

Yep, MtG is vastly better for tournaments in every way.

**Crimson Devil**

whembly wrote:

-This was a well run tournament and had a blast. Seriously, its well worth it.

Obviously this can't be true. The people that weren't there say it was horrible.

**NurglesR0T**

Crimson Devil wrote:
whembly wrote:

-This was a well run tournament and had a blast. Seriously, its well worth it.

Obviously this can't be true. The people that weren't there say it was horrible.

Best comment in this thread by far

**Peregrine**

Re: cheating vs. honest mistakes. I don't know why people are so determined to pretend that we can't tell the difference between them. A player who makes mistakes is going to make mistakes in their favor, but they're also going to make mistakes in their opponent's favor. Oops, I didn't realize my knight couldn't use the faction trait. Oops, I forgot to use my re-roll. Oops, I accidentally pushed my model forward 6.5". Oops, I only moved 5.5" and didn't get into range. Etc. If there's a pattern of rules mistakes in both directions then it's probably a careless or less-skilled player. If there's a pattern of mistakes consistently benefiting the player, especially if they're making the same "mistake" multiple times, then it's probably deliberate cheating. And the two cases should be handled very differently.

EnTyme wrote:
I've never seen another game whose players pick apart every line of a rule just to find any loophole or something they can intentionally misinterpret. GW's rules writing is just fine for anyone not looking for reasons to complain, and the few rules that actually are confusing are taken care of in the FAQ/Erratta a couple weeks after release.

You have your cause and effect backwards. People don't attempt to rules lawyer as much in other games because the rules are generally better and rules lawyering isn't going to get you anywhere. People do it in 40k because there are a lot more opportunities to exploit.

**Jidmah**

EnTyme wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
GW *IS* the full exception. Always has been. Other companies can do this stuff without issues, yet for some reason GW can't but always gets a pass. Poor rules? They're not a game company (but they are and no amount of saying they aren't will change it).

I've never seen another game whose players pick apart every line of a rule just to find any loophole or something they can intentionally misinterpret.

Boy, you must never have played any game, ever. I've even had people claim that when a magic card asks you to name a color, they can pick purple, I have people claim that a petrified wizard is a magic weapon if wielded as a club and I have had people claim that they would get their bonus armies in Risk because Mexico wasn't actually part of North America.
Unlike GW's rulesets, MtG actually has an air tight ruleset that leaves absolutely no room for interpretation - and it has been that way for two decades. No amount of misinterpretation will allow you to find a loop-hole, which is pretty impressive when you have a look at the comprehensive rules. You need to define a language for your rules and then stick to that language no matter what. It's not easy, but a company like GW should have found someone with the capability to do that in the last 20 years. Other games have, and I think Wayniac is rightfully complaining about that.

GW's rules writing is just fine for anyone not looking for reasons to complain, and the few rules that actually are confusing are taken care of in the FAQ/Erratta a couple weeks after release.

Eh, kind of. It's the best we have had so far and you get a lot less unclear rules than in the past editions. We get regular FAQs and Errata rather then irregular ones or none.
So yes, GW is doing a good job at getting better but they aren't there yet. The ruleset still has quite some inconsistencies and un-intuitive or unclear behavior which needs to be cleared out. There is no excuse to stop improving their rules before they have reached was is commonly considered a good ruleset across the industry. So no, I don't think they fine. Yet.

Also, stop using a quote from the old administration. No one from GW has claimed they aren't a game company since Kirby resigned.

Agree. The Rountree has fully embraced the gaming company image and stock has exploded due to that. I doubt there is anyone left in the operative business that ignores who much more plastic is sold when you can play a fun and fair game with it.

Outside of the rule actually being functional, I care little about spelling and grammar. I think the amount of errors is odd though, considering that there is software that can fix those errors for you. Not just browser spellcheck plug-ins, but tools that can reliably check your texts for grammar and spelling error, with the possibility to add all the made up latin words you need.

**Karol**

babelfish 771506 10361144 wrote:

People do the same things in poker. The rules are tighter but they still try to exploit them. They also freak out when things don't go there way, throw temper tantrums, act like dbags when they win, all of it.

People are people. They cheat, they lie, they attempt to get advantage in any way they can.

40k isn't a great rule set on the clarity/playability side of things. I would give it a 4/10 or so. I think that other people in the thread are overreacting, but your dismissal of the problem is just as harmful as blanket bans would be.

Not an expert on tournament things, but if the same people keep cheating over and over again, yet still end up on top tables, then the problem is big. Or is this the Lance effect, where some people are just allowed to cheat?

**Slipspace**

EnTyme wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
GW *IS* the full exception. Always has been. Other companies can do this stuff without issues, yet for some reason GW can't but always gets a pass. Poor rules? They're not a game company (but they are and no amount of saying they aren't will change it).

I've never seen another game whose players pick apart every line of a rule just to find any loophole or something they can intentionally misinterpret. GW's rules writing is just fine for anyone not looking for reasons to complain, and the few rules that actually are confusing are taken care of in the FAQ/Erratta a couple weeks after release.

You're doing exactly what Wayniac described: "it's not GW's fault, it's the players". No. Other games have just as many rules lawyering TFGs, IME. The major difference is other games write their rules properly. MtG, WM/H, X-Wing all have people who will look to exploit rules but the difference is those games have rules that are written much, much better. Where questions arise the answer is almost always found by reading the rules and on the rare occasions it isn't there's a quick errata. I agree that GW's rules are pretty much fine for a bunch of people looking to get together and play some games among friends. For tournament play they're a joke, as seen by the numerous instances of cheating or "oops, I forgot" moments at various tournaments.

**Ginjitzu**

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Warhammer 40,000, as presented by Games-Workshop is not a very good game for any balanced, competitive, serious tournament. Whether it should or should not be is another discussion, but the reality is, it's not and never has been, and to be frank, I don't think it ever will be. That's why I think there really should be a concerted effort among serious, competitive gamers, and the people who organize such tournaments to create a ruleset that is. Until this happens, I don't see any end to the constant debate between us "casuals" who don't mind the flaws and just fill in the gaps ourselves and those who want to play Warhammer in a way that rewards serious strategic thinking and competitive balance.

**Wayniac**

Also, if they've moved away from "model company not game company" then why are they still not employing competent game designers who are using correct math to balance and write clear, concise rules? They have stated that model design still comes first and then rules are written for the models rather than rules dictating what models are created or collaboration between the game designers and the model designers so they are working in tandem. It still seems like the models are made first and then the rules team are told to fit them into the game. That does not seem like they are focusing on being a game company again to me.

Also, as I said pretty much every single one of GWs competitors for tabletop games (PP, Mantic, Warlord, Corvus Belli, Gripping Beast etc.) seem to have no trouble writing clear rules and in some cases those games are way more complicated below the surface than GW (40k *looks* complex but most of that is just a bloated list of add-ons i.e. options). Yet these companies are way smaller and with less resources.

So if a smaller company with way less resources can do it, why can't the big dog who should have more resources and prestige? At this point it has to be that they don't want to, not that they can't. Which is why their game is unsuitable for tournaments despite people being able to force that square peg into a round hole. Being able to make a game behave kinda like a tournament game doesn't actually make it one.

And this is exactly what I mean, not wanting to single anyone out. It's always one reason or another making an excuse for GW.

**puree**

Peregrine wrote:
Re: cheating vs. honest mistakes. I don't know why people are so determined to pretend that we can't tell the difference between them. A player who makes mistakes is going to make mistakes in their favor, but they're also going to make mistakes in their opponent's favor. Oops, I didn't realize my knight couldn't use the faction trait. Oops, I forgot to use my re-roll. Oops, I accidentally pushed my model forward 6.5". Oops, I only moved 5.5" and didn't get into range. Etc. If there's a pattern of rules mistakes in both directions then it's probably a careless or less-skilled player. If there's a pattern of mistakes consistently benefiting the player, especially if they're making the same "mistake" multiple times, then it's probably deliberate cheating. And the two cases should be handled very differently.

This is so wrong. There is a world of difference between a positive event (doing something) and a negative event (not doing something). The things you actually did like using a strategem you shouldn't have, moving further than you should, re-rolling when you shouldn't, having a unit you shouldn't have are far far more likely to be spotted because they are spottable by the other person as things that have disadvantaged him and are clearly 'wrong'.

Forgetting to do something is a totally different kettle of fish. There was nothing clearly wrong to spot. They are not rules mistakes to any observer. There are many reasons you may not do something and forgetting is just one. Your opponent does not know why you were not using a strategem, and you quite possibly won't until much much later post game as well. Your opponent probably won't know why you move 5.5" instead of 6", and is hardly inclined to point it out. If you did it then why would you suddenly realise later, if you thought it was correct then you are more likely to not think about it again later, and if it was an accident of measurement why would you even realise later - if you thought it was the full amount. You opponent doesn't know why you didn't use a re-roll, why would he point it out. You may or may not remember minutes later, but even so will you state it?

So I move a unit more than I should, and use a re-roll when I shouldn't. Then I move a unit less than I could and forget a re-roll. I have made 4 mistakes on a 50/50 split. What do you think will come out to anyone but me (if that). The opponent has no idea on my mistakes, they were legal and I don't say anything cos I sill haven't realised. Casual observers on streaming are even more in the dark. The things I actually did wrong can be spotted by anyone, and are not in doubt as to whether they broke rules. Were they honest mistakes or intentional cheating?

**Karol**

This is so wrong. There is a world of difference between a positive event (doing something) and a negative event (not doing something).

the law does not care in general if you avoided paying taxs, because you forgot that you own a small jetplane or because your pro activly trying to avoid taxation. Punishment should be the same no matter what. The scare factor alone is worth it. Plus people would have to train more to get a hand of their own armies. Fewer errors, fewer disqualifications. over allbetter for the game

**Wayniac**

I do think that adding items you don' thave should be dealt with harsher. Like wasn't there a case of someone giving a plasma pistol to a unit that they didn't have points for? Or something? That should be considered straight up cheating, as well as "forgetting" which model has a weapon and deciding it's the one that benefits the most from it. WYSIWYG would help enforce that, however.

Forgetting something can happen during the game. If it happens in every game, then it's a problem. If it happens in a game, your opponent reminds you "Hey you can't use that now" then either you forego using it or your opponent agrees to let you do a takeback (their discretion) and you move on with it. That doesn't necessarily warrant an infraction. But when you try that same thing in multiple games, then it's not you forgetting it's trying to cheat by expecting your opponent doesn't know you can't do it.

**puree**

Karol wrote:
This is so wrong. There is a world of difference between a positive event (doing something) and a negative event (not doing something).

the law does not care in general if you avoided paying taxs, because you forgot that you own a small jetplane or because your pro activly trying to avoid taxation. Punishment should be the same no matter what. The scare factor alone is worth it. Plus people would have to train more to get a hand of their own armies. Fewer errors, fewer disqualifications. over allbetter for the game

Which has nothing what so ever to do with what I was replying to. The point in dispute was that it was easy to tell the intentional cheat and honest mistake on a bizarre premise that it is obvious to spot someone not doing something that he could have, and treating it as a rule mistake.

As to law, whilst there are crimes of strict liability most crimes require intent (mens rea) and act(actus reus). Killing someone by accident is not the same as killing someone intenionally. One is murder the other is not.

**Frazzled**

babelfish wrote:
Troy wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So here is the thing about the "different players in top 8 vs top 300" argument. These weren't rubes "having mental mistakes" these are seasoned pros. Alex Mercer wasn't suffering fatigue when he got called out at GT. The other guy wasn't having a "whoopsie" after the 3rd warning of rules. Nor was he "experiencing first time jitters" when he lost his temper on the judge.

The same people who make these basal excuses for rule breaking through intent or honest error, aren't defending cheating, but it sure feels like you are defending known cheaters.

Then quit. Compete in poker or car racing where the rules set is more tight.

People do the same things in poker. The rules are tighter but they still try to exploit them. They also freak out when things don't go there way, throw temper tantrums, act like dbags when they win, all of it.

People are people. They cheat, they lie, they attempt to get advantage in any way they can.

40k isn't a great rule set on the clarity/playability side of things. I would give it a 4/10 or so. I think that other people in the thread are overreacting, but your dismissal of the problem is just as harmful as blanket bans would be.

I don't find the proposals effective from a manpower or playability level.
Let me preface my statement with this: I used to run 40K and BFG tournaments. I have not in several years, but I do "run" a squad as safety officer in multiple shooting competitions monthly.

1. The level of effort and money you're asking of volunteers is prohibitive. They simply are not going to do that. Finding volunteers is hard enough for any sport. This would make it impossible.
2. The penalties lie far outside most competitions I have seen, including professional sports competitions. Frankly the only time I would disqualify a person from playing in my current competitions, is if they do something that is a safety violation, and the rules require they stop because they could get someone (most importantly ME) killed. Banning someone from a sport permanently, yea good luck with that.
3. The level of cost you're talking about is prohibitive, and the "fun level" would be drastically reduced for the majority of competitors, the "weekend hacks" out to have a good time playing armies and opponents they don't normally do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
This is so wrong. There is a world of difference between a positive event (doing something) and a negative event (not doing something).

the law does not care in general if you avoided paying taxs, because you forgot that you own a small jetplane or because your pro activly trying to avoid taxation. Punishment should be the same no matter what. The scare factor alone is worth it. Plus people would have to train more to get a hand of their own armies. Fewer errors, fewer disqualifications. over allbetter for the game

IN the US, that is not a correct statement.