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.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Maybe, but going straight to bans and the like is worse....

Why should a confirmed cheater be allowed to continue to participate in competitive play? You don't need a "clear and concise player packet" to understand that using loaded dice is cheating, you shouldn't need one to understand that collusion to manipulate scoring is cheating.

If it's not specifically against the rules(i.e. in the tourney code of conduct or player packet...it's not against the rules if they're non-existent) sounds like that's on the idiots putting it(the tourney) on.

Since, the whole point of a tourney is to use the rules to you're advantage, you get the "good & the bad".

You chose to lay with dogs, don't be upset when you get fleas....

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Maybe, but going straight to bans and the like is worse....

Why should a confirmed cheater be allowed to continue to participate in competitive play? You don't need a "clear and concise player packet" to understand that using loaded dice is cheating, you shouldn't need one to understand that collusion to manipulate scoring is cheating.

Well for one there's no cheating.

You have zero idea about what cheating is if you consider this cheating...But then again it IS you

But just for one: Show single tournament rule that says against it? Or rule in 40k?

Go on. Try to find.

I'm not holding breath waiting for you because you ain't going to find one Because you are, as always, flat out wrong.

tneva82 wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Maybe, but going straight to bans and the like is worse....

Why should a confirmed cheater be allowed to continue to participate in competitive play? You don't need a "clear and concise player packet" to understand that using loaded dice is cheating, you shouldn't need one to understand that collusion to manipulate scoring is cheating.

Well for one there's no cheating.

You have zero idea about what cheating is if you consider this cheating...But then again it IS you

But just for one: Show single tournament rule that says against it? Or rule in 40k?

Go on. Try to find.

I'm not holding breath waiting for you because you ain't going to find one Because you are, as always, flat out wrong.

40k is a permissive ruleset, you need permission to do something, there simply not being a rule against something is not enough.

The whole "talking it out" thing in 40k tournaments is weird as hell coming from literally any other game I can think of. It's textbook collusion, which is almost always punishable by at least a warning and often more serious punishment in almost every other tournament I can think of (whether explicitly mentioned in the tournament pack or not). Given all the potential for abuse and manipulation of the tournament standings I can't understand why it's permitted in 40k at all. Seems like just another way in which 40k really isn't as competitive a system as many people would like to think it is.

If chess clocks were mandatory at all events you'd remove this whole problem immediately because each player would be in control of their own time and therefore any failure to finish the game is squarely down to the individual player and they should take the consequences for that in the form of a reduced VP total, and possibly losing a game they may have won had it gone to the full 5 turns. That said, I also think using VP totals or VP differential as the primary tiebreaker in tournaments is a bad idea that partially contributes to this desire to talk things out. Even changing that might alleviate many of the problems talking through the final turns causes.

In terms of the wider issue?

How often do games overrun? Do people feel that TO’s should be allowing more time for each game?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In terms of the wider issue?

How often do games overrun? Do people feel that TO’s should be allowing more time for each game?

It depends on the types of lists that people are running as to if games are getting through in time. Two glass cannon armies? That usually results in a super quick matchup. If you bring a resilient army, then often it doesn't get through 5 rounds - not enough dies quick enough, so you basically end up repeating the length of T1 5 times. The challenge is that the people who brought glass cannons are now waiting around for the slower games. If you increase time for matches, then you increase waiting times for these types of games. It's not fun waiting around for 1+ hours for your next game.

As a casual observation at large events, I would say only ~30% of players get through to end of game before time is up.

Events here also state "points as they stand" when time is up, but I've had numerous opponents over the years that want to talk it out.

We typically play gsmes lasting several days and just leave the board 'set-up' in the interim.

If we are playing a game and our evening is done (time to head home!) bit the game isn't entirely 'resolved' ie is either in its end state or trending towards it and its not quite worth continuing the current set-up (or maybe we want to do a different game), we'd often just call it based on its current 'trend', and talk it out in terms of what's likely to happen and leave it there.

Clearly, not a tournament situation.

When I played tournaments (warmachine/hordes), you had your time and that was it. There were various implementations of how this was structured by the way. Score as per the current 'situation' when time is called rather than 'what if' or 'what next'. Can't say I'm.a fan of that in tournament circumstances. Not that I'm big into tournaments these days either, but that's a separate topic.

Also: not a fan of deliberate slow-play.

In terms of mitigation?

1. I’d say it’s clear TO’s need to be genuinely realistic about how much time they’re allotting for each game. If your Tournament is say, 2,500 points and you’re allowing just 1.5 hours, I suspect you’re gonna run into more of this issue than if you were going for 2,000 point games with a 2.5 hour time limit.

In short, time limits aren’t necessarily a problem, but you need to be realistic.

2. Definitely have something in place to discourage Slow Play.

3. Whilst it’s not great for certain armies, players need to recognise certain builds and strategies (extreme example, a Green Tide which relies on precise spacing between each model) just isn’t going to be practical for a time limit.

I play Blood Angels aggressively so I have never had problems with time. Have had opponents run out of time but not myself so I haven't exactly talked out a game when time runs out but I have talked out the last few turns more than once though.

When it is only a couple of models on each side (or perhaps only on one side and the other player is just crushing it) and we both know the secondaries of each other it is usually pretty pointless to roll the dice for the last 1-2 turns. With the amount of dice and rerolls and modifiers in this game we aren't talking about 70/30 odds that we need to roll out but something closer to 99,9% or better when Sanguinary Guards are going to wipe out a min squad on an objective. 35 attacks that hit on 2+ with rerolls and then kills on 2+ you can just skip rolling. You would need 30/34 hits to roll ones to fail. Just moving the last few units around, often helping each other to make sure none of us miss anything and if there is an important die roll we jump ahead to that. Measuring and moving everything perfectly and doing things with models that won't have any impact on the final score might take an extra 30-40minutes but if just moving the key models and sum up the points it might take just 5min. Having that extra 20-30min before the next round is quite nice so you can take a non stressful toilet break, go outside for some fresh air or find some food and water and just sit town and recharge. Way better than be pedantic and have to stress.

In other games like MESBG in which a 350pt(500-800pts is most common game size) Balrog (single best Fighter in the game) only have a 60% chance or so to win the fight against 10 goblins (10 goblins is 50-60pts) and can at most kill 4 of them in a turn if it wins (only wounds on 3s with 4 dice) s you can't talk out next turn at all. If there is only a few models that need to move to an objective it is fine to talk it out but if you need roll any actual dice you can't. There are very few certainties in that game and it is outside a few specific models almost impossible to guarantee a result that comes anywhere near the certainty you can have in 40k. Wounding is often done on 5-6 or worse and there are a lot of 50/50 roll offs and quite a few single die 3+ you sometimes have to do and there are way fewer rerolls available.

How fething Jervis Johnson-ed has our player base gotten when the concept of fictitious turns has advocates?


I cannot imagine a scenario where this would actually be attempted by scrupulous people, let alone allowed.

 Dysartes wrote:
When has someone - especially a Self-Important Big Name - been banned/blacklisted from tournament 40k and it has stuck?

The disgraceful failure to ban known cheaters because they are Big Names is one of the biggest obstacles to 40k being taken seriously as a competitive game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
But just for one: Show single tournament rule that says against it? Or rule in 40k?

How many tournaments have an explicit rule against using loaded dice or paying your opponent $100 to concede and give you a 100-0 win? Would you consider it acceptable to do either of these things if the tournament doesn't explicitly prohibit them?

only really had this as an issue twice, and only once has a game overrun

the first time was WHFB, my opponent was pretty clear he needed to leave early, and asked for a quick game, neither of us were going to be prize winning no matter what (not even a spoon was at risk here), so we got to the point of basically moving units that were not going to change the outcome on the flanks off and not bothering so much - e.g. cutting out five goblins with bows firing, yes they may kill a few models, no they won't kill the unit facing them and no that unit won't catch them, we agreed to say they spent the game irritating each other and got on with it

was actually fun

second was FoW where it timed out basically due to the opponent playing slow, from my local club and thats just the way he played, again didn't alter the event score

that "not altering the event score bit mattered in both cases"

have also had a game at an event with a 6-1 scoring system (as in seven points available, 6-1 to 1-6 range). opponent 'offered' me a 5-2 defeat after looking at my army as he said it obviously wasn't work playing as I was just wasting his time..

the salt after the 6-1 win to me was fun

that didn't change the end results either

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
When has someone - especially a Self-Important Big Name - been banned/blacklisted from tournament 40k and it has stuck?

The disgraceful failure to ban known cheaters because they are Big Names is one of the biggest obstacles to 40k being taken seriously as a competitive game.

Umm, ya sure it's not due to being a TERRIBLE competitive & UNBALANCED game??????

Racerguy180 wrote:
Umm, ya sure it's not due to being a TERRIBLE competitive & UNBALANCED game??????

It's almost like I said "one of" and not "the sole", and 40k's balance issues do not in any way excuse allowing known cheaters to continue participating in competitive play.

If the game was balanced better and had ACTUAL TOURNEY RULES, cheaters would most definitely get banned. Cuz there'd be an actual system/mechanism to do so. that's what happens when you write rules with ACTUAL competition in mind, rather than what we have now.


Till then, a joke it'll remain.

Racerguy180 wrote:
If the game was balanced better and had ACTUAL TOURNEY RULES, cheaters would most definitely get banned. Cuz there'd be an actual system/mechanism to do so. that's what happens when you write rules with ACTUAL competition in mind, rather than what we have now.


Till then, a joke it'll remain.

What does balance have to do with allowing someone to continue participating in competitive play after seeing them cheat on video with indisputable evidence of their cheating? This is not a problem with the rules of 40k, it's a problem with FLG allowing known cheaters to continue playing as long as they're a Big Name Pro Player who will draw attention and improve their monetization metrics.

The two are intrinsically linked.

ACTUAL sporting rules have specific balancing mechanisms(salary cap, limited drafting positions, etc) while simultaneously having specified rules for what constitutes cheating & the punishments laid out very clearly.

Racerguy180 wrote:
The two are intrinsically linked.

ACTUAL sporting rules have specific balancing mechanisms(salary cap, limited drafting positions, etc) while simultaneously having specified rules for what constitutes cheating & the punishments laid out very clearly.

And, again: the actions in question are already against the rules. What do you want GW to do, personally come execute the cheaters to ensure that FLG can't allow them to continue playing?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The two are intrinsically linked.

ACTUAL sporting rules have specific balancing mechanisms(salary cap, limited drafting positions, etc) while simultaneously having specified rules for what constitutes cheating & the punishments laid out very clearly.

And, again: the actions in question are already against the rules. What do you want GW to do, personally come execute the cheaters to ensure that FLG can't allow them to continue playing?

No, but how bout that if a tourney allows them to play, all results from said tourney would be invalid. I'm sure the community would make it so they're actually banned from events.

This is what happens when you have disparate 3rd parties running you're events. No actual penalties.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
The game ends, period. "Talking it through" is cheating and collusion and should get you kicked out of the event and blacklisted from competitive play.

Tell me you're no fun without telling me you're no fun....

What an ass.

And this is the reason "normies" don't want to play in tourneys. Why would I PAY for the displeasure of playing someone like this????

I don't know why anyone would voluntarily want to play you period so...

In competitive games, the clock is as much a part of the game as minis or dice.

Don't want to deal with missing out on Turn 5? Play faster. Simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The two are intrinsically linked.

ACTUAL sporting rules have specific balancing mechanisms(salary cap, limited drafting positions, etc) while simultaneously having specified rules for what constitutes cheating & the punishments laid out very clearly.

And, again: the actions in question are already against the rules. What do you want GW to do, personally come execute the cheaters to ensure that FLG can't allow them to continue playing?

No, but how bout that if a tourney allows them to play, all results from said tourney would be invalid. I'm sure the community would make it so they're actually banned from events.

This is what happens when you have disparate 3rd parties running you're events. No actual penalties.

GW let an Ork player who was deliberately slow playing win their entire event and then dropped the point level for the next one instead of punishing him.

This is what happens when you let GW run events.

You talk about 'don't want to miss out on turn 5? play faster'

and then give an example of how an Ork player slow-played and won an entire event.

In terms of what I'd do, I'd tally up the points that have been earned up to that point in the game. If the game wasn't able to complete to the final turn within the time allotted, I'd be looking at 'what went wrong' from other standpoints. Did I get slow-played? Did I personally hum and haw too much? Were there rules interactions that ended up complicating gameplay? Did the judge have to be called over, taking up 15 precious minutes of time?

In the Sports world, there are some games that have strict time limits and others that don't. Baseball can go into extra innings until a winner is determined, creating rare situations where games can go hours longer than intended. In (american) football, there is a time limit to each round and plays made by the offensive team must be completed within the time allotted.

Which is good for 40k? Honestly? Neither.

If you take away time limits, people will agonize over every decision to maximize efficiency and point gaining. Some people will be very good at this and play quickly, others will hum and haw for hours over turn 1.

If you enforce time limits, you introduce another aspect of the meta-game, and that's slow or fast playing. The speed at which a person moves a model, little seconds that add up when measuring distances or someone holding a handful of dice in their hand and shaking them like a maraca for far too long.

The more rules you add, the more limits or expectations, the more that judges might have to be involved, and the more punishments that you try to outline... the more of a mess it becomes, the more players you ostracize, and the more insular your competitive scene becomes. I've seen this happen with certain video game competitive communities, where the only people at the top are always at the top because they've basically created an environment of rules, expectations, and cliques that make sure that they're the only ones at the top.

And finally, this is why I can't recommend that people get into tournament play. There's many great guys and gals that participate in competitive play at high levels, but you either have to make peace with the flaws outlined above, or just don't play and save yourself the headache.

Play out the turn and count points.

Remover rerolls and Strats so that the game goes faster

drbored wrote:
If you take away time limits, people will agonize over every decision to maximize efficiency and point gaining. Some people will be very good at this and play quickly, others will hum and haw for hours over turn 1.

If you enforce time limits, you introduce another aspect of the meta-game, and that's slow or fast playing. The speed at which a person moves a model, little seconds that add up when measuring distances or someone holding a handful of dice in their hand and shaking them like a maraca for far too long.

It's been mentioned before, but when it comes to time limits in a tournament settings, chess clocks are probably the best way to resolve the situation. All you achieve by slow play then is wasting your own time, not your opponent's.

There are things that need to be watched out for even with that system, which would need to be addressed in the tournament pack, and I can certainly see that some might find the additional cost annoying, but having played Steamroller events in the past, they do work.

Honestly I think time limits are a given at any major event because you have X number of games that must be resolved within a limited time frame. People have to go home - trains to catch, work the next day, families to feed etc...

Both the Organisers and the Attendees all have to have a known ending time and those Organisers won't likely be going home until after that time (gotta clear things up).



So your end time is a fixed variable and if the event is to work you've got to have your set number of matches to resolve who wins what etc...


With fixed variables like that any decent event is going to need to at least time limit games total and at best use chess clocks to help break that time up so that players don't abuse slow play to eat up all their opponents time.
Sure chess clocks bring their own issues, but its the best way to break up time in an organised manner.


Sure local "club tournament evening" type situations might be able to be more loose and flexible, but then you're playing with smaller group sizes and known individuals. You might even be gaming somewhere where you could leave it setup for a week to finish off next game night; or the two who nearly finish but not quite could pop back the next day to finish etc.... Or at the very least its all at the hobby location so close to home so you can maybe stretch another hour and you won't suddenly find yourself 100s of miles from home having missed the last train/worn out driving home etc..

drbored wrote:
If you enforce time limits, you introduce another aspect of the meta-game, and that's slow or fast playing. The speed at which a person moves a model, little seconds that add up when measuring distances or someone holding a handful of dice in their hand and shaking them like a maraca for far too long.

This is why the standard for tournament time limits is to use chess clocks. You can't slow play if you're burning your own time to do it, all that happens if you slow play is you run out of time and get to stand there doing nothing while your opponent plays a solo game to score as many VP as possible with their remaining time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
No, but how bout that if a tourney allows them to play, all results from said tourney would be invalid. I'm sure the community would make it so they're actually banned from events.

This is what happens when you have disparate 3rd parties running you're events. No actual penalties.

Invalid according to what? Other than ITC points 40k events are separate things, once the tournament is over there's nothing to be invalidated. If someone says "that tournament you played in last month doesn't count, you didn't win it after all" the only response to that is "cool story bro". And the ITC is the group that lets known cheaters continue playing as long as they're Big Name Pro Players who are good for their monetization metrics. I'm not sure why you think adding more rules to the game is going to fix any of this.

And you're also completely way off topic from your original claim that poor balance is the real problem, that banning people from competitive play is an inappropriate solution, and that I'm some kind of TFG for wanting the cheaters banned. Now you've pulled a complete 180 and started lobbying for more effective enforcement of bans! At this point I genuinely have no idea what your actual position here is, other than wanting to argue about something.