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.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

I am mildly curious about the list this person was meant to be using - were there any Helbrutes in it at all? I could certainly see it being easier to miss that there were 2 instead of 1, or 3 instead of 2, if you were expecting to see one on the table.

The list archetype he was running always has 1 hellbrute as part of its combo. It's most likely the first thing anyone would add to the list and I suspect everyone including the player in question just assumed it was on the list. The issue is it was never put on the list and instead there's 130 points distributed out into the rest of the army that would have been cut down instead.

Nobody here's a mind reader, but that's pretty understandable.

In 8th edition, I ran a Black Legion gunline using heavy screens and Abaddon's reroll aura. While I was optimizing it, units would change almost every game.

Depending on whether I bought Havocs, Predators or Scorpius Whirlwinds, I'd have to change the number of Cultists to make room for the Daemon Prince. Very easy to make mistakes on the points, the number of models, or both. Also very easy to forget something does not belong, kept wings on the DP in a few situations where he shouldn't have had them.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
So I have done this. In a blood bowl tourney, my teams are all packed away and get unpacked as and when. I took undead to a tourney and got my wires crossed in a very sleep deprived brain, somehow thinking the extra zombie I had packed to cover raise the dead was actually in my team list.

Blood Bowl is kind of weird because while the rules are clear about not setting up more than 11 players, there is a specific rule for what happens if you do so anyway:

TOO MANY PLAYERS
Sometimes, too many players will
make their way onto the pitch.
If this is spotted before the first
turn of the drive, simply correct
the mistake. If, however, the
mistake is not spotted until after
the first turn of the drive has
begun, any extra player(s) will be
Sent-off for committing a Foul,
exactly as described on page 63.
Which player(s) are Sent-off
is decided by the coach of the
opposing team.

I always thought this was some sort of wink-wink-nudge-nudge way of allowing players to play tricks in a way that honestly feels quite thematic for Blood Bowl.

 techsoldaten wrote:
But to claim 40k players have to either prepare perfectly for each match or be banished from the game forever as a cheat - that is knuckledraggingly stupid. Hard to imagine how awful a player someone has to be to look at the game this way.

Feels like the TOs did the right thing taking back the award after the problem was noticed. But they should have banned the people he played against for creating this situation. At least for a year or two, maybe pending completion of a remedial reading comprehension course.

Banning people for getting cheated on and not noticing it has to be one of the most unhinged takes I've read within this context for sure.

 a_typical_hero wrote:
Banning people for getting cheated on and not noticing it has to be one of the most unhinged takes I've read within this context for sure.

It's risk management

The embarrassment and reputational damage to the event is significant. Why wouldn't they take steps to make sure this doesn't happen again?

People ask a lot of TOs to begin with. It's not realistic for staff to check every list at the start of every game. At some level, players have to be actively involved in keeping the event honest.

If the goal is to reduce the possibility of a cheating scandal, requiring players to check each others lists at the start of a game would be a good first step. Banning anyone who doesn't would be a good way to make the new requirement stick.

You claim this punishes victims of cheating. I say there are a lot of ways to cheat in 40k, this eliminates the one specific way and makes the tournament more fair to players and organizers.

Do you not think punishing the victims of cheating might also result in "reputational damage"?

 sigkill wrote:
Do you not think punishing the victims of cheating might also result in "reputational damage"?

Well, cheating means not following the rules.

If one of the rules is "read your opponents list before a game, check for extra models," and a player does not follow the rule....

How is that player not cheating? Why are you calling him a victim?

I've been involved in one of these, "blame the victim" scenarios.

I am not a Tyranid player. In fact, I cannot tell the difference between 90% of the Tyranid Primes/Tyrants/What Have You.

I had an opponent show me his list. I counted the number of units. They matched up.

In one of the later games, the Tyranid player had an opponent who called him out on some shenanigans, I don't remember what.

The TOs tried to blame his previous opponents (including myself) for not checking his list better.

This blame the victims nonsense didn't go over well, and next time they ran a 40k Tourney at the shop, they had trouble finding people to play in it.

We took our business elsewhere.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 sigkill wrote:
Do you not think punishing the victims of cheating might also result in "reputational damage"?

Well, cheating means not following the rules.

If one of the rules is "read your opponents list before a game, check for extra models," and a player does not follow the rule....

How is that player not cheating? Why are you calling him a victim?

Because that wasn’t a rule.
And even if it was, they’re not gaining an advantage by failing to police their opponent-in fact, they’re operating at a disadvantage.

It also creates the absurd situation where if you belatedly discover that your opponent has cheated, now you will also get in trouble for violating the rule if you report it. There is a reason why almost nothing works like this.

JNAProductions wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 sigkill wrote:
Do you not think punishing the victims of cheating might also result in "reputational damage"?

Well, cheating means not following the rules.

If one of the rules is "read your opponents list before a game, check for extra models," and a player does not follow the rule....

How is that player not cheating? Why are you calling him a victim?

Because that wasn’t a rule.
And even if it was, they’re not gaining an advantage by failing to police their opponent-in fact, they’re operating at a disadvantage.

The prior post, which you didn't read, explained the situation you responded to.

If you meant to demonstrate why reading lists was important, this was a very good example and I appreciate you for it.

sigkill wrote:It also creates the absurd situation where if you belatedly discover that your opponent has cheated, now you will also get in trouble for violating the rule if you report it. There is a reason why almost nothing works like this.

Your imagination is outstanding and I can see why 40k appeals to you.

But no, forcing players to read each others lists does not in fact create a catch 22. It does prevent this situation from returning.

In the real world, people do that, they put rules in place to prevent problems from happening over and over again.

 techsoldaten wrote:
A lot of victim-blaming nonsense.

The onus is on the cheater to not, you know, cheat. And if it's up to anyone to enforce lists, it should be the TO. When I show up to a tournament, it's to play Warhammer, not act as the police.

Next time, just ask what I was wearing and save us all the trouble.

 techsoldaten wrote:


But no, forcing players to read each others lists does not in fact create a catch 22. It does prevent this situation from returning.

In the real world, people do that, they put rules in place to prevent problems from happening over and over again.

However in the real world people also make mistakes, especially considering many players will not be 100% familiar with each army in the game.
Under your proposal anyone who cheats and makes it through several rounds would suddenly mean that a late revelation would result in multiple people being punished for the actions of a single individual.

Furthermore you create a double negative experience for those who were cheated against. First their opponent cheated on them and then secondly the event itself punishes them for not spotting that cheating before the game was over. At which point they have a fully negative experience of the event. Even more so if the punishment is a ban from future events, as suggested earlier.




Firstly I would say that having a rule that you check your opponents list and army is a GOOD idea. HOWEVER the idea to penalise is a bad one; its doubly so if the penalty is banning from future participation in events. Imagine if you make a mistake on reading an opponents list and now your penalty for that is exclusion.


I get that your intention is to have a rule and make people follow it, but making people follow rules with draconian punishments is futile. Even if it never happens you've got a super negative element in your rules that will put people off.





All you need is a few simple rules:
1) Lists must be submitted before the event for review by TOs
2) Lists must be present at the event in clear typed format. Big events might have a template for people to use or require use of a specific online army builder and printed output.
3) Require TOs to review armies at the start of the event. Either before the events starts or before the end of the first game. That latter point allows events to get started without drawing out a long delay.
4) Separate the bagging storage area from the gaming area. This prevents someone slipping in an extra model after the start of the event.

Have a punishment system in place for those found to have cheated by bringing more of their allotment and scale that to when the cheat is spotted. Eg before the event in the list submission phase it could be as simple as a written notification - mistakes do get made. Meanwhile if someone is found to have slipped extra models in mid-event now you can bring out your event banning.

Couple this to a simple logging system so that any transgressions are noted for future reference - being able to identify repeat cheaters or people who appear to have more problem constructing legal lists/following instructions.


At no point do you have to start banning opponents for being cheated against; or penalising TOs for not spotting cheaters. You put the pressure on the cheater; you remove as many possible chances of mistakes happening from the equation and you aim to create a fair and fun environment for all where players feel like they are being protected from cheaters; without having to walk on eggshells themselves.

 techsoldaten wrote:
But they should have banned the people he played against for creating this situation. At least for a year or two, maybe pending completion of a remedial reading comprehension course.

I slept on this so as not to give a knee jerk reaction. What you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever read. At no point in these two sentences did you come close to anything that would resemble a rational thought. Everyone that has read this thread is now dumber after having read it. I wish I could downvote your post. May DakkaDakka have mercy on your soul.

You have to be trolling at this point. Slow day? Shorts too tight?

Take your victim blaming elsewhere. Be better than that.

How about punishing only the people who failed to read the list and detect the extra unit? The tournament could even award extra points to the cheater for their help in revealing that the other players were insufficiently diligent in checking for rules violations.

BorderCountess wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
A lot of victim-blaming nonsense.

The onus is on the cheater to not, you know, cheat. And if it's up to anyone to enforce lists, it should be the TO. When I show up to a tournament, it's to play Warhammer, not act as the police.

Next time, just ask what I was wearing and save us all the trouble.

In the grim darkness of the far-flung future, there is only rape allegations.

Overread wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


But no, forcing players to read each others lists does not in fact create a catch 22. It does prevent this situation from returning.

In the real world, people do that, they put rules in place to prevent problems from happening over and over again.

However in the real world people also make mistakes, especially considering many players will not be 100% familiar with each army in the game.
Under your proposal anyone who cheats and makes it through several rounds would suddenly mean that a late revelation would result in multiple people being punished for the actions of a single individual.
...

At no point do you have to start banning opponents for being cheated against; or penalising TOs for not spotting cheaters. You put the pressure on the cheater; you remove as many possible chances of mistakes happening from the equation and you aim to create a fair and fun environment for all where players feel like they are being protected from cheaters; without having to walk on eggshells themselves.

That's probably overstating it.

There's rules for 40k people have to stick to, there's rules for tournaments people have to stick to. There are consequences for breaking them, and that doesn't create some soul crushing environment.

A rule stating that people need to check each others lists at the start of a game ensures fair play.

Throughout this thread, there's been zero consideration for the people who organize tournaments. TOs tend to be volunteers, they tend to devote a lot of time to preparing for the event, and they not to be compensated in any way. Of the ones I've known, they really don't want anything other than for people to have a good time around a game they love. Having the event ruined because someone cheated is the last thing they want to see happen.

Say what you want about the player who won, but his opponents had opportunities check the list 6 times before he won the event. It's a part of the culture at that tournament, and TOs probably have a responsibility to change it. The most obvious and effective solution would be to require them to read lists. And the threat of punishment would be necessary to get it to stick.

It really wouldn't matter if it's a suspension, an outright ban, or something else so long as people go along with the behavior. And obviously common sense needs to apply. If someone brought 10 Intercessors when they should have brough 8, not noticing is understandable.

But this is a pretty simple situation. There's a Helbrute on the table. The list either says Helbrute or no Helbrute. If 3 opponents miss that, I guess that's understandable. If 6 players miss it, that's really just saying the contributions of the volunteers who dedicated their time and energy organizing the tournament is worthless to the people who attend.

As with any transaction that takes time and costs money, both sides have a minimal obligation of due diligence.

kronk wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
But they should have banned the people he played against for creating this situation. At least for a year or two, maybe pending completion of a remedial reading comprehension course.

I slept on this so as not to give a knee jerk reaction. What you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever read. At no point in these two sentences did you come close to anything that would resemble a rational thought. Everyone that has read this thread is now dumber after having read it. I wish I could downvote your post. May DakkaDakka have mercy on your soul.

You have to be trolling at this point. Slow day? Shorts too tight?

Take your victim blaming elsewhere. Be better than that.

I've noticed you only seem to care about the cheater because he won the event.

I'm old school, still do most of my lists on pen and paper. So do a sizeable percentage of the people I play against. By the definition of cheating being thrown around in this thread, about 20% of the people I've ever played would be a cheater.

It likely hasn't occurred to you the guy who won the tournament probably wasn't the only one who had issues with his list. If that truly is the culture down there, it's almost certain. But you wouldn't know because you see reading a list as some kind of moral failure.

I would tell you to be better but recognize we all have our thresholds. You keep being yourself.

sigkill wrote:How about punishing only the people who failed to read the list and detect the extra unit? The tournament could even award extra points to the cheater for their help in revealing that the other players were insufficiently diligent in checking for rules violations.

I could get behind that, from the standpoint of not ruining everyone's weekend.

The competitive players I've played against are usually carrying variations of the same list. While I'm not a mind reader, I can completely understand why someone would make the mistake of having an extra Helbrute. I've done the same thing and had people do it to me.

But not reading a list is really strange to me. It's saying you don't care enough about the game to be interested in what your opponent is bringing. It's like with unpainted models, the game is just not the same if someone doesn't put in any effort without some important reason why not.

I understand some people can't read, or they can't count, or they're just caught up in the excitement and too enthusiastic to play. Granted. But I don't see where that makes it alright for 6 of them to do it. They can't all suffer from some impediment. The Lone Star Open's reputation was damaged because no one could be bothered to read this guy's list.

That's also important.

I did agree that opponents checking lists and the provision of lists in a clear manner (typed and printed not written by handwriting etc) should be part of the process.

I just differed on how that rule should be presented and enforced. If anything there should be less focus on "how do we enforce it" and more on "how do we enable it".

Eg my suggestion that for TO's to review lists before the first game you might shift that to review "before the end of the first game" which gives TOs at least 2 hours or so and means that the games can start up promptly.

That creates a rule that TO's review lists on the day and accommodates it in a way that makes it practical to achieve.



If you also include "players must check each others lists" then you can also accommodate that rule.
A simple method would be to have a formal start time for each round and to include a 5 minute pre-game moment for people to perform that rule check.



Now you've got a rule and you've accommodated it into the event in a way that encourages people to be able to follow the rule properly.

You've got neat easy to read typed out lists; you've got a specific time slot to read them. Now you've got the whole culture you want and you've not focused on just enforcing it by punishing.




This creates a more positive game environment. Because lets face it you can easily use this example to say "there's a Hellbrute that shouldn't be there" as a fairly extreme additional model inclusion. It's easy to get riled up and say "sure blame the opponents for not spotting as well"
However you'll also get loads of "oh wait you're 10 points over because you took upgrades you couldn't afford" or "There's 20gaunts in that squad instead of 15". Things that might easily slip pass casual or even general notice if people are not familiar with a specific opponents army.
Those edge cases where it is much more likely a mistake.

 Overread wrote:
I did agree that opponents checking lists and the provision of lists in a clear manner (typed and printed not written by handwriting etc) should be part of the process.

I just differed on how that rule should be presented and enforced. If anything there should be less focus on "how do we enforce it" and more on "how do we enable it".

Eg my suggestion that for TO's to review lists before the first game you might shift that to review "before the end of the first game" which gives TOs at least 2 hours or so and means that the games can start up promptly.

That creates a rule that TO's review lists on the day and accommodates it in a way that makes it practical to achieve.

Sure, there are tournaments where players are required to submit lists well in advance, and they have teams that check each list.

That doesn't stop the situation where someone puts an extra model on the board.

I saw your point that a ban is too severe and that TOs should have some discretion. Granted. I'd say consequences should rise relative to the severity of the oversight. It if causes a change in placements, that could be grounds for a ban.

 Overread wrote:
This creates a more positive game environment. Because lets face it you can easily use this example to say "there's a Hellbrute that shouldn't be there" as a fairly extreme additional model inclusion. It's easy to get riled up and say "sure blame the opponents for not spotting as well"
However you'll also get loads of "oh wait you're 10 points over because you took upgrades you couldn't afford" or "There's 20gaunts in that squad instead of 15". Things that might easily slip pass casual or even general notice if people are not familiar with a specific opponents army.
Those edge cases where it is much more likely a mistake.

You see the complexity of the issue. Most mistakes / cheating / whatever is not someone putting an extra model on the board. Points are one way it happens, I've seen multiple lists with 70pt Primary Lieutenants with power swords and plasma guns. This was from separate people, not sure that screw up happens.

Another is tape measures. Compare the measurements of a smaller, hobby sized tape measure with a full sized one bought at the hardware store. I've seen variances of up to an 8th of an inch. Hard to detect unless you put them side by side, but makes a difference in determining range at 12". A lot of the small ones get handed out at conferences and events, they we're made for accuracy.

Another is claiming rules that don't exist. Doesn't happen as much as it did, but people used to like to claim benefits from rules that don't exist. Turns would take hours to complete. There are some people who used to do that just to keep from losing a game they weren't winning.

In each case, checking each other's work makes sense. It's actually the only way problems are revealed. Perfectly good reason why that mistake could have happened and usually people are willing to own up to it. Or maybe it's something else.

The point is, everyone has a responsibility to keep the game fair. Not sure why reading a list would be considered an exception.

Everyone has a responsibility to keep the game fair.
But if one person doesn’t, don’t blame others for it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Everyone has a responsibility to keep the game fair.
But if one person doesn’t, don’t blame others for it.

I counted 7 people who did not keep it fair. The player who brought an extra model and 6 opponents who could not be bothered to read his list.

You can't say "everyone" and only apply that to one person. That's just scapegoating.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Everyone has a responsibility to keep the game fair.
But if one person doesn’t, don’t blame others for it.

I counted 7 people who did not keep it fair. The player who brought an extra model and 6 opponents who could not be bothered to read his list.

You can't say "everyone" and only apply that to one person. That's just scapegoating.

I count one person who cheated, and six people who didn't realize they were being cheated.

Again-the people who didn't notice did not gain any advantage. They, in fact, were placed at a considerable disadvantage since their opponent had an extra model that significantly powered up their force.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Everyone has a responsibility to keep the game fair.
But if one person doesn’t, don’t blame others for it.

I counted 7 people who did not keep it fair. The player who brought an extra model and 6 opponents who could not be bothered to read his list.

You can't say "everyone" and only apply that to one person. That's just scapegoating.

I count one person who cheated, and six people who didn't realize they were being cheated.

Again-the people who didn't notice did not gain any advantage. They, in fact, were placed at a considerable disadvantage since their opponent had an extra model that significantly powered up their force.

Right.

So your definition "everyone has a responsibility to keep the game fair" equates to "ignore basic safety checks until catastrophe strikes then blame a single person while ruining the reputation of the event."

 techsoldaten wrote:

I've noticed you only seem to care about the cheater because he won the event.

Or he's the one that's confirmed to have cheated, so he's the one we're talking about. It's got nothing to do with them winning, though that seems to have been a factor in discovering the cheating. I'd have the same opinion if the guy went 0-5.

 techsoldaten wrote:

I'm old school, still do most of my lists on pen and paper. So do a sizeable percentage of the people I play against. By the definition of cheating being thrown around in this thread, about 20% of the people I've ever played would be a cheater.

You don't seem to understand the nature of the cheating. This wasn't a guy with a list that was accidentally incorrect. He submitted a list without the key unit to make the list work, then just played it as if it was there. It's actually fairly insidious, because any player who has experience with or against that detachment would never even question the inclusion of a Hellbrute and would always assume one would be present.

 techsoldaten wrote:

It likely hasn't occurred to you the guy who won the tournament probably wasn't the only one who had issues with his list. If that truly is the culture down there, it's almost certain. But you wouldn't know because you see reading a list as some kind of moral failure.

Again, he's the only one we have confirmation of. If there were others doing something similar I'd have the same opinion. Nobody in this thread has claimed they would think otherwise.

Nobody's suggesting reading a list is some sort of failure, they're simply pushing back against your utterly ludicrous stance that the people he played against should also be punished because their opponent cheated. It's such a bizarre take I assumed your post was some form of satire. Apparently not.

Slipspace wrote:Nobody's suggesting reading a list is some sort of failure, they're simply pushing back against your utterly ludicrous stance that the people he played against should also be punished because their opponent cheated. It's such a bizarre take I assumed your post was some form of satire. Apparently not.

kronk wrote:I slept on this so as not to give a knee jerk reaction. What you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever read. At no point in these two sentences did you come close to anything that would resemble a rational thought. Everyone that has read this thread is now dumber after having read it. I wish I could downvote your post. May DakkaDakka have mercy on your soul.

You have to be trolling at this point. Slow day? Shorts too tight?

Take your victim blaming elsewhere. Be better than that.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Everyone has a responsibility to keep the game fair.
But if one person doesn’t, don’t blame others for it.

I counted 7 people who did not keep it fair. The player who brought an extra model and 6 opponents who could not be bothered to read his list.

You can't say "everyone" and only apply that to one person. That's just scapegoating.

I count one person who cheated, and six people who didn't realize they were being cheated.

Again-the people who didn't notice did not gain any advantage. They, in fact, were placed at a considerable disadvantage since their opponent had an extra model that significantly powered up their force.

Right.

So your definition "everyone has a responsibility to keep the game fair" equates to "ignore basic safety checks until catastrophe strikes then blame a single person while ruining the reputation of the event."

This is a voluntary hobby experience not a nuclear safety system.
If you penalise a player because they did not fully comprehend an opponents army list which resulted in the opponent having an unfair advantage over the player; then that player was

a) Cheated against
b) Punished because they were cheated against.


Even if the punishment is lesser than the one issued to the cheater, you are still creating a double negative. Where is the benefit in the rule?
What's the gain? The gain for players to check opponents lists is self-serving to improve game experience and balance for them by ensuring that the list is accurate. They already have a motivation to do it. However you can't punish them for missing things in armies that they might not be familiar with running.


Again the Hellbrute example is somewhat extreme and should have been caught earlier; most times its not going to be that obvious. It more likely speaks to army checking being something rushed through/not given an allotted time slot etc... And that's easily seen when many events are time limited and are pushing for fast turns; fast play and such. If you build a time restricted pre-game moment into the game to review lists you create that window to help ensure the rule is followed and give people time to process what they are reading. Not just quick glance at hte list because you're pushing them to play fast and get the game rolling because you've got X number of games in 1 day and can't hang around long after the official end time.




Again I don't see why there's need to double punish the person who was cheated against.

 Overread wrote:
This is a voluntary hobby experience not a nuclear safety system.

Shoppers check cartons of eggs before they pay to make sure they're getting what they paid for. They don't call the store manager a cheater when one's broken.

Basic rule of any transaction is that each side checks what they are getting. Tournaments aren't some magical place where the basic rules of interacting with human beings don't apply.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Overread wrote:
This is a voluntary hobby experience not a nuclear safety system.

Shoppers check cartons of eggs before they pay to make sure they're getting what they paid for. They don't call the store manager a cheater when one's broken.

Basic rule of any transaction is that each side checks what they are getting. Tournaments aren't some magical place where the basic rules of interacting with human beings don't apply.

The store doesn't fine you if you find a broken egg after purchase, but within a sane window (eg after purchase but as you were loading into the car).
In fact they would likely simply swap you the whole box for a fresh one without any broken eggs.

What you're proposing is that the store would instead fine you.

 Overread wrote:
The store doesn't fine you if you find a broken egg after purchase, but within a sane window (eg after purchase but as you were loading into the car).
In fact they would likely simply swap you the whole box for a fresh one without any broken eggs.

What you're proposing is that the store would instead fine you.

If you broke the egg deliberately, it's a crime called petty larceny. If the egg broke because you were being negligent, they have every right to have you trespassed from the store.

The point I was making is the word catastrophe is not reserved for nuclear power plants, which seemed to be what you were suggesting.

Mind telling me what your point is? I'm happy to talk about egg related offenses, but that strays pretty far from the topic.

Your proposition is that in a wargame between two people, if one cheats and the opponent doesn't identify that cheating during the game (and call it out); then both should be punished for the transgression.

Even though only one player was the active instigator of cheating (be that deliberate or accidental).



I was highlighting that such a policy of fully shared responsibility and shared punishment would make sense if the potential fallout from a transgression was a literal fallout and nuclear meltdown.

However we aren't dealing with that; nor are we dealing with eggs*. We are dealing with a wargame hobby at an event people go to for recreational purposes. The worst fallout is someone cheats and gets a prize which they were not entitled too. That's it. No one is going to suffer lifechanging injury or die.

There's no reason to punish their opponent for not spotting a cheating offence. That person was already punished by the cheater cheating. They've already suffered, they have already been punished.

The system doesn't need to punish them; there's no gain.
Your hope is that adding more potential sources of punishment would result in players being more strict at adhering to guidelines to monitor their opponent. However its doing so at the expense of the game environment and experience. If anything you create more reason for both players to NOT report cheating, because you're creating an atmosphere of fully shared responsibility. And you're certainly creating one that would have insanely bad vibes in this day and age of game streaming. Who the heck would want to risk playing in a game where if you fail to spot a mistake your opponent makes; that someone monitoring the game could then call out after the game; resulting in you being punished?

Why would anyone want to play or compete in such an environment?



edit
Think of it like this - Both players are responsible for ensuring a fair game; however each player is more responsible for the elements of the game under their direct control
The player is responsible for their army list; their models; their measuring and gameplay; their understanding of the rules; their dice etc....

Those are the things that they have 100% direct control and influence over.

Would you punish both players if one brings weighted dice? No you punish the one who brought the weighted dice
Same for army list; same for rules; same for manners and behaviour at the table.

The only time you'd punish both is if both were in on the cheating from the start. If both were conspiring to fix the game for ulterior motives. If they were both active, intentional cheater.s




*I also note that you're throwing a red herring in by changing the conditions to "what if you broke the egg" which is "cheating" in that context; whilst I purely proposed that an already broken egg was not detected until after the transaction had been completed.

 Overread wrote:
Your proposition is that in a wargame between two people, if one cheats and the opponent doesn't identify that cheating during the game (and call it out); then both should be punished for the transgression.

Yes, I've explained that enough times and my position is clear.

But it's dishonest to characterize this a wargame between two people. We discussing a tournament where many people pay money and take their time to attend. One where volunteers invest a great deal of time and energy to make sure things go right.

The fact you see this as a single game is probably the root of our disagreement. You have all the sympathy in the world for the poor victims savaged by the dreaded extra Helbrute and zero consideration for the people who put on the event or the other players, who are likely being savaged by things extra Termigants / Trukks / Wracks / etc you just don't know about.

That's fine and you are totally entitled to your opinion. But I think about the community at large and how to prevent this from happening again.

If your solution is "punish cheater more / shame him / ban him from everything forever" (I think that's what your saying, when you're not talking about eggs), you're increasing the likelihood of actual, deliberate, intentional cheating at the event. I don't mean that abstractly, I mean you, personally, are increasing the level of cheating at events every time you respond.

You personally are making this very clear, public case that at the Lone Star Open:

- No one reads lists

- Very loud people are opposed to any discussion about changing the situation

- The only chance of being detected is winning the whole thing.

This is Dakka, it's widely read, and people are sneaky by nature. There are people in the world who will see this and say, damn, that's a really appetizing situation and I want a bite.

Stop a minute and think what someone could do knowing this is the situation at the Lone Star Open. Some of the advantages you are making available to someone who's flexible when it comes to rules:

- Submit a list when they register, then bring multiple lists optimized against specific factions. Each list could use very similar units but change some of the options to get an advantage for that specific match up.

- Bring out that extra unit for a hard match. The only reason that other guy got caught was he had the extra unit in 6 matches and was honest about it. The likelihood someone's going to notice I had an extra HQ in the third round is low.

- Straight up play a different list with completely in the first five games, optimized against specific factions. The odds are low anyone notices as long as my list matches the one I submitted to TOs. There's certainly no record of what I had on the table, and people who don't read don't have great memory.

There are many, many more ways to abuse this information. I just listed the ones that were simple enough for you to understand. Any time someone knows they can get away with something and are not being observed, they will consider it. A certain number will act on it despite an obvious lack of benefit.

If you had a sincere issue with cheating, you would be taking steps to reduce the potential for harm. Instead, you're advertising opportunities for it to occur on this very influential platforms for discussion on the topic.

Given that dynamic, consider the likelihood of the LSO (and possibly other tournaments where it's needed) adopting the rule I suggested as being directly proportional to the number of times you post about it. Every time you post, it's like you're saying you hate omelets while adding more eggs to the pan. Eventually someone has to eat it.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Stop a minute and think what someone could do knowing this is the situation at the Lone Star Open. Some of the advantages you are making available to someone who's flexible when it comes to rules:

- Submit a list when they register, then bring multiple lists optimized against specific factions. Each list could use very similar units but change some of the options to get an advantage for that specific match up.

- Bring out that extra unit for a hard match. The only reason that other guy got caught was he had the extra unit in 6 matches and was honest about it. The likelihood someone's going to notice I had an extra HQ in the third round is low.

- Straight up play a different list with completely in the first five games, optimized against specific factions. The odds are low anyone notices as long as my list matches the one I submitted to TOs. There's certainly no record of what I had on the table, and people who don't read don't have great memory.

That is called cheating, cheating, and cheating. Adding a brief time before the game starts to go over your opponent's list (like was suggested by another poster) is a good way to help.
I should also note that, to the information I have available, the cheater was not honest. He was caught, and THEN 'fessed up.

But sure, let's punish people who were already playing at a disadvantage because their opponent cheated. That's sure to help everything.