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.

So I just got finished playing in my 3rd local tourney this weekend. Every tourney there is one or in my last one, two games where I'm calling over the judge 3-4 times for the game, for just a quick rules check. I feel like I'm often the one calling over the judge in games and rarely does my opponent. I feel like I'm usually in the right, but for the sake of this topic let's say I'm right half the time and wrong half the time. Anyways, like I said, I usually get one or two opponents who get all sorts of pissy over me clarifying rules with the TO/judge. It always seems like people want to play loose casual rules interpretations or even disregard on things that "don't make sense". I had a guy who moved his tanks from point a to point b with a "bridge of sorts in the middle" and I asked the judge if he could make that move if the tank was obstructed. The T/O said no, a tank wouldn't be able to, but he looks like his tanks can make it and walked away. Well you could see his tanks right up next to the terrain bridge and the weapons and some top mounts wouldn't make it under. He literally says, I don't care if that's the rules that doesn't make sense. Anyways that's just one example among several.

But I guess my overall reason for the post was wondering if the community at large thinks tournaments should be played "by the rules" or if we should be play them from the hip?

Point_Taken wrote:
Am I the only one who wants to play in tournament's by the rules or am I being the douche

yay me!

Question answered.

Very much depends on the context of the situation. Not to be blunt, but we have only one side of the story, after all.

Well, at the end of the day you gotta remember you're playing a person. At some level there are going to be things that are subjective, hence why you have TOs.

That said, tournaments are the one place I imagine people shouldn't get upset about being called out for rule violations. There is some etiquette involved in well, involving a TO though. Generally I'll ask if they mind if we call a TO over. the point is to have fun while trying your darndest to win, and that's hard to do both if you don't act politely and respectfully.

I'll say my absolute best and absolute worst games have been at tournaments, based on how much fun I had. Oddly perhaps, my most positive memorable game was one I lost badly, and my worst experience ever was a game I won a crushing victory at the final table.

So..... I guess my opinion is no, following the RAW is not a problem at a tournament. The act of "enforcing" the RAW is not a douche move in and of itself, but like anything it's possible to be a douche while doing the "right" thing. Just be nice; if the other person is legitimately upset solely because they had to adhere to a strict RAW interpretation during an organized event that's on them.

The thing with 40k is that in some cases it is a loose set of rules open to interpretation, if only because a rule wasn't written clearly enough. That's what TOs are for and of course there's nothing wrong with clarifying with them. What they say goes, though, if only in the context of the tournament they're running.

Terrain is always a bit of a debatable area because terrain itself isn't of a fixed formal shape; and with open conversions and even GW changing models over time or with different poses, the size of a model can also vary somewhat. As a result terrain can be a bit of a case of interpreting a fair terrain setup not just going 100% with what is physically possible (within reason).


It might well be that the player you were playing against was expecting/used to a general looser focus on terrain and actual sizing whilst you were playing more strict to the book.

In a tournament such calls should be for the Tournament officials to come over and rule on if there is any dispute between players.




As for always feeling like you're calling the TO's over it might just be that you've "noticed" yourself doing this so you notice it whilst in actuality you're not doing it any more/less than others.

It might also just be that you're attending tournaments which are frequented by people more used to a casual setting at their clubs.

dosiere wrote:

That said, tournaments are the one place I imagine people shouldn't get upset about being called out for rule violations. There is some etiquette involved in well, involving a TO though. .

This actually says what I was getting at best and some of my frustrations and wondering if I had unreasonable expectations. I feel in a tourney, there should be no issue with a TO being called over ever. I'm perfectly okay with a TO being called over on me every 15 mins if the guy I'm playing feels something isn't right. But some of the games I've played, some opponents got so salty about calling them over two or three times. Like I said, I'm not always right when I call them over, but who cares, I'm just trying to play by the rules

As curran12 said, we only have one side of the story. Everyone's the hero in their own narrative.

That said, I do agree that you should play by the rules in a tournament, and that there isn't anything wrong with calling the TO for a rules issue, but...

Being gracious and polite helps a lot. Stating what is basically the same point can elicit radically different reactions depending on how you put it. Politely telling your opponent that you believe he or she is mistaken before you call for the TO is better than just shouting "TO!", for example.

Trying to work things out with your opponent first is recommended. It may all have been due to some misunderstanding, after all.

Even better, try to agree on potential issues beforehand. Do you agree that this model benefits from cover here? What's your understanding on the interaction of these two rules?

Rulesharking is bad. Don't do that.

Try to read your opponent. Does he or she seem like a beginner? Is your opponent very young? Is he or she a casual player who isn't used to a stricter rules environment? Or does your opponent seem like someone who's dishonestly trying to bend the rules in his or her favour? Adjust your behaviour accordingly. Some people deserve less harsh treatment than others.

Also always be aware that this isn't the most precise ruleset. There won't always be a clear answer to a rules conundrum. TO always has the final word.

The answer to your general question is: no, you're not the only one. Tournaments should be the strictest interpretation and highest standard for rules.

For your specific example, it sounds like you're fine from your recounting but it is only one side and we're just pseudo-random people on the internet sooooo...

A judge myself.
At our biggest event around here, (100 man GT) a couple of the expectations on the players are as follows:
-Players should discuss terrain and any implications thereof at the start of the game.
-Players should at least attempt to figure out situations among themselves before calling us over. If they do call us, they get no time reimbursement for the length of the research and ruling.

If the hypothetical situation came up that the players didn't discuss terrain and a piece was too small for a tank, and they called me over, I would say "since you didn't discuss it pregame, then play it how it lies. If the tank can't fit, it can't fit."

You really shouldn't be having that many rules issues though. Out of 25ish tables that I was responsible for at the event earlier this month, I had maybe 4 questions a round, and only like 2 total over the weekend that were anything complicated.

If you're getting the judge 3-4 times a game in this edition, something's up. I can't say what without being there, though.

But yes I feel tournament level play should be following the written rule/errata/TO changes 99% of the time, with the exceptions being when both players agree to a change.

With tournaments, I find you have to give and take a bit.
Will I care if a lasgun is 24.001 inches from my leman russ? Not really. Will I carefully watch the measured movement of a meltagun squad as they advance on said tank and call it out if I don't think they're in range? Absobloodylutely. You have to pick the important issues. The only caveat is when not caring about something minor, later in the game might be used as a precedent for something more important.

If you're calling a judge over 3-4 times in a game I'm betting the issue is more with your attitude than it is anything else. Granted that may not be the case but I'm guessing there is quite a bit more going on. The only people I see calling judges over several times in a game, every game, are TFG. And I go to a lot of local and national level events.

If you're calling a judge over 3-4 times in a game I'm betting the issue is more with your attitude than it is anything else. Granted that may not be the case but I'm guessing there is quite a bit more going on. The only people I see calling judges over several times in a game, every game, are TFG. And I go to a lot of local and national level events.

This. There are plenty of legit reasons to call a judge over. In my experience, 9 out of 10 times, it's a situation where both myself and my opponent agree that we don't quite know what to do and need a clarification. It's rare that this happens more than twice in a tournament, and almost never happens more than once in a game. Whenever I've played someone who's called a judge that many times in a game, it's usually over very minor (and in some cases even trivial) things that ultimately matter very little to the game.

 Hulksmash wrote:
If you're calling a judge over 3-4 times in a game I'm betting the issue is more with your attitude than it is anything else. Granted that may not be the case but I'm guessing there is quite a bit more going on. The only people I see calling judges over several times in a game, every game, are TFG. And I go to a lot of local and national level events.

100% this, in general rules disagreements can be solved with a quick look in the rule books. If people both have different interpretations of the same rule, that is when they judge gets involved, or maybe on super close measurements. But those should be few and far between. In my last event I called a judge once, and that was to convince my opponent that he got cover against my shooting. Beyond that I almost never call a judge unless the rule is super unclear.

Tycho wrote:

If you're calling a judge over 3-4 times in a game I'm betting the issue is more with your attitude than it is anything else. Granted that may not be the case but I'm guessing there is quite a bit more going on. The only people I see calling judges over several times in a game, every game, are TFG. And I go to a lot of local and national level events.

This. There are plenty of legit reasons to call a judge over. In my experience, 9 out of 10 times, it's a situation where both myself and my opponent agree that we don't quite know what to do and need a clarification. It's rare that this happens more than twice in a tournament, and almost never happens more than once in a game. Whenever I've played someone who's called a judge that many times in a game, it's usually over very minor (and in some cases even trivial) things that ultimately matter very little to the game.

This. If a situation is iffy between you two (or there's a huge disagreement), call a judge. But something like moving under a bridge with bits of the model? Meehh...

I would be interested to hear the other situations in which the judge was called, but it's not looking good for OP.

Point_Taken wrote:

dosiere wrote:

That said, tournaments are the one place I imagine people shouldn't get upset about being called out for rule violations. There is some etiquette involved in well, involving a TO though. .

This actually says what I was getting at best and some of my frustrations and wondering if I had unreasonable expectations. I feel in a tourney, there should be no issue with a TO being called over ever. I'm perfectly okay with a TO being called over on me every 15 mins if the guy I'm playing feels something isn't right. But some of the games I've played, some opponents got so salty about calling them over two or three times. Like I said, I'm not always right when I call them over, but who cares, I'm just trying to play by the rules

But are you talking to your opponent? I have no issue with a judge being called but tell ME what the issue is first in case we can work it out. In your tank example, did you just watch your opponent move his tanks, then think "Those don't fit through that" and shout for a judge, or did you let your opponent know "Hey man, those don't look like they'd fit" and then try to hash it out before calling the TO?

Because honestly yeah it's annoying as if someone is just shouting for a judge after you do something as simple as moving. If you're not communicating with me, it reeks of desperation to try to get something over on me - whether or not that's your intention, that's the perception your opponents will have. And I honestly feel like this might be the case, because nowhere in your posts did I see anything that implies you and your opponent couldn't agree, you only say that you called the judge.

Call a judge if you need to. Otherwise, 4+ trival stuff. Get the game moving,. I know If I was playing anod we timed out the round because of several Judge calls, I'd be salty.

 Hulksmash wrote:
If you're calling a judge over 3-4 times in a game I'm betting the issue is more with your attitude than it is anything else. Granted that may not be the case but I'm guessing there is quite a bit more going on. The only people I see calling judges over several times in a game, every game, are TFG. And I go to a lot of local and national level events.

Yeah. That many times for multiple games is an issue. It's hard to say what with a forum story, but that would get a lot of raised eyebrows in any tournament I've been to. I know I'd be knocking a sportsmanship score, even if the other guy had been right in every instance, and definitely if it was only half the time!

Voss wrote:
I know I'd be knocking a sportsmanship score, even if the other guy had been right in every instance

And this is why sportsmanship scores are a joke and have no place in a well-run tournament. You openly admit that you'd give a lower score because a player wouldn't give in and allow their opponents to cheat, which is utterly ridiculous. Calling for a judge is not a bad thing, nor is expecting to play by the rules.

A player should never be game penalised for calling over the TO/Judge. It's madness to suggest that its cheating to want an official confirmation of the rules when a dispute is raised within the game.

A player should never be afraid to call the judge/official; either from being penalised by the judge or their opponent. To instil a sense that calling over officials is cheating/abusive/poor play or otherwise not the proper thing to do is how you discourage people from playing in tournaments and how you encourage cheaters to get away with cheating.

When in a tournament setting if two players fail to come to a compromise within their interpretations of the game rules then a judge/official should be called over. This helps speed up the process instead of having a drawn out argument and provides a single final answer source that allows the games to continue.



Officials should keep tabs on who calls them over; for what reasons; and how often etc... It's up to them to see if there are any patterns of behaviour and to address them.

It might be that there are a couple of rules that prove to be causing continued call-outs; could be that some board terrain causes contention between players; could be that one or to players can't negotiate well with other players; could be that everyone who plays Dave has to call over judges; could be that Bill just doesn't get how to move things without cheating; etc...

Officials can track that information if they want.



We only have one side of the story and it could just be that the OP is playing to the rules and others are playing a more casual form. Tournaments are not like the olympics (and hey they have officials/judges too) where everyone spends years training before attending. They are competitive events where entry is typically "everyone at the club" or "everyone who turns and stubs up the fee to play". So you're going to get people in that who know the rules like the back of their hand all the way to people who started playing last week.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
even if the other guy had been right in every instance, and definitely if it was only half the time!

Been thinking on that line more so - to my mind it doesn't matter how many times either person is right or wrong.

The point is that two players have a disagreement about how a rule/situation is to be resolved; and study of the rules material available to them during the game (which should be full game rules, codex, erratas, faq etc...)has not allowed them to resolve it.

A judge/TO's job is thus to be called upon to make a ruling in this matter.

Which player is more right/wrong most of the time doesn't matter during the game at all. It's only point of interest is if a judge notices a single player being repeatedly wrong on the same rule on multiple occasions. At which point it might be grounds to consider that player a potential cheater to be observed more closely during games*



*novice players are more likely to get more than one rule wrong and to be more random in the rules they mistake. Furthermore it is not always cheating; sometimes rule does get stuck in ones mind the wrong way - even so it makes it a point to be observed more often for the organisers to ensure fair play

Going right back to the OP, Tournament umpires' rulings are the rules. It doesn't matter if hey disagree with the rulebook, for that event, their decisions are final In the case of the tanks going under the bridge, the TO made a ruling, so that became the rules of the event.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Going right back to the OP, Tournament umpires' rulings are the rules. It doesn't matter if hey disagree with the rulebook, for that event, their decisions are final In the case of the tanks going under the bridge, the TO made a ruling, so that became the rules of the event.

This perfectly sums up why I don't enjoy 40k tournaments. You roll into an event having no real how the rules will work in any given situation.

I attend GW Games events simply to get games in with fully painted armies. It's the judges job to give answers as long as the player isnt stalling, slow playing, or cheating/bending the rules.

 Kriswall wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Going right back to the OP, Tournament umpires' rulings are the rules. It doesn't matter if hey disagree with the rulebook, for that event, their decisions are final In the case of the tanks going under the bridge, the TO made a ruling, so that became the rules of the event.

This perfectly sums up why I don't enjoy 40k tournaments. You roll into an event having no real how the rules will work in any given situation.

IIRC there used to be some events that would produce their own FAQs that supplemented the GW FAQs and answered common 'questions on the internet' so that you knew in advance what the ruling was.

 Kriswall wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Going right back to the OP, Tournament umpires' rulings are the rules. It doesn't matter if hey disagree with the rulebook, for that event, their decisions are final In the case of the tanks going under the bridge, the TO made a ruling, so that became the rules of the event.

This perfectly sums up why I don't enjoy 40k tournaments. You roll into an event having no real how the rules will work in any given situation.

I must then assume that you don't like pick up games either as the same thing is true the only difference is that you have no arbiter to help with disagreements.

Tournaments should definitely be done by the rules of the event.

Thats why I feel GW games are not good for tournaments. There are too many grey areas and loopholes and always have been.

 auticus wrote:
Tournaments should definitely be done by the rules of the event.

Thats why I feel GW games are not good for tournaments. There are too many grey areas and loopholes and always have been.

This.... GW rules are not built well for tournament play and either is the overall community. All Warhammer 40K tournaments should be attended with the knowledge that this is the case and be prepared to adapt accordingly. Discuss all terrain elements before playing and be prepared to settle small disagreements amicably.

 Peregrine wrote:

Voss wrote:
I know I'd be knocking a sportsmanship score, even if the other guy had been right in every instance

And this is why sportsmanship scores are a joke and have no place in a well-run tournament. You openly admit that you'd give a lower score because a player wouldn't give in and allow their opponents to cheat, which is utterly ridiculous. Calling for a judge is not a bad thing, nor is expecting to play by the rules.

Calling for a judge can absolutely be a bad thing, especially if the opponent is doing it with the knowledge that he could well be wrong (which the OP admits to). Given the sort of thing I've seen people do at tournaments, I don't doubt that some people call judges to disrupt other player's turn orders and the flow of the game, to stall out the clock or simply to aggravate so the opponent plays poorly. Given that I've seen Grand Tournaments manipulated by teams, where the primary plays to win, and his buddies either bring hard counters to lists the primary struggles with or bring 'play to draw' armies to disrupt other people's scoring, nothing seems beyond the kind of nonsense people are willing to pull.


Your interpretation of what I said is certainly interesting, but that isn't what I meant at all. Its equally fair (actually more fair) to take it as someone calling judges multiple times simply won't talk anything out, and won't respond to what the rules actually say, and is hoping for backup for an unreasonable position. I absolutely expect people to play by the rules at tournaments.... but that means I expect them to know the rules, and not call the judge over once per turn cycle on a trivial matters that could be resolved by a simple page flip or agreement. A legitimate rules question- no I wouldn't mark it down. 3 more? Yeah, I would. It's just poor behavior at that point, which is what sportsmanship is FOR.

The thing is the line between time wasting and inexperience is a fine line to draw. Also we are assuming that a TO/Judge is either resolving a matter that rule book consultation failed to resolve; or that it provides faster resolution to the issue than rule book consultation = thus reducing the amount of lost time.

Judges should keep track of player requests for intervention to ensure that neither player is attempting to time-waste (crafty time wasters might well keep wasting time unilt the opponent calls a judge over so it might not always be the one calling).

Time wasters will generally show a pattern of behaviour that repeats itself and thus can be identified for potential disciplinary action or simply having a judge babysit their games a few times.