1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

Standardizing Responses to Rules Errors

Discussion in 'ITS' started by Tom McTrouble, Feb 9, 2018.

  1. Tom McTrouble

    Tom McTrouble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    535
    As many of you are aware, the recent LVO had a pretty controversial 40k match which has prompted me to try and accelerate a proposal at my local LGS regarding standardizing how TOs handle different situations when a rule is broken (presumably accidentally) in competitive environments. Infinity, in my experience, has always been WAYYYYY better about this than other wargames, but that doesn't mean that these situations don't occur and that we can't standardize responses. This list isn't exhaustive, but I would like to start the conversation and get some feedback on other scenarios or responses that you all could think of. Thanks.

    Player rolls an armor or BTS save prematurely

    Note: This occurs in a scenario where a player rolls an armor or BTS save when they would be entitled to an ARO that they did not take and obviously would, such as dodging an attack from a template weapon outside LoF.

    The player will keep the result for the armor or BTS save roll, and will roll for the applicable dodge/ARO. If the new roll is a failure, the player uses the result of their previous armor/BTS roll.

    Modifiers incorrect

    The player keeps the results of all dice rolled, but applying the new modifiers to determine successes.

    Too many dice rolled

    The player removes dice rolled from the pool in the following order until the correct amount of dice is reached: Critical Rolls, followed successful rolls in order of highest to lowest, followed by unsuccessful rolls from highest to lowest.

    Too few dice rolled

    The player rolls one extra dice until the correct number of dice has been reached.

    Reactive Player claims an ARO was missed on a previous order

    If the order has concluded, the active player has no obligation to allow for the ARO to be taken retroactively, although they MAY elect to allow differently.

    Player claims a model has LoS to another model after a previously declared order established the contrary.

    Note: The most common example of this is that a model activates and moves, then it is established that a reactive model has no LoS. On the next order, the active model idles or does not move and the reactive player now claims his model has LoS.

    Since the precedent has been established that the models could not see each other previously, LoS cannot be established without one of the models moving at least 1”.

    Player misrepresented modifiers to interact with an objective or interacted with an ineligible unit in a previous order.

    All orders taken have been expended, and when calculating points the objective functions as if the interaction had failed.

    Player misrepresented modifiers to interact with an objective or interacted with an ineligible unit in a previous order.

    All orders taken have been expended, and when calculating points the objective functions as if the interaction had failed.

    Playing with intent

    Jk not touching this one.
     
    #1 Tom McTrouble, Feb 9, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2018
    Rubberpiggy likes this.
  2. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    949
    Likes Received:
    1,256
    Two points I don't agree with, the first one is the missed ARO, that one should be a hard no, if only to avoid any resentment over the active player saying no.

    Second is the 1" minimum movement to get line of fire. It sounds nice and neat but it's entirely possible that only a few mm will be enough to get a clear line of fire, which means that a full inch can expose a model to several more AROs. 3mm is the minimum required to have line of fire, so if you absolutely need to specify a minimum movement why not use the same minimum?
     
  3. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    2,643
    Uh what happened?
     
    Pierzasty and Balewolf like this.
  4. Tom McTrouble

    Tom McTrouble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    535
    So the basic gist is that at a 40k tourney, Player A slowplays on turn one, and on Player B's turn begins to harass him about time. Presumably because he is trying to play faster, Player B accidentally uses an ability that by the rules ends his movement phase before moving other models. Player A calls him out on this, and Player B goes on to lose out on most of his movement phase and then the match. Further complicating this is that they agreed to play by intent before the match, although I have no idea what that means I don't wanna focus on the specifics of who is right and who is wrong in that scenario, it just prompted me to try and write out how we would handle some scenarios.

    In the reality of LoS you are completely right about this. However, the intention is to break any doubt that you moved from a place that didn't have LoS (as per the previous order's precedent) to a place that does have LoS. Realistically 0.12 inches seems like it is such an insignificant movement that it may as well be "Idle" in this case. I could definitely see reducing this to 0.5 inches to combat the issue you are talking about though.

    That's a valid criticism for sure. Thinking about it the nightmare scenario is where the active player lets the reactive do some inconsequential dodge early in the game and then later doesn't let them retake a critical shot and Player B accosts them.
     
  5. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    When you say "controversial match at LVO" on the Infinity Forums, it makes it sound like this happened at the Infinity events, not some other game that happened to also be at LVO. :P
     
    chromedog, Pierzasty, borings and 3 others like this.
  6. Tom McTrouble

    Tom McTrouble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    535
    Edited OP to call that other game out, good catch.
     
  7. Wolf

    Wolf https://watchwolf.net

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    I have a few things to say about this generally, but mainly that I'm a big fan of being organized with this stuff. I think you'll need to haggle out the details and write it all down, which means considerable effort; my personal experience is that the effort is worthwhile.

    I think it's worthwhile because you can close loopholes, clarify grey areas, and remove scope for 'gotchas'. Doing this provides a greater guarantee of fairness, and that allows people to relax and provide one another the extra courtesies that make for a great game.

    Unfortunately, your effort is also likely to draw hostility from all kinds of different people for all kinds of reasons. Some of them will be people who're actually on your side haven't realized it yet; and others will be people with hostile agendas - you'll have to work it out!
     
    borings likes this.
  8. ChoTimberwolf

    ChoTimberwolf Artichoken Friend

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    396
    How would that work out? Rolls a 20 "Hups meant that as my armor roll so imma try the dodge or should I even bother?" I think the enemy can decide if they can keep that roll or have to reroll that one too...
     
  9. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    949
    Likes Received:
    1,256
    Logically the reactive player would have had to declare a dodge before the template was placed, and did not. Which when I say it like that, it's a missed ARO like any other, so for consistency it might be best to rule it the same way, ie it was missed so either it's a hard no, or the active player is under no obligation to allow it.

    The obvious exception being players who are very new to the game, but everyone has to learn to play with the full rules eventually so, it might be better to get them used to the rules rather than cut enough slack that they don't have to learn...
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  10. ChoTimberwolf

    ChoTimberwolf Artichoken Friend

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    396
    Yeah honestly in casual play with friends you can allow it however you like these are not hard rules, the whole post just sounded so official...
     
    cazboab likes this.
  11. Rubberpiggy

    Rubberpiggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2018
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    72
    Great initiative! We always ”correct” rolling too many dice by re-rolling with the correct number of dice locally, unless they were all failures. Because it’s faster.
     
    Triumph and ChoTimberwolf like this.
  12. n21lv

    n21lv SymbioHate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    706
    Great initiative! I just have one additional idea for this. In M:tG there are several Rules Enforcement Levels (REL): regular, competetive and professional (there are really subtle differences between the last two). Regular is basically friendly play, while competetive and professional are used at tournaments and official events with cash prizes. There are official documents that describe what a judge/TO should do in case when a player makes a mistake during the game: one for Regular REL, and one for Competetive/Professional REL.

    Most torunaments are run at Regular REL, unless they offer considerable prizes or invitations. This is done to allow new players to learn how to play the game competetively, focusing on sportsmanship and having fun over technically precise play. I suggest that a similar REL structure should be supported for Infinity, as new players might find some mistake remediations too harsh and thus be less motivated to continue playing. For example, I think a single missed ARO should be allowed when playing with a newcomer, but should definitely be punished when playing at a competetive level.

    That said, I think remediation levels should also be standardized. I suggest having Warning, Order Loss, Game Loss and Disqualification.

    In order to list all situations (as many are missing from the OP's post), I think it would be good to start from the turn structure. I'll list some to give an example of what I mean by this.

    Initiative and Deployment
    Incorrect deployment (outside of DZ, in contact of Objective etc)
    Incorrect Hidden Deployment (outside of DZ, using HD with ineligible model etc)
    Missed deployment (player/s forgets to deploy a model)
    Missed HVT deployment (player/s forgets to deploy the HVT)
    Missed/Incorrect Classified Objective draw (player/s forget to draw Classified Objectives, draw too many/too few CO cards etc)

    Tactical Phase
    Retreat! check error
    LoL check error
    Order count error

    Impetuous Phase
    Impetuous Order expenditure error (using too much, too many, during Retreat! etc)

    Orders Phase
    Order Pool error (using an order from incorrect Combat Group, expending Irregular Order as Regular etc)
    Order expenditure errors (missed Order, using unallowed Skill combination, Movement error, Attack error etc)
    ARO error (missed ARO, using unallowed Skill combination, claiming unavailable ARO etc)
     
    borings and ChoTimberwolf like this.
  13. Flipswitch

    Flipswitch Sepsitorised by Intent
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,608
    Likes Received:
    2,165
    For too many dice rolled, we tend to reset the FTF roll at this stage for that player, make them re-roll the entire thing correctly.
     
    toadchild likes this.
  14. toadchild

    toadchild EI Aspect

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,560
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Yeah, any time I've accidentally rolled too many dice I scoop them all up (possibly not even looking at the results) and do it again with the correct number.
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  15. n21lv

    n21lv SymbioHate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    706
    I think it's not a problem when you made a roll and noticed that you rolled too much/too few dice. The problem happens when you suddenly realise that a turn ago you rolled an extra die, making one more successful hit that your opponent didn't save, which resulted in killing an enemy troop.
     
  16. Flipswitch

    Flipswitch Sepsitorised by Intent
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,608
    Likes Received:
    2,165
    At that point, player just has to apologise for it and move the game-state forward from this point on. Consider it a friendly warning and accelerate appropriately.
     
    ChoTimberwolf and cazboab like this.
  17. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    949
    Likes Received:
    1,256
    Yeah, correcting a mistake from even an order or two ago causes more problems than it's worth, and if both players missed it then the best way to go forward is that nobody benefits from the kill, IE the owner doesn't get to count them as survivors and the opponent doesn't get to count them as a kill.
     
  18. borings

    borings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    393

    Cannot agree with this more. Coming from magic, the loose structure of tournaments is so mind boggling to me
     
  19. n21lv

    n21lv SymbioHate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    706
    That might be OK if you are playing DA missions. But what if it is a SpecOps mission? I had a game during ITS8 where both me and my opponent forgot about the presence of the Saturation Zone in a Nimbus Zone mission, and my ML Sukeuls did a too good job of preventing enemy troops from reaching the consoles. I recalled that during my opponent's turn, and he basically almost conceded the game and was about to drop from the tournament. I talked him out of this by sacrificing the offending Sukeuls (they earned their points back twice, so I thought it was fair), and we continued to play. What I mean is that sometimes there are situations when backtracking or ignoring the issue is not an option, and I think it's what @Tom McTrouble tries to address.
     
  20. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    761
    Likes Received:
    1,278
    I'm pretty sure the proper answer to any controversy at a 40k event is to say "And that's why you're not allowed to play games like that for money." :face_with_head_bandage: Although as far as I can tell, the reason why this is a 40k incident is just one of population distribution.

    Concerning the proposed guidelines:
    "Player claims a model has LoS to another model after a previously declared order established the contrary.

    Note: The most common example of this is that a model activates and moves, then it is established that a reactive model has no LoS. On the next order, the active model idles or does not move and the reactive player now claims his model has LoS.

    Since the precedent has been established that the models could not see each other previously, LoS cannot be established without one of the models moving at least 1”."
    Replace the last sentence with:
    "Since the precedent has been established that the models could not see each other previously, LoS cannot be established without one of the models moving."

    One really important request, though. If you're going to impose this sort of thing at an event, please state that you're doing so in all of the notifications concerning the event.
     
    Wolf likes this.