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.