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. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    949
    Likes Received:
    1,256
    On the one hand it sucks, but on the other Infinity is set up in such a way that both players had to make the same mistake, in your example, your opponent missed the saturation zone as well.

    The right thing to do might be different to the way the standard response says to resolve the issue, but in those cases you have to fall back to discussing with the other player. The standard resolutions can't be minutely specific either, in the situation you described, it wasn't one mistake, but a whole bunch of the same mistake, in that case you found a solution that worked for both of you. But there was another way to rectify the situation, you already played an active turn without the saturation zone so you could have let your opponent play an active turn without it, then accounted for it on the second game turn or even just ignored it the whole game...
     
  2. T. Rex Pushups

    T. Rex Pushups Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2017
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    113

    How should we handle player infiltrates a hidden deployment or camouflaged trooper that does not have infiltrate?

    Some newer players will definitely get the idea that having one of those means having the other so what is the best way to resolve this?
     
  3. n21lv

    n21lv SymbioHate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    696
    I think all Incorrect Hidden Deployment errors should be remediated by redeploying the offending model.
    - ineligible models should be placed anywhere on the long table edge in the owner's deployment zone (DZ);
    - eligible models that were deployed using HD but outside of DZ allowed by their level of Infiltration Skill should be revealed and placed as markers as close as possible to proper DZ allowed by their level of Infiltration Skill, abiding by all other Deployment rules provided by the scenario, tournament-specific rules etc.
     
  4. Tom McTrouble

    Tom McTrouble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    535
    That's probably a good way to organize it. I like it.
     
  5. Tom McTrouble

    Tom McTrouble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    535
    So the reason that I disagree with this is that in certain cases it looks like you are trying to use the fact that you messed up to get better rolls. In my mind, physics has already spoken regarding your fate.

    So I actually put this one in because I've experienced the opposite. An active player activates and moves, with two potential units having AROs. We check AROs and both establish that only one model has an ARO. The active player then activates the model again and goes "O wait, actually he does see your second model from this position" and Idles before continuing with the rest of the turn. To give context, the reason we said it initially didn't get an ARO in the first place was due to different elevations and seeing over top corners of buildings.

    This one gets a little messy because I definitely see the potential abuse in forcing someone to move a set distance, that's why I can propose 0.5 or 0.25 inches. But 3mm seems like it doesn't really solve the issue.

    Agreed. The ultimate goal is that you just have this up on a store website/wall/and event page so that every tournament is judged the same way and people know what to expect coming in. I think that this initiative (for me) is about 75% about making good ways to handle these situations and 25% ensuring that all our competitive experiences are uniform.
     
  6. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    4,659
    It's fine as long as you're consistent about it. My personal practice when I roll too many dice it to pick them all up and roll the right number.
     
  7. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    949
    Likes Received:
    1,256
    So you established in error that they could not be seen? Then it's just the same thing as if you both forgot about a model. You missed the ARO, so you resolve it however you resolve the missed ARO.

    3mm is enough to potentially trigger ARO from other troops that can't see at all yet, and its enough to be out of cover. Potentially the active player will have to choose between those two options, and They still need to have an actual physical line of fire available. Even an 0.25 inch minimum can potentially disallow the use of tactical movement (regardless of intent) such as pie slicing. If there is a line of fire you shouldn't have to move at all,but if you disagree but it's super close then some movement will be necessary, I personally don't think a minimum is needed, but as I said, 3mm is already specified as a minimum for line of fire, so if you really need to state a minimum why throw a new one in?
     
  8. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Brisk antipodean

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,104
    Likes Received:
    1,791
    Concur. The alternative seems too punative.
     
  9. Tom McTrouble

    Tom McTrouble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    535
    The scenario that I described above is only an issue because on the second order, the players do not agree about LoS, so there's no way to say it's "in error". Having said that, I may be getting tunnel vision about this.

    Yea, agreed consistency is the important part of this.
     
  10. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    949
    Likes Received:
    1,256
    Ah that's a different problem. :( if one player says there is line of fire, then IMO it's up to that player to demonstrate that it exists, either to the opponent or the judge/TO if they are unable to reach an agreement, but whether or not they moved wouldn't change the facts of the situation, there either is line of fire or there isn't...
     
  11. Tom McTrouble

    Tom McTrouble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    535
    Everyone thank you for your input so far. I would like to keep this moving. Going forward and incorporating some thoughts and the structure proposed by @n21lv , here are some updated proposals. Please feel free to propose fills in the gaps we have.

    Initiative and Deployment
    Incorrect deployment (outside of DZ, in contact of Objective etc)
    Open to suggestions

    Incorrect Hidden Deployment (outside of DZ, using HD with ineligible model etc)
    Open to suggestions

    Missed deployment (player/s forgets to deploy a model)
    During the deployment phase, a player may deploy the model left off of the board without adjusting the deployment of previously deployed models. If the offending player is the first to deploy, the player deploying second may alter the deployments of any of his/her models.

    Once the first turn has started, models that have missed deployment are considered killed and count towards the kill points of the opposing player and retreat for the offending player.

    Missed HVT deployment (player/s forgets to deploy the HVT)
    During the deployment phase, a player may deploy the HVT left off of the board without adjusting the deployment of previously deployed models. If the offending player is the first to deploy, the player deploying second may alter the deployments of any of his/her models.

    Once the first turn has started, if the HVT has not deployed the opposing player automatically completes all secret objectives for which the HVT would be a legal target. If no secret objectives target the HVT, the opposing player automatically completes the "secure the HVT" secret objective to replace one of their secret objectives. If the mission uses Designated Target, the HVT is considered killed. If the mission in addition uses data trackers, the HVT is considered killed by the data tracker.

    Missed/Incorrect Classified Objective draw (player/s forget to draw Classified Objectives, draw too many/too few CO cards etc)
    In the event that a player failed to draw a classified objective during deployment, the player may draw their classified objective card without altering any deployment.

    Once the first turn has started, any secret objectives not drawn are considered incomplete and ineligible to become "secure the HVT." In the event that the player drew too many secret objectives, secret objectives will be randomly removed until the player has the appropriate amount.

    Orders Phase

    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 all dice rolled from the pool and re-rolls the correct amount of dice.

    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.

    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 0.1 inches (3mm).

    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.


    WITH REGARD TO ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
    While I have not assigned enforcement actions to any particular offense yet, we should propose a philosophy for when we use what. I propose:

    Warning - Player performed an illegal action that affects the game state in a minor way. Two warnings results in an order loss, and 3 in a game loss.

    Order Loss - Player's offense allowed the use of an illegal order combination or did not allow for proper outcomes of face to face rolls. The player forfeits the order used for the model and the model is treated as though it never activated. Three order losses results in a game loss.

    Game Loss - Player unintentionally misrepresented game states or cheated in a way that significantly affected game outcome. The Offending player loses 10-0, and obtains no kill points while their opponent obtains either 2/3 the kill points in the offending player's list or the actual kill points of the game, whichever is higher.

    Disqualification - Player intentionally cheated or intentionally misrepresented game states to obtain an advantage. The Offending player loses 10-0, and obtains no kill points while their opponent obtains either 2/3 the kill points in the offending player's list or the actual kill points of the game, whichever is higher. The offending player also drops from the tournament.
     
    #31 Tom McTrouble, Feb 12, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018
  12. Tom McTrouble

    Tom McTrouble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    535
    yea, after thinking about this I agree with you. I changed it above.
     
    cazboab likes this.
  13. Wolf

    Wolf https://watchwolf.net

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    I applaud your effort, and suggest that whatever the rulings and penalties you decide, there is great virtue in properly writing and publishing rules and notifying the players. If you do that, you can't go wrong.

    Which isn't to say that the rules won't BE wrong. My experience is the opposite; that rulings or penalties that were discussed and agreed upon and looked really good on paper often turn out to be harsh or impotent when applied in reality.

    So I think you'll get caught out and probably feel really bad, but in those situations, my strong advice is not to waver!

    Remember that as harsh as something might turn out to be, everyone knew what the penalties were before the game/event started and applying them as published is now properly fair. What would be *unfair* - however bad it seems in the situation, is to try to change a penalty on the fly.

    My strict personal rule for events has now become that the rule and penalty will always be enforced as is, and only modified after the event. Because that's fair. I usually say that to the players as well, before the thing starts.

    Because the second great virtue of writing it all down is that on the basis of your experience you can change the ruling or penalty for next time. Which is often just as well! ;-}
     
  14. n21lv

    n21lv SymbioHate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    696
    Regarding rerolls when too many dice we rolled. I could see when punishing the user for making this kind of mistake multiple times can be justified. Nothing prevents you from deliberately rolling too many dice, because you're superstitious, for example. But this results in a slower play and I think should be punishable on major events.

    Considering the above, I'd also like to add stalling (intentionally making all your actions and decisions too slow to steal time or frustrate your opponent) to the list of issues to be discussed. Slow play could also be punishable, but only with a warning unless it is a repeated offence.
     
  15. HarlequinOfDeath

    HarlequinOfDeath Tha Taskmastaaa
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    644
    I have never experienced things that would make it a need to have such rules.

    The only thing that was a problem so far was the time limit. Some people were very slow, so their opponent lost their last turn.

    Most often we use chess clocks in Germany and Switzerland because of that.
     
  16. Tom McTrouble

    Tom McTrouble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    535
    I'm curious has that worked well for you? Our LGS was considering this but we were envisioning a scenario where both players are just hitting their clocks constantly due to the back and forth of short skill, ARO declaration, short skill, conclusion, rolls, etc.
     
  17. Tom McTrouble

    Tom McTrouble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    535
    Yea, I left that out initially because we need to define what slow playing is. I agree though warning at first should be fine.
     
  18. HarlequinOfDeath

    HarlequinOfDeath Tha Taskmastaaa
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    644
    It works very well and nearly without issues.

    You just switch the clock per player turn, not per ARO etc. And you pause if you have a rules question to the judge.
     
    Tom McTrouble likes this.