@@Druark The judge went home and seethed over it, poored salt on his head and started measuring. What judge does that unless its really bothering his ego or to try and go after that player? Especially when 2 previous judges of the events said that it couldnt be engaged.
The judge expects a player to be aware of a ruling but gives himself a pass for not being aware of it? His job is to be aware of it. This sounds like a classic scape goat moment.
Reminds me of a Magic the Gathering tournament where a guy was totally robbed because of the tournament's use of terminology completely broke a guy's deck. Their own ruling basically removed an entire phase from the game that his deck was built around.
@@bgreene103010 Could be thinking of the wrong situation, but the tournament ruled that saying you were "Going to Combat" meant the players were progressing to the "Declare attacking creatures" phase. This skips the "Beginning of combat" phase. One of the players had creatures that needed a cost paid before they could attack. Costs can be paid during "beginning of combat" but no player is allowed to activate abilities or pay costs during "declare attackers", so the guy couldn't attack to win the game. Also, that guy had another card that automatically activated at the "beginning of combat" phase, so by skipping that phase the guy was also given a tournament penalty for missing his card's trigger. Made worse by the fact that this happened in the eighth round, so this guy had been playing his deck in seven previous matches without any issues with these same cards and assumedly the same "go to combat" callout.
@@AutumnSorcerer so what happened was like almost everybody the player said "Combat" to indicate the change of phase however as most of the time there is nothing to do in the "beginning of combat" step it is often skipped so the phrase "Combat" is commonly used as a shortcut to the "declare attackers" step of combat, however that player had optional effects that only triggered in the "beginning of combat" step which he missed because he said the shortcut that he had previously used in that game because you know no triggers until they're on board and the backlash WOTC got over that interaction changed the ruling on shortcuts so that if a trigger would be in a step or phase that was previously shortcut out it can trigger as intended. didn't help that guy but his sacrifice makes the game better for all following players.
@@bgreene103010 There was this obscure phase most people didn't bother with, but his cards had an effect that could only activate in that phase, but the judge ruled that by ending the previous phase you would go straight into the NEXT phase. Jumping from 1 to 3 with no way of getting into 2 even though he needed 2 to do what his cards were designed for.
I said the exact same thing on Reddit right after the event and the news of the ban. What wasn’t discussed here was that after the ruling, the Daemon player rage quit and left which I think also has to do with the knee jerk reaction post event.
@@georgetimson6896 Daemons being one of the few armies that can abuse that interaction too... I hope we get an errata that when you hover it removes all aircraft rules except the requirement to fly to melee.
@@georgetimson6896 out of curiosity, did the daemons player know about the previous rulings on this at other events which share rulings? and did the daemons player bring that up at the table when the ruling was made?
@@georgetimson6896 Maybe it's just me, but the fact that this likely happened because the Daemon player threw a hissy fit makes this even worse? Like judgeman should NOT be a judge if someone throwing a public tantrum is enough for them to retroactively reverse a win & ban someone for life. And shame on the Daemon player, too.
@@Scotty86doo yea but that stuff happens all the time. competitive magic is so dumb lol doing all u can to NOT play the game. and they play so stupidly fast as jf tbey dont get a response in a fraction of a milisecond they get all angry. i quit mtg entirely after that bs.
I have a Storm Raven. No mods, built from the box. The wing thruster is exactly 5.25 inches from the table, no glue on the stand, it slot fit for transport. It raises to 5.5 inches if I press the nose of the craft down. And those "evidence" photos have the tape measure further from the model than mine was at the end of the wing, along with the camera being angled to show the 5" mark as the "correct" height. They were photo manipulation using perspective.
This being a different model made by a different person there is also chance for manipulation through subtle alteration of parts that we can't see. It's not useful proof. What they need is to remeasure and examine the exact model in question. Not some rarely used different models made by a different player.
Why would they use a tape measure anyway? if 5" is the measurement to be used a set measurement stick of 5" length should be used and slid under the model, then its a simple contact or no contact scenario and doesn't allow manipulation of viewing angle or perspective.
The fact that judge has the sheer hubris to say "and you can ask for forgiveness no earlier than the 26 tournament" after making a series of ruling mistakes HIMSELF and then adjudicating in the shadiest way possible... it's just... so cringe inducing
Made at home, from memory, with no footage for reference, using different models. Plus the fact that two possible reasons why it wasn’t the players fault given, and two contradictory rules about how it could possibly be the player cheating, one of which, the pushing down of the model’s nose to raise the wings higher, is something that should have been noticed at the time, but either way, both ‘cheating’ reasons would need the original model to be checked. I would want to know who the judge talk to after the game.
I use to be really good friend with David and he was always a really strait shooter with me when we talked rules this ruling itself shocked the shit out of me. But this is also why I left competitive play in the past.
@@StixFerryMan don't forget a few different contrary rulings to the one reached in this case both inside of his circuit and outside of his circuit in his region than the ruling he retroactively reached to get banned, that existed prior to the retroactive ruling. Not only does the original model need to be checked but the stand in model technically should be independently checked to make sure that it wasn't tampered with to end up within that range where it should actually be outside of it to create falsified proof to justify the decision.
If you look at the picture the judge posted on his blog, the flight stand has this fluted top that isn't present on the current official gw flight stand. So either the judge is basing this off an old flight stand, or a custom flight stand. Look at the third picture on the judges post, where the stand enters the model and it has a nub sticking out forward that is NOT present on the current gw flight stand. Several people have taken pictures of stock ravens that are approximately 5.5" from the table, MY stormraven on a stock base is 5.5" from the table. In addition, if you look at hte actual games workshop site, the model is at a forward cant, which is even more aggressive than the "pushing down the front" picture. It makes you think the judge probably has a chip on his shoulder and is exercising a grudge against that player.
Lifetime ban for what sounds like miscommunications. I would not want to go to an event if the judge is involved. Imagine winning an event and then getting the win revoked and then banned hours after the event ended. Absolutely insane.
It was. TO was a judge at US Open Dallas and the US Open ruled that players could not disembark from stormraven wings so just from the base (see rules commentary Vehicles with Bases) So if the player can't disembark from the wings, they can't be charged. TO did a scummy thing
@@grotwurksmekshop6607 The more I read about this situation the more it strikes me as weird. Contradictory rulings and a retroactive ban after the event has ended but that ban can be appealed after a year if the player is willing to work on their communication? That doesn't sound right for someone that you've just banned for cheating. That's not even talking about the fact that 2/4 of the points regarding the ban involved things outside of the players intent (Faulty measuring tape/Poor GW quality control). Just seems like some things don't add up from they TO.
Now if the player was changing its position angle to prevent charging and extend disembark range then yes that player is a cheater. But in my area and this last year of play, it's been agreed upon to measure to the bottom of the hull from that base using the GW height stand or that keeps it oem height
@@nofuxgivens2797 It doesnt matter. If the TO states that the player cant disembark from the wings, then the wings cant be charged. Any other option is not the players fault
😂 I mean, thousands and thousands of matches get played. It's super funny when people point out outliers and ignore the overwhelming majority of counter examples to 'prove their point' "Those 999 times where it worked out? They don't count! See this example? That's why this is stupid! Haha!" 🙄
@@blakeoarmboy Uh? Play Crusade or some other narrative format? You're conflating 'matched play' with Tournament rules/environment. Maybe 30k is more your style or HH if you're after narrative play. It's a bit odd to complain about a TTRPG where the overwhelming majority of games are 'Matched Play' when you're not interested in that style of gameplay. I mean, it's like joining a DnD group and then getting annoyed that they're all roleplaying and getting into the story when you just want to grind mobs and max/min your character.
Close enough to be possibly chalked up to poor QC on the part of GW but also egregious enough to warrant a lifetime ban? Yikes. This is NOT a good look for the judge nor the TO.
Apparently he had received a Yellow Card for similar problems with his flying models at previous events. Still completely inexcusable that the judge didn't know about a past ruling until he looked it up at home, but condemns the player for not knowing said ruling. Especially since it was one of his own previous rulings.
Right? If you're affiliated with this circuit or part of the TO you're probably pissed at this Judge for making you all look like absolute fools/jerks. That judge might be the one who will be receiving a lifetime ban when this all settles. Unless this player has a serious history of misbehaviour (that I either missed or wasn't shared in this video) this was a Reddit Moderator level overreaction.
@@JRuni0r What I dont get is this: If the intended interaction is "thing hovers at X inches" no matter what the model does, it hovers at "x inches". Like how hard is that?
@@michaeljones7916 Or there is a status for the aircraft that states its altitude. If it is flying low enough, especially after a gun run, it could fall into range of larger units.
@@michaeljones7916 Should be a "only works if you roll all 6s" kind of situation. Not 100% impossible, but allowable if extremely lucky; because rule of cool.
Infantry can't punch one in flight, but can if it's hovering, hence no longer an aircraft for rules purposes. It's a weird edge case where GW sell it as an aircraft so its kit is modelled for its aircraft stance, but it can choose to hover lower, which should make it chargeable but for being sold on a flying base. The rules are clear that in hover mode or should be able to be charged, but GW sell the kit ignoring that. Not the players fault, but a stupid case if you can't charge it as then virtually no downside to using hover.
Fr tho. Makes a ruling outside the game despite accepting the measurement at the time Issues what sounds to be a first offense instant ban and win revoke despite already making a judgment, and did not refer to previous rulings with that judgement. If the judge had done his fucking job and looked up previous rulings for the rule, this wouldn't even be a conversation and they'd have gotten on with his life. This is the judge just deciding how rules are post game and changing his mind.
Both of the judge's actions are completely incorrect, the post game red card for a false reason, and failure to adequately make a rules judgement in a game by his own inability to gather information to make an informed judgement (the entire reason he's there). He should not be a judge. He's clearly not capable.
Both of the judge's actions are completely incorrect, the post game red card for a false reason, and failure to adequately make a rules judgement in a game by his own inability to gather information to make an informed judgement (the entire reason he's there). He should not be a judge. He's clearly not capable.
a judge NOT knowing rules isn't a fault on the games producer its down to the judge themselves for NOT actively maintaining relevant knowledge of the rules, when u play the role of a judge u not only have the power to determine important calls but ur also the de-facto source for ANY and ALL info of the ENTIRE game for the venue at the time, when u make a ruling u damn make sure ur info is up to date
It's such a undefined grey area of multiple rule interactions that its hard to say that the "judge fucked up" but he was certainly salty when he got home and found out that the player had fucking his mother... since that's the only explanation for such an unhinged lifetime ban ruling after the fact over the flimiest of excuses
TO only screwed up by AGREEING to the judges post event call but being the TO he has all the power to overrule a judge meaning that judge would have to bring in a higher power to overturn said overrule
Imo, this isn't the kind of thing that a retroactive red card should be issued. Its fine if the TO at the event says "the proper model allows you to attack from the ground, consider it less than 5" and play it that way." But a retroactive red card for a few millimeters difference on the mounting of the model is hardly "modeling for advantage."
This is exactly what should have been done. If it seems suspect, or they have reasons to be unsure they need to make a call at the table to make an exception "consider it less than 5". I hate to say it but this thing being discussed in public is a weak argument to strip a win and ban someone. I feel the other accusations are more relevant.
I think arguing that "my model is on a stand high enough that nobody can engage it in melee" is absurd and deserves a ban on its own 😑 some rule lawyering is expected at a tournament, but this argument is ridiculous and I wouldn't tolerate it.
@@drakebaker2769 I think he was arguing that you had to get within 1" of the base to be within engagement range (not that you can't get into melee range at all).
I just measured my stormraven: without touching it, letting it sit naturally the way it wants, the base has no material under the flight stand, and the flight stand has not been painted. 5.25" from table to bottom of thruster. If I move the thruster up, like the model kit allows me to do, I can get another 1/8" off the table. A life time ban for this seems extreme or maybe my stormraven has had a lift kit installed since it's been sitting on my shelf the past 2 years lol
This is an absolute shitshow- post game ban based on less than a quarter inch difference that is likely entirely incidental. If i lived in texas I would ban this tournament from my schedule...
Yup. This is the exact kind of crap that keeps people from continuing or even starting to play. Seeing it at the highest levels of play sends a HUGE message to not invest.
From everyone in the TX scene, their events only have success because they got their mits on a golden ticket major and the rest are basically no-shows or people who dont care enough
I live just outside San Antonio in Kendall County. Let me say that an event/organization that freely admits that 3 out of 4 possible explanations for the discrepancy wouldn't be the player's fault, but *still* goes ahead and publicly bans and libels the player after the fact (when he is no longer present to defend himself) is NO ORGANIZATION YOU EVER WANT TO DEAL WITH. Throwing in the deliberately ambiguous and incriminating "past history of events in the local area" and "angle shooting" slanders are really just parting shots meant to poison the well, it seems. What's more, admitting that they don't see this as a precedent setting decision, but rather a one-time action targeting the specific player is not the defense they seem to think it is... seems they are saying, "it's OK, cause we really don't like this guy. You'll be fine, unless we really don't like you either." Finally, what kind of fair play can you expect when the player is expected to know the basic rulings of the "right tournaments" better than the organization's own judges? I know I certainly would not know about rulings made at tables I was not at in tournaments I had not attended... and how the hell would I know whose rulings they consider cannon and whose they reject? Remember, in this case GW's own tournaments and organizers had ruled exactly the opposite way just recently... This is an international hobby and these prats just tried, convicted, and executed/libeled somebody *in absentia* for VERY questionable reasons. What fool would put their public reputation in the hands of these arbitrary idiots?
Living in the Austin area, I've had to deal with these TO's many times and all you ever hear is "This isn't the first time" and "many people have had similar complaints" over the smallest of things like WYSIWYG. Never a shred of evidence of complaints from the actual community, just by the word of these judges. I've had quite enough and have stopped attending their events.
It's even worse when you consider in that region both inside and outside of that same circuit there are previous rulings that actually contradict and are contrary to the findings that were used to ban this particular player in this instance. It just makes it even more targeted. Because it's basically just saying "The rules and rulings don't matter even consistently within our own organization, or the greater organization that we stem from."
@@Quandry1hell, the supposed yellow card at another event against this player ruled on this interactiong in a different way. It feels like the circuit judges messing with the one player in particular
@@Quandry1 especially when GW gives a ruling at a official GW event in the USA that stormravens cant be charged, Is there even a test for becoming a judge like there is in MTG?
What a terrible judge... He should have either 1) Known that a flying stand is almost exactly 5" high and that it doesn't matter how the model is mounted, it is SUPPOSED to be chargeable, or 2) Acknowledge that the "measure from hull" makes no sense and use the base as reference, just like with Tyranid flying monsters. Even admitting that a faulty tape measure or poor quality control could be the cause, giving out a red card makes no sense and can only be described as having personal issues with the player. Also, its a tournament where people play with plastic toys... I love Warhammer, but the results mean nothing in reality. Its very much possible it was an honest mistake. Just roll a d6 and on a 4+ you can charge the Stormraven... problem solved. Also, why the FUCK does a "judge" that doesn't even get paid have the power to ban a player in the first place ? Hire a proper fucking judge, pay them and only then should they be allowed to make calls like that...
From what I'm hearing. This particular general model actually sits slightly higher than 5" even when just pressure fit onto the flight stand. So technically it probably shouldn't be chargeable under any normal circumstances. But also taking photo's of a different model at a different time that would also have to verify it wasn't tampered with to fit within chargable range would also be required and the only real solution would be to actually set up an examination of the exact model in question instead.
This is the first time I heard of Measure from the Hull since I don't play the game myself, and honestly it sounds absolutely insane since it'd basically make building decisions and aesthetics have stupid meta utility in stuff like this.
a 5 degree angle didn't result in a ban, being a known jerk that pulls this kind of stuff all the time did ,the 5 degree angle that won a tournament was just the last straw
100%, after watching this I think he was punished for pushing down on the nose. The ref must believe he specifically knew this would give him advantage. Why did the ref think this is much more muddled but I gathered there is a lot of context that we do not know. BL: the ref is convinced he brazenly cheated.
When the reasoning includes "a history of this sort of behavior" I dont think you get to put on your monocle and top hat and go on about the injustice of such a little thing causing a ban XD
The whole modeling for advantage stuff is so stupid. LoS and the like should be more abstract so people can just use their stuff without this kinda idiocy. This game isn’t a fine tuned machine and treating it so competitive is beyond moronic. It’s like aggressive toy soldier playing. It just sounds stupid and it’s hard to imagine adults being this petty, but here we have it.
Correct. Other competition miniatures games (flames of war comes to mind) get their stuff sorted out with regard to LOS and don’t have these kinds of problems.
I just had this argument online about a Leman Russ with internal sponsons and a tank with the old style ones on from 20+ years ago mean they could fit between a smaller gap in the terrain. Like if you worried about that then you must be a shitty player.
@@Scotty86doo Hell BattleTech's official rules, even when using the advanced ones including combined arms, don't even require the models in the first place.
This is next level petty and has home cooking written all over it. If the call was made in the moment then the call stands. The TO went home, had to do a science project and then banned a guy over millimeters of measurement, AFTER an official ruling was made. Alamo GT must not like their homies losing events. I hope that set of TO's stays in Texas and never runs any events Im at.
went home and did a science project that we can't be sure didn't involve tampering with this other model to make it work with this new retroactive model to claim as proof.
So knowing that, would you claim that an opponent can't charge you due to the height of a wing you know can change throughout a game? Would you feel justified in measuring for shooting from that wing if it gave you an advantage while denying your opponent the same advantage?
@@The_CGA the video maker even said in the interview that didn't happen, and thats a VERY bad call on the judge if hes letting people touch models during a ruling.
@@0redbishop0 If it was ruled that they couldn't disembark from that height then they can't be charged at that height either. That's where the issue came from. It was a clarification issue, not just "I want my cake and eat it"
@@The_CGA I can't speak for a Stormraven, because I don't have one, but when measuring my Vulture Gunships I have to push the nose down because otherwise it won't sit flat on it's base. (It's a very rear-heavy model)
It's not a complicated interaction in the end. The rules commentary covers Vehicles with Bases and allows models to disembark 5" vertical and 3" horizontal. TO told him he can't disembark from the wings. So by the same notion, the wings can't be charged. TO entertained the idea of being able to charge the wings during a game and decided to give the player a red card. Regardless of where the player pushed on the model, the TO giving the opponent the allowance to charge, but the player can't disembark? That's scummy
This is the exact kind of crap that keeps people from continuing or even starting to play. Seeing it at the highest levels of play sends a HUGE message to not invest.
There are a lot of factors in all this, most I thought of initially were covered by the host or I saw in the comments. But one thing that was screaming in my head almost from the beginning was, the judge retroactively decreed the actions ban able, hours later, at home, using a a different models then the ones played. He listed two reasons how it could be the players fault, but also two how it could be not the players fault, one of which, modelling for advantage, would need the player’s model to be measured again, independently, the other, touching the model, should have been dealt with at the time. It would be one thing to go home, review the footage, and realise that something was done that was classed as cheating. It is a totally different thing to go home and ‘remember’ what happened (human memory is not a trustworthy thing, especially for very small details you didn’t note at the time) and recreate it using totally different parameters. It really sounds like the judge doesn’t know what, if any, problem actually happened, but is punishing the player without evidence. If they thought about it at a later date, and was worried about something unsportsmanlike happening, then they should use that as a learning opportunity and strive to not make that mistake again. Or, someone got in contact with the judge and gave them a reason to make a retroactive calling.
So the judge got it wrong and then after the tournament changed the results and banned the player for life. I’d sue the TO if they lost prize money and possibly banned them from the whole circuit.
Might throw a libel claim in there too. Damaging a players reputation by claiming he's cheating by following the rules he was told at the table isn't a small thing.
I'll never forget the guy that modeled some awesome assault marines coming down for a landing, the flying base was hidden by awesomely sculpted plume of smoke from the jet packs firing so they stood up higher on the table. Person the guy was playing insisted they didn't get any cover saves because they were higher than the cover and he had line of sight on them. Guy was punished for cool modeling.
Yup. This is the game that GW keeps making and players keep playing and buying. It’s perfectly possible to make an edition of 40k that doesn’t curb stomp the assault marine chad you’re remembering. They just don’t.
@The_CGA yep, that's because competitive players are easily fleeced. They'll go out and dump massive amounts of money on a whole new flavor of the month army, slap it together and throw it on the table at the next event so they can win. Then when it gets nerfed and there's a new flavor of the month army they'll throw it in a closet or sell it for next to nothing and buy the next one. These people are the reason GW does this.
Wait wait wait, they're not using standard rules for the units? They're like, quite literally going off the physical properties of the model? What is this clownshow nonsense? And yes I know base measurements are going off the physical properties of the model, I think it's clear what I mean here.
@@EnsignEpic Giving me flashbacks to 4th editions LOS arguments. "I can see the elbow of that one Cadian guard, therefore I can fire at the full unit!" vs "Ah, my crippled Rhino is turned sideways and your Eldar can't see Land Raider behind it!" magic cylinder.
I disagree with you tbh, he added that to the model, he has to play it like that. why should the player be punished for correctly expecting to be able to move into line of sight and be able to shoot the model. That could lead to unfair situations where the player he’s playing against now suddenly cannot shoot. However if any part of the model is behind cover even the base, it gets cover.
As someone who LOVES the Corvus Blackstar this really discourages me from ever using it, when its already pretty bad... Imagine using a model you love and getting DQ'd over some technicality. Getting DQ'd from a local community can be really bad for someone, imagine having all your friends get in the care for a 2 hour drive to a big tournament and you can't go because you wanted use your favorite model 2 years ago and a random judge made a bad ruling.
This really isn't anything new, players have had to adjust models over the course of the many editions 40k has gone through. I once had a friend convert an entire Tyranids army in 3rd ed to be crabs and crustaceans, he called it Hive Fleet Crustacia, come 5th ed, he was called out for "modeling for advantage," because his Carnifex's and Hive Tyrants were physically shorter than the stock built ones. Who remembers the kneeling Wraithknights or Wraithlords? How about an entire unit of prone scout marine snipers?
@@jjtgomez Yea, but if the ruling is this vague and goes back and forth between tournaments to a point not even judges can be consistent or understand the rules why is it resulting in a lifetime ban? Even if he was modeling for advantage make the rules clear so that this situation can't happen, because if it can trap a top player what about newer and less experienced players and judges? Also as someone more into the modeling aspect, it sets a bad precedent of discouraging kitbashing and modeling. Maybe the answer is just that aircraft have to go entirely.
@@PallyChan I think if anything, it highlights the need for better communication between event organizers with regards to cleaning up bad rules interactions. In regards to models on flight stands, this could easily be solved by GW to standardize the height by saying that all models on flight stands are to be considered no more than 5" in height regardless of how they are physically modeled. This would allow for any kitbashing, since height would be standardized.
@@jjtgomez Yes, something like this would be perfect! Or just model from the base so that the flight stand height doesnt matter (though I guess that could still be an advantage for hiding behind cover)
So a Judge suspects a measurement/ruling error after the fact...measures a model out of his own collection and on a margin of what looks to be +/- 1/8" determines deliberate malicious intent sufficient enough to retroactively DQ an event winner and implement a lifetime ban? Unless the player in question is guilty of a long history of the 40k equivalent of kicking puppies sounds like both the Judge/TO and the event all together is to be avoided.
@scottcairns2933 I don't care if he's "Jank" the rule should be clearly defined in the rulebook, and the judge should have previous precedent from previous rulings. I'm guessing the reasons for him being infamous is the same reasoms that made the judge salty. The Hover rule should still prevent a vertical charge, if I base a model or change its pose slightly when I glue it there should never be a reason 1/16th or 1/8th of a inch of glue should make that difference.
@@Scotty86doo the rule is somewhat clear but requires the wing be 5” or less off the ground to disembark from the wing and if it’s more than 5” off the ground it’s unchargeable. I wasn’t at the previous GT he ran the jank Raven but was told he had it tilted for advantage and that he knows exactly what he’s doing. Not a rogue judge dropping the hammer on an unsuspecting carebear.
Accusing the player (Who I do not personally know) of modeling for advantage is horseshit. The model could have been bought second hand or commissioned. Did the TO know for a fact the player assembled it? I'll admit the pushing down on the nose was a bit sus but if the TO based his decision on "modeling' for advantage he needs to find a new hobby. I cannot even fathom why he was so motivated to go home and conduct his experiment. I saw RUclips channel where too guys were mocking him silly for doing such a thing. The scenario that happened where a charging unit was ONLY under a wing tip may occur 1 out 50 times. Nobody is going to say, "I think I will raise this wing tip up just past 5 inches in case my opponent is only able to get under it and no other part of my model." That's ridicules.
It's even worse. If you look at his pictures, he's taking the pictures from 2 different angles which would make the wing tip appear higher than it was anyway. He hasn't even proven that the model adjusts because his evidence is faulty.
So, I agree with you that the idea of reversing his decision after the fact, issuing a red card and a lifetime ban was BS. That said, this situation where the charging unit only made it under the wingtip would likely happen a lot more often in cases of premeasuring due to the horizontal distance of deep strike having to be measured from the wing, but the wing not being a valid target for the charge. This means that the player using the flyer could position it in such a way where the only parts of the model that someone could deep strike at an angle to would be the wings, yet those wings aren't valid targets for a charge, changing what should have been a 9" charge to an 11 or 12 inch charge from deep strike. Based on my understanding of the story, the player was regularly using this mechanic and positioning to ensure deep strikers could virtually never charge his aircraft. In general, I think that rule interaction is a bit scummy, personally, but it IS the rules interaction, so I don't think it's the player's fault for utilizing the rules as they currently stand. Who's to say the rule wasn't used against him multiple times before he started using it? In such an environment, you adapt or you lose. The player also apparently even emailed the TOs and asked if they were ruling that the "back" of the model was greater than 5" or not, and was told that it was. So, perhaps the player should have clarified that he meant the "wings" which were positioned near the back of the model, but this was clearly an intended communication to clear this up before the tournament. I think issuing a ban after the fact was very scummy indeed. He should reverse the ban and issue an apology to the player.
while it would solve the 'model for advantage' issue ... it doesn't fix edge cases that depend on the distance being just over or under a fixed number.
@@NotTheStinkyCheese It completely removes the ones based on "how far from this flying model is my model which is directly under it", which is what is being discussed here. What you are calling "edge cases" outside of that is what is called "range" and is an active mechanic, not some obscure thing.
@@NotTheStinkyCheese, Except the fixed number is 5 inches. If you need to calculate the distance to something in 3d space... you already have the first distance (5 inches), then you can measure the distance on the ground (2nd distance), then do a bit of A squared equals the square root of A squared + C squared... simple math most students learn very early in their education... to find the "true" distance.
So the judge screwed up the measurement and they banned the player for it? Sounds like a complete shitshow of a GT and the GT banned the player to cover their own ass for not knowing the rules.
This seems stupid. Good to know that the Alamo GT judges are insane and that you shouldn't play there or get a lifetime ban for having assembled your model at a slightly imperfect angle on GW's notoriously sucky stands. Even the images are weird, the measurements shown look the exact same. Edit: just got to the end where the judge says that retroactive red card bans are something that they have never done before and will never do again... Additionally "Well I welcome an appeal of the ban, except its not appealable at all for a whole year" is obvious horsecrap. NOBODY issues an unprecedented method of permabanning, from a regional event, with a direct accusation of deliberate cheating and deception, then follows it up with "well, they could have done their communication with us better and im sure if their communication improves it will be overturned after the next event :)". That isnt just dumb, that's fishy as hell.
It sounds like the ban was for actually messing with the model while the judge is measuring, which is fair, but I really don't understand how that was even possible in the first place. Surely, the judge should have clocked that while it was happening.
@@dozencatfish1667 That too, but If he was issued a lifetime ban for allegedy tampering with a model to get a favorable TO ruling, why would they "welcome him back if his communication improves?"
@dozencatfish1667 it shouldn't matter because the judge was in the wrong. Check "Vehicles with Bases" in the app. It states units can disembark 5" vertical amd 3" horizontal. Judge stated player could not disembark from the wings. How can the judge then entertain the thought of the wings being charged?
when you measure a different model at home, that you put together yourself and we cannot confirm or disprove that you did not infact manipulate the model to something non-standard to make it fit into your ruling. The exact model needs examined and measured again for comparison, not some different one constructed by somebody else.
@@Quandry1well actually the judge said if the player's model was >5'' up it's due to modelling for advantage and if it's less, the he presumes the player must have used his finger to tilt the model and maje it >5''. Basically the player is 100% guilty for either of the contradictory reasons because the judge is upset and embarrassed. Also the ruling ostensibly does not "set precedent" because it's a bad ruling the judge does not stand by, but also if the player sucks up for a while year then MAYBE the judge will reconsider. Petit tyrant.
@@ScotRotum still changes nothing of what I said about the different model being used as proof. And that doesn't even cover all the potential problems with it.
Interesting point, the "hull" definition is: For models that do not have a base, (...). This would mean that hull measurement rules should never have come into the picture, because the Storm Raven does, in fact, have a base.
Not only that, but it's an Aircraft model, and according to GW's rules, you can only charge an Aircraft model if your unit has the FLY keyword. The Hull rule shouldn't have even been brought up in this sense as well.
@BronCral You would be correct except that, when using hover mode, the Storm Raven loses the aircraft keyword and all associated rules for being an aircraft.
"when measuring to and from a vehicle with a base (excluding aircraft and walkers) Always measure from the closest part of the model for all rules purpose (i.e measure from the hull or base, whichever is closest)" From the section on vehicles with bases, yes the hull measurements come into play when the Storm Raven is in hover mode.
@@craftyfirestorm "Hull" only applies to models without a base though. Even in Hover mode, the Stormraven has a true base. A lot of aircraft have a clear base, but this model has a base like every ground model. So you would measure from the base, not the Hull.
@@BronCral "Hull" explicitly does not only apply to models without a base, the section I just directly quoted talking about hull is from the section on vehicles with bases. It outright states you measure from whichever part of the model, HULL or base, that is closest to the measuring point. Don't believe me, check the version 1.2 rules commentary, it's on page 16.
This feels very ham-handed and there are no exact way to mount your flyer, so I think this could easily be a mistake. A lifetime ban feels pretty harsh.
Its also a model that has been around since early 5th edition and hasn't changed. Those stems get gummed up or weakened over repeated use. Its always to be assumed to be 5" or whatever from the table top, even if it Physically isn't. As long as your base is directly under the wing, your in engagement range. Remember using one with my Grey Knights when they got their new Dex back then and loading it up with a dreadnought, Kaldor Drago and a Paladin squad and zooming it into the middle of the enemy force.
@@SirLANsalot If I'm understanding what happened right, this person had a different win pulled, and was punished, because a judge retroactively said the same model was more than 5" from the tabletop and so he couldn't use one of the model's abilities. So, if the model is to be treated as 5", then the Judges should give him back a different victory and strike the Yellow card they gave him. However, if they're ignoring that ruling then this one is BS. This reads like a personal vendetta.
@@arthurmoore9488 absolutely that judge should be banned from the scene permeantly. What I was saying is that model has been known, for many years, to have a pretty shitty base. Which is why people understand that if your base is directly under any part of the model, your in "melee" range....which is still weird for an aircraft LOL.
@@SirLANsalot Oh I agree that would be the easy way to handle it. that would mean going against not just this judge, but the other judge as well. My point was he was retroactively denied a win, and possibly prize money, in one tournament, and now has been retroactively denied a win, and possibly more prize money in this one. The first win was pulled because the judge said the model was over 5" so it couldn't use it's ability. This win was pulled because the judge said the model should have been treated as 5" or under to allow the opponents ability (melee) to happen. Those rulings directly contradict each other. I may be wrong, but I think both of those events took place in roughly the same area.
I don’t have a storm raven, but I have 3 Valkyrie, a Vulture, and two Voss Lightnings. All of them on GW stands. The stands do not fit so perfectly that I can’t move them a few degrees in any direction. With the Vulture, which has the sloppy Forge World casting, this can create more than an inch of difference. All of them also have some variation in stand height, which is greater than the variation in the cited example. Looking at the extra stands for other models that I haven’t built yet, some of them have two small ~1/4” tabs on the bottom (probably part of the casting) that I always had removed and sanded flat, and some do not; should those be counted in the “official” height? Heck, even if I just swap the same flier between different flight stands, each stand gives a different measurement (within about 1/3”). I remember having a slight problem with one of my Valkyrie when building where it looked completely correct, but the landing gear was off enough that it wouldn’t sit flat and I remedied it by gluing a piece of sand paper to a plate of glass and running the constructed model’s landing gear over it until they were all flush. Maybe 1/16-1/8 of an inch removed from the center one and less on the rest. Would fixing this be considered modeling to advantage? What if I modeled it with landing gear retracted?
This is why I stay far away from competitive play. It's cancerous and stifles modeling creativity all because GW refuses to use more sensible visibility and engagement rules.
I was just thinking that. I love to model my expensive armies in cool poses and look more alive. I would hate to get disqualified for a game I put hundreds of hours to build. If they are going to be that strict don’t let players build models. The game would die and that’s exactly why it’s stupid to be so strict.
10th de-simplified the game in many ways worse than where it tried to clean mechanics up like, cover. Take the arguing out of the game and there will be players!
I wonder how they did things back in 2nd edition. Just from reading the rule books I immediately identified multiple areas where the rules contradicted each other.
@@DGneoseeker1 You used to have a third person act as a moderator of sorts for games. You either talk it out or roll off to determine who is right. Fun is more important than balance.
I hope that the judge steps down over this to be honest. I mean, I thought this was a bad ruling, but the moment I heard that an event run by GW's events team had rule the opposite way on top of everything else, nah that's just wilful ignorance on the judges part. Ignoring the more official ruling in favor of your own on top of clearly targeting this player over something that you admit was just as likely GW's quality control than cheating is ridiculous.
@@terraneaux well that’s fundamentally wrong. The core of the game and it’s origins is DnD in space! 40K was a narrative RPG with a GM. Understanding the origins of the game makes it clear the current game design still has the same core. 15 years of 40K. The most fun I’ve seen anyone have in 15 years is throwing competitive out the window.
@@erupendragon7376 Just because there was a GM doesn't mean there isn't a winner and a loser. Scenarios had victory conditions. Are you talking about "tournament" 40k? I've played miniature games (not just 40k) since the 90's, and the most fun I've had is with other competitive players, whether at tournaments or not, who challenge each other mentally. And then you get the scrubs who rant about how terrible "competitive" play is but constantly angle shoot and cheat, then claim ignorance of the rules. What it comes down to is that most competitive players care about playing a sportsmanlike game, the anti-competitive crowd will throw a tantrum to make sure nobody has fun if you don't let them win.
@@erupendragon7376 No, that's literally the definition of a competitive game. You should use more precise language, unless your goal is just to hide your own scrubbiness and lack of sportsmanship.
If a player is going to be red carded and life time banned for a silly possible assembly mistake, or it shifting around over the course of a tournament, there should be a standardized reference packet for all these dimensions. It's absurd how hard it was to find base sizes before Wahapedia, yet tournaments enforce base sizes
Because Texas is full of assholes, that's why they all moved there in the first place. No one else wanted the assholes to live near them so they had to fuck off into the desert to be assholes together.
Warhammer tornaments are such a bad idea for exactly this reason. If you can build the kit out of the box- not even a conversion- and accidentially create an advantage so drastic that it changes the outcome of an event, I'm sorry, but this game is not suited to that kind of competative play. When its at its best its around game as a medium for storytelling and models as a medium for artistic expression. The tornament scene is a brick weighing down warhammer.
They really need to drop the dumbass LOS and measurement rules, if I shift my magnetized dragoon’s arm I shouldn’t be able to completely change the way an engagement plays out
The rules set allows ground troops to *melee* an *in-flight aircraft* ??!?!?! Based on *vertical charge distances*????!?!? And this the sort of reason I don't play 40k these days...
That seems like an extreme punishment for a problem that could very well have been a production issue, and applying that penalty after it's all over with is just ridiculous. I'm guessing he likely said something on social media they didn't like and this was retaliation.
Ultimately, the TO's f'ed up. Screwed over a player retroactively who was playing it by their rules correctly. TLDR below this sentence. So the issue is that the Player was playing it (and was told by the TO) that he could not disembark from the wings. Disembarking has a 5" vertical, 3" horizontal requirement. So if you cant disembark, you can't be charged right? Well this TO changed their mind after the fact and Red Carded the player (based on a Clutch City TO giving him a Yellow card because the player got the disembark clarified and the TO, a different one than the Alamo GT, changed their mind on distances after the fact.) Edit: For those looking at the rules, check the Rules Commentary or the app for "Vehicles with Bases"
The GW rules commentary on this specifically says that you use *any* part of the model to measure from while disembarking, I'd have fucking flipped on them if they tried to ban me for playing by the clearly written rules 😂
Disembarking rules are different between model types. There is a section in the rules commentary called "Disembarking Large Models." The rule states that the unit must be set up wholly within 3" of that model, and if this is not possible, it sets up within 1" of the base. Nothing about 5" vertical or 3" horizontal, just purely wholly within 3" or if that's not possible, within 1" of base. Are you saying that it is possible to disembark a Redemptor from the wingtip and still count as wholly within 3" in all directions of the Storm Raven? Or is the counter argument that the Redemptor is not a large model? (/s) In this case, the TO was right that Redemptors couldn't disembark from the wing tips as they physically cannot achieve the requirement of being wholly within 3" from the wingtip, (even more so when you take into account that the player's Storm Raven's we physically taller than 5" off the table) as such are forced to measure to be within 1" of the base.
@jacket2848 it's under Vehicles with Bases. The TO's are in their right to say that something hovering in the rough 5" area counts as above. If it was blatantly under 5" I 100% agree with you
@@grotwurksmekshop6607 So you're just going to ignore the part of the rules commentary of "Disembarking Large Models"? Tell me, what else of the rules do you ignore to fit your narrative?
The player should have been aware? How about the judge should have been aware? Thats their 1 job. Also this is a modeling game, tilting a flyer could be for coolness factor or variety in poses... really dumb ruling.
The player should have been aware of the ruling because they received a previous yellow card at an event in the same circuit from a different judge over the same question, about the same model. The issue is not inherently the discrepancy in the measurement, it's the pattern of apparent dishonesty. It sounds like they intentionally played dumb to attempt to solicit the ruling they wanted (that it wasn't chargable), got that ruling, and that the judge found out he'd been deceived after the fact.
@peterstewart7332 the principles of human factors mandate that the entity with the most man hours of knowledge should be the responsible party. You have a collective of judges which combined bear a greater burden of knowlege than any one player. The judge bears the "knew or should have known" responsibility, let alone the T.O. as a whole. Maybe this guy was trying to pull a fast one afterall, but really this kind of retroactive try hard BS from the ruling party is not acceptible. The organizer and by proxy the judges should bear the ultimate blame here.
@@nicoleandscottnelson3933 In principle I agree, the person with the greatest exposure / experience should be the one responsible for making the right call. And I suspect, had the judge simply made the wrong call, they wouldn't have vacated the win / banned him. Where this gets fuzzy is when the other party (in this case, the player) has specific knowledge of the details and knowingly withholds them with the clear intention of hoping the judge got the (relatively nuanced) call wrong. And lets be clear, this was not some father of 3 that plays an event or two a year. This was a high level, well known, event grinder. What this guy got in trouble for wasn't "Oh, we made a rules mistake" it was "You knew what the ruling was supposed to be and convinced the judge that you didn't know." The dishonesty and misreprentation is why he got slammed specifically for angle shooting by the judges. And rightfully so, because there's no place for that.
If I was the TO, I would just rule that hover doesn't change how you measure to it. That is just such a ridiculous rule interaction to take as is. I never would have even thought of that since it's just the same model and rules for measuring are written to make the models playable. Aircraft models are obviously playable measuring to the base as opposed to large hover tanks that have tiny bases hidden under them.
I don't think hover does this. The rules in 10th just say if a model has a base you measure distances from the base. There is no reference to aircraft or vehicle keywords. There are also no exceptions in the deep strike, charge or hover rules. It looks like both the player and the judge are operating with older edition rules.
Absolutely fracking absurd. That ruling is so asinine and petty, and the punishment so ridiculously severe, that the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that the judge had a personal vendetta against this specific player. Shameful.
Completely overblown by the TO IMO. A complete overreach and abuse of power. It feels personal considering the personal histories involved. Both the TO and player in question are both competitive players in the Texas 40K tournaments. The TOs team itself is a high performing team. The player in question beat a team member of the TO in Round 5 of this event. So, impartiality IMO, by the TO is not possible and the TO should not have addressed this in the manner he did. If you make a mistake in your judgement, own up to it, don’t punish a player who was playing by your ruling. A life time ban is 100% uncalled for in this situation.
its also the fact that the rules interaction should of been the first thing considered. Player could not disembark from the wings so the wings could not be charged or be used to hold objectives
I wasn't gonna say it, but it does appear that the new winner of the tournament is a friend of the TO. Even if the ruling was not made for nepotistic reasons it's enough to make you question things.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I was at the Alamo GT the year before and the head judge was absolutely manipulating things in favor of his competitive team.
@@grotwurksmekshop6607 He didn't at all. Nobody that directly benefitted was on his team. You don't seem to really be aware of what happened here and are regurgitating speculation from other folks that's just not correct.
A dude that's not even getting paid being able to screw over a guy's ability to play in locals and put his reputation into question AFTER a ruling the dude made might have been wrong is totally fucked
Man these judges really act like umpires, soccer referees, race finish reviewers, nascar post race inspectors and the only experience they have is they also play the game yet every other semi-competitive game/sport has trained judges but we cant expect that kind of quality for the plastic army men.
So I've broken all my SM Inceptor and Custodes bikes flightstands serveral times and fixed them up and there is no way they are the exact original size and if I lived in Texas I could get a lifetime ban for bringing them.... nice..
Bad call, unless they know something we don't (like he admitted it to someone). Otherwise, bad judge, throw him out barred from judging any future events.
Every time I hear about this kind of clownshoes goings on in the world of 40k comp, the more convinced I become that tabletop games in general, especially ones like 40k are completely antithetical to being played competitively. It's like trying to play Diplomacy or Risk competitively, but with even more room for edge case stuff like this happening.
I wonder how these rulings would intersect with the new flying base. GW is moving to a different model of flying bases where instead of being an X cross-section, it's a smooth curved stand like a larger version of the new flying stands they shipped with the Inceptors in 8th edition, with a ball joint on top, coupled with a small X cross section mounting point that fits into flyers' X mounting holes; the the mounting point has a concavity at the bottom that connects to the ball joint. This allows for greater pose variety on your flyers, since you can use the ball joint to change the apparent angle of attack on your flyer. And this is being sold with some 40k flyers that previously used the old flying stands -- for example, the Necron croissant flyer that came with their last big battleforce came with the new flying stand. I believe these new bases are also slightly taller than the old X cross section flying stands. Is it modeling for advantage to build your flyer with the base it came with, if it came with the new stand? Is it modeling for advantage if you get one of the new flying stands from eBay to use on a flyer you bought that came with the old flying stand? Is it normally modeling for advantage if you use the new stand, but not if you make sure to mount the ball joint perfectly level? Should players who want to use the new stands have to present video unboxings of their flyers to prove that the flyer came with the new stand and they didn't buy it aftermarket?
Tzeentch screamers come with the most abhorrent ball joint bases. I stopped using them, they've wound up goodness fricking knows where. The models are practically flat, but I'd basically say to people "Yup, they're floating high enough you can shoot them over scatter/etc." I dread to think of heavier models on that kind of stand...
I love defilers, absolutely love them. But god-damn are they in desperate need of a base. When every single one can take up a different space with no real 'default' posing, people putting it together in a particular way could be percieved as modelling for advantage, when it's total area appears to be less than someone elses defiler.
Event drop seems to be an extreme response to this case. A Ban in general is far over-reacting. A life-time ban, leadership should reconsidering this judges position with the team. In addition these flyer rules are ridiculous. For sure leaves people reconsidering going to the Alamo GT.
Easy fix to this is to just say, “any model with the Aircraft keyword is always treated as an Aircraft regardless if it is in hover mode or not” for the purposes of measuring a charge
Do you mean that it couldn't be charged by ground troops in hover mode? Being vulnerable to charges has been the trade off for being in hover since the aircraft's inception in 6th edition.
@@Kindarya Or just use real height. Let flying units fly, force them to spend movement if they want to get into melee or let non-flying disembark (you know, as the literal english definition of the words in the rules means). Just apply english and add that non-fly units have to end any move in contact with battleground normally/only on riser stands if climbing ruins and other terrain features.
19:50 While it would be convenient to just measure to models bases, models like DE Raiders and Necron Doomsday Arks exist, with bases that are tiny in comparison to the model and create a whole bunch of problems. Like the doomsday ark is really hard to get into melee range with because the model physically blocks other models from getting close to its base.
I don't get why this is an issue but gluing your inceptors to their base is legal. That's modeling for advantage also. A lot of GW flight stands are on ball joints so you can creatively position your models. Could I adjust the angle it sits on its base during my turn? When is the cutoff point? If GW doesn't put out official specs for how tall flying models are considered in game then this is a baseless claim. Most people with Eldar tanks either use a screw stand or put it on the ground which changes LOS. We should probably ban everyone who brought a nightspinner in 10th, yeah? After reading others comments, this just created another barrier for entry on tournaments. People who don't know if they've built their model wrong and don't want to get publicly shamed on the internet.
Any rulings from previous events bring applied should be written out clearly in the event pack or it shouldn’t apply. This would have prevented the whole situation. The blame falls on the event organiser.
Anyone know who the judge is so i can avoid any tournament they are officiating? I don't have any models that would be in danger, but this judge is crazy and should be boycotted.
This is a rules issue - why don't flying models just have a fixed vertical value to add to measurements? How the model is built shouldn't impact game mechanics in this way in the first place. If you can get banned for building a model slightly wrong the rules are broken
40k was never meant to be played as a competitive tournament game. It should always of been kept a narrative based game in which we get to re-enact our imagined battles on the tabletop.
@@paniago82doesn't mean it's a good game for competitive play. Airsoft for example usually has a winning and losing side but the game is entirely built on the honor system for calling your hits. The more competitive in nature an event becomes, the more likely people are to cheat or violate the spirit of the game because they want the reward for winning. When people do that, it takes the mutual fun out of the game because it turns into players trying to ref every interaction and the concern about the other's enjoyment is lost. 40k is fairly similar to this in how the game works best when people play the game to have a fun battle, not to stomp their opponent into the ground because they have the better rule sets for their pieces of plastic.
The absolute worst part of 40k is that the shape/size of the models matters. Every unit should have a standard size, regardless of modelling. Its absolutely ridiculous that a marine with a raised sword is different than a marine with their sword pointing forward.
So in the (older) assembly manual are 4 ways shown how to mount the flyer on this stand. All change the height and such. Then there are flyers who have a ball mount, meaning there is a sphere/ball at the upper end of the stand, allowing you to lot's of freedom how to glue it on. And GW highly encourages players to go even further and find some cool ways to model it. Keep in mind too, that most of the flyers came out during way older editions, the Storm raven for example at the end of 5th. The rules back then were quite different. All this means, that GW doesn't want you to rule so stupidly and just have fun! I hope you fact on GW tourneys they always try to find a middle ground or let the players roll a dice each other.
A judge made a wrong call instead of taking responsibility for the call he is blaming others for it. Does not matter he is getting pay or not he should known all the rules and that his responsibility so he should known this before he made the call. We can say he is not getting pay therefore he made the wrong call and that ok but still that his responsibility. Banning someone else for his mistake is just wrong if anything Alamo GT head judge should get a lifetime ban for being a judge anywhere.
Chevron Deference was repealed by the SCotUS; the judge's retroactive ruling is illegal and the "offending item" was legitimate and righteous until the end of the meet. The device is intended to interact in a specific way and the 10% engineering margin applies. Failing to address "class" of the items interacting is a fault of the judge and *the judge* should be banned from the event in the future. This is equivalent to claiming that because there was a fingerprint on a card played in Magic that the play was illegal. Some plastics shrink, did anybody verify the specifications of the models affected? No. No, because some egotistical idiot has an agenda.
that....that seriously sounds like theres some sort of behind the scene beef between the player and that judge/organizer. GW has never officially stated how things are supposed to be mounted, the post is so subtly different one way or another that its very difficult to tell which way is "correct" - hell, my TessVault sits at a weird angle when i put it on wrong and i usually need to take 2-3 attempts to get it on correct so its flat and not weirdly dipped, my other models with that cross post i dont even notice if i put it on backwards. Not to mention what about alternative posts? ive seen several tournament lists where things on those flight stands were not using the normal flight stand and as a result were either much higher, at a dynamic angle, or lower than normal, and this has never been a thing before. Banning someone for this is total BS. If i was in an area with this judge i would actively avoid any future tournaments that judge is involved in.
THIS is why I won't do tournaments anymore, I do not have the fucks to give about rules like this, but my opponent might and I just want to roll dice and play with my models.
This is the exact kind of crap that keeps people from continuing or even starting to play. Seeing it at the highest levels of play sends a HUGE message to not invest.
exactly theres no reason 2 models all but touching shouldn't be in melee distance if the one is not an aircraft, which hover isn't. theres no way this is how the game is intended to be played and just unfun rules lawyering nonsense.
I think it’s down to Games Workshop continuing to publish a game that can be cheesed (if guilty) or litigated (if bad judge). They’ve had literally 10 editions to clamp down and make a game that’s robust to competition play.
I don't play tourneys but I have land speeders on slightly taller stands so the squad is at different heights cos that looks cool and dynamic. I'd say measure to plastic base for everything, it's only chunky rectangles that don't have base. But yes the GK baby carrier could be at advantage as it can see over shorter ruins. It's so petty I can't be bothered to waste my life playing these sorts of people.
Without being able to see exactly what happened with a video I don’t think such a harsh call can be made. Memory is such a weird thing sometimes and the judge may be mis-remembering so with a possible doubt I don’t think the ban or even result should have been changed
So, making a fancy base that elevates the mini = modeling for advantage. The game needs to go back to ignoring extended and spiky bitz for LOS. Stupidest thing I've ever seen is sticking a long spear out to get LOS and shooting at the top of a banner. Your cool radar dish model should totally ignore the dish for LOS.
At this point all events should have a house rule that "Any point of an Aircraft is considered 5' off the ground for the purpose of Hull Charge" Seeing as GW is smoking meth when selling models and smoking pot while ruling
Standard Flight bases are Over 5.5" and if this is the only one of the hovering models this is a problem for where a heldrake for example isnt then Id opt to say you cant melee any hovering unit. Punching a Helicopter seems dumb to me lol.
Page 7 of the Core Rules, under 'measuring distances': 'When measuring the distance between models, measure between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, measure to the closest point of any part of that model instead.' So this entire situation is caused by not checking the rules. A Stormraven has a base, so you measure from the base.
Oh my, my Droppods will have a field day here, iam still using the old Forgeworld Droppods which you cant shoot through, makes it a fun deal for true line of sight stuff. One of my opponents wanted to play by the rules and insisted he couldnt see my infantry models cause Line of sight and hidden behind "terrain"...quotes as it was a flat piece that is supposed to be low terrain he couldnt shoot through. This edition gets more stupid by the minute imo.
It's so rare to ever see something like this in the comp setting. If you don't like competitive games, that's fine, but don't use the rarest of instances of cheating as an excuse.
@@timb.4516 This wasnt a case of cheating. This was a case of an incompetent TO. TO stated player could not disembark from wings (per Vehicle with Bases rule you can as long as within 5" vertically and 3 Horizontally) so the wings should never been an area to charge
what a stupid rule and stupid judgement. an aircraft should be flying or it is not. the hovering rule should just not exist. a "hovering" aircraft should just be treated as a ground unit and measurement made to the base.
A life time ban based on shit rules and a fraction of an inch is beyond asinine
People don't get to be judges because they care about fun. Especially in terms of Warhammer groups.
@@Druark The judge went home and seethed over it, poored salt on his head and started measuring. What judge does that unless its really bothering his ego or to try and go after that player? Especially when 2 previous judges of the events said that it couldnt be engaged.
I watch those videos because I like the models. Now I'm sure that I will never play the real game.
@@TiagoHackbarth just dont play with dickheads who rules lawyer or discuss with them in advance about stuff like this. Most people that play are cool.
@@TiagoHackbarth search for a chill group they are getting rarer and rarer
The judge expects a player to be aware of a ruling but gives himself a pass for not being aware of it? His job is to be aware of it. This sounds like a classic scape goat moment.
Reminds me of a Magic the Gathering tournament where a guy was totally robbed because of the tournament's use of terminology completely broke a guy's deck. Their own ruling basically removed an entire phase from the game that his deck was built around.
@@bad-people6510how did they rule a whole phase didn’t exist?
@@bgreene103010 Could be thinking of the wrong situation, but the tournament ruled that saying you were "Going to Combat" meant the players were progressing to the "Declare attacking creatures" phase. This skips the "Beginning of combat" phase. One of the players had creatures that needed a cost paid before they could attack. Costs can be paid during "beginning of combat" but no player is allowed to activate abilities or pay costs during "declare attackers", so the guy couldn't attack to win the game. Also, that guy had another card that automatically activated at the "beginning of combat" phase, so by skipping that phase the guy was also given a tournament penalty for missing his card's trigger.
Made worse by the fact that this happened in the eighth round, so this guy had been playing his deck in seven previous matches without any issues with these same cards and assumedly the same "go to combat" callout.
@@AutumnSorcerer so what happened was like almost everybody the player said "Combat" to indicate the change of phase however as most of the time there is nothing to do in the "beginning of combat" step it is often skipped so the phrase "Combat" is commonly used as a shortcut to the "declare attackers" step of combat, however that player had optional effects that only triggered in the "beginning of combat" step which he missed because he said the shortcut that he had previously used in that game because you know no triggers until they're on board and the backlash WOTC got over that interaction changed the ruling on shortcuts so that if a trigger would be in a step or phase that was previously shortcut out it can trigger as intended. didn't help that guy but his sacrifice makes the game better for all following players.
@@bgreene103010 There was this obscure phase most people didn't bother with, but his cards had an effect that could only activate in that phase, but the judge ruled that by ending the previous phase you would go straight into the NEXT phase. Jumping from 1 to 3 with no way of getting into 2 even though he needed 2 to do what his cards were designed for.
this ruling is so extreme that it feels like a personal grudge against that DA player
I said the exact same thing on Reddit right after the event and the news of the ban.
What wasn’t discussed here was that after the ruling, the Daemon player rage quit and left which I think also has to do with the knee jerk reaction post event.
Just a shit judge, go look at the page trevy linked and you can go back years reading about him shadow banning people after events.
@@georgetimson6896 Daemons being one of the few armies that can abuse that interaction too... I hope we get an errata that when you hover it removes all aircraft rules except the requirement to fly to melee.
@@georgetimson6896 out of curiosity, did the daemons player know about the previous rulings on this at other events which share rulings? and did the daemons player bring that up at the table when the ruling was made?
@@georgetimson6896 Maybe it's just me, but the fact that this likely happened because the Daemon player threw a hissy fit makes this even worse? Like judgeman should NOT be a judge if someone throwing a public tantrum is enough for them to retroactively reverse a win & ban someone for life. And shame on the Daemon player, too.
This shit is why i quit competitive 40k. That judge should receive a lifetime ban from all organised play
This is why I don't do magic the gathering either, I just went to multiplayer video games.
@@MercenaryX21 at least in magic events they have judges get properly tested and they have ranks in order to run events
It seems like an exaggerated reaction to what happened. I question the judges emotional maturity.
@@Scotty86doo at least magic has rules that arent absolute horse sht
@@Scotty86doo yea but that stuff happens all the time. competitive magic is so dumb lol doing all u can to NOT play the game. and they play so stupidly fast as jf tbey dont get a response in a fraction of a milisecond they get all angry. i quit mtg entirely after that bs.
I have a Storm Raven. No mods, built from the box. The wing thruster is exactly 5.25 inches from the table, no glue on the stand, it slot fit for transport. It raises to 5.5 inches if I press the nose of the craft down. And those "evidence" photos have the tape measure further from the model than mine was at the end of the wing, along with the camera being angled to show the 5" mark as the "correct" height. They were photo manipulation using perspective.
I was going to say that tape measure doesn't look to be at a 90 deg angle to the surface. This is just f-ckery all around
300% this, absolutely manipulating evidence via angles of photography
This being a different model made by a different person there is also chance for manipulation through subtle alteration of parts that we can't see. It's not useful proof. What they need is to remeasure and examine the exact model in question. Not some rarely used different models made by a different player.
pff lol okay
look, the trans player cheated, get over it, sjw.
Why would they use a tape measure anyway? if 5" is the measurement to be used a set measurement stick of 5" length should be used and slid under the model, then its a simple contact or no contact scenario and doesn't allow manipulation of viewing angle or perspective.
The fact that judge has the sheer hubris to say "and you can ask for forgiveness no earlier than the 26 tournament" after making a series of ruling mistakes HIMSELF and then adjudicating in the shadiest way possible... it's just... so cringe inducing
This sounds entirely insane. Retroactively handing out a lifetime ban for such a complicated ruling that THE JUDGE RULED ON is so stupid.
Made at home, from memory, with no footage for reference, using different models. Plus the fact that two possible reasons why it wasn’t the players fault given, and two contradictory rules about how it could possibly be the player cheating, one of which, the pushing down of the model’s nose to raise the wings higher, is something that should have been noticed at the time, but either way, both ‘cheating’ reasons would need the original model to be checked.
I would want to know who the judge talk to after the game.
I use to be really good friend with David and he was always a really strait shooter with me when we talked rules this ruling itself shocked the shit out of me. But this is also why I left competitive play in the past.
AFTER THE FACT no less.
@@StixFerryMan don't forget a few different contrary rulings to the one reached in this case both inside of his circuit and outside of his circuit in his region than the ruling he retroactively reached to get banned, that existed prior to the retroactive ruling.
Not only does the original model need to be checked but the stand in model technically should be independently checked to make sure that it wasn't tampered with to end up within that range where it should actually be outside of it to create falsified proof to justify the decision.
If you look at the picture the judge posted on his blog, the flight stand has this fluted top that isn't present on the current official gw flight stand. So either the judge is basing this off an old flight stand, or a custom flight stand. Look at the third picture on the judges post, where the stand enters the model and it has a nub sticking out forward that is NOT present on the current gw flight stand.
Several people have taken pictures of stock ravens that are approximately 5.5" from the table, MY stormraven on a stock base is 5.5" from the table.
In addition, if you look at hte actual games workshop site, the model is at a forward cant, which is even more aggressive than the "pushing down the front" picture.
It makes you think the judge probably has a chip on his shoulder and is exercising a grudge against that player.
Lifetime ban for what sounds like miscommunications.
I would not want to go to an event if the judge is involved.
Imagine winning an event and then getting the win revoked and then banned hours after the event ended. Absolutely insane.
It was. TO was a judge at US Open Dallas and the US Open ruled that players could not disembark from stormraven wings so just from the base (see rules commentary Vehicles with Bases)
So if the player can't disembark from the wings, they can't be charged. TO did a scummy thing
@@grotwurksmekshop6607 The more I read about this situation the more it strikes me as weird.
Contradictory rulings and a retroactive ban after the event has ended but that ban can be appealed after a year if the player is willing to work on their communication? That doesn't sound right for someone that you've just banned for cheating.
That's not even talking about the fact that 2/4 of the points regarding the ban involved things outside of the players intent (Faulty measuring tape/Poor GW quality control).
Just seems like some things don't add up from they TO.
@@IceZachara Which is exactly why I am boycotting Alamo GT or events run by this TO
Now if the player was changing its position angle to prevent charging and extend disembark range then yes that player is a cheater.
But in my area and this last year of play, it's been agreed upon to measure to the bottom of the hull from that base using the GW height stand or that keeps it oem height
@@nofuxgivens2797 It doesnt matter. If the TO states that the player cant disembark from the wings, then the wings cant be charged.
Any other option is not the players fault
Exhibit #40000 of why competitive warhammer is a stupid thing.
AMEN
😂 I mean, thousands and thousands of matches get played. It's super funny when people point out outliers and ignore the overwhelming majority of counter examples to 'prove their point'
"Those 999 times where it worked out? They don't count! See this example? That's why this is stupid! Haha!" 🙄
@@JRuni0rEven when it works, competitive 40k just sounds like a miserable experience.
@@JRuni0rcompetitive 40K is the worst way to play and has led to the rules focusing more on balance and less on storytelling
@@blakeoarmboy Uh? Play Crusade or some other narrative format? You're conflating 'matched play' with Tournament rules/environment.
Maybe 30k is more your style or HH if you're after narrative play. It's a bit odd to complain about a TTRPG where the overwhelming majority of games are 'Matched Play' when you're not interested in that style of gameplay.
I mean, it's like joining a DnD group and then getting annoyed that they're all roleplaying and getting into the story when you just want to grind mobs and max/min your character.
Close enough to be possibly chalked up to poor QC on the part of GW but also egregious enough to warrant a lifetime ban?
Yikes. This is NOT a good look for the judge nor the TO.
I wanna see the judge lol
Apparently he had received a Yellow Card for similar problems with his flying models at previous events.
Still completely inexcusable that the judge didn't know about a past ruling until he looked it up at home, but condemns the player for not knowing said ruling. Especially since it was one of his own previous rulings.
@@martenkahr3365 at one previous event, ruling on a different part of the model.
Right? If you're affiliated with this circuit or part of the TO you're probably pissed at this Judge for making you all look like absolute fools/jerks.
That judge might be the one who will be receiving a lifetime ban when this all settles. Unless this player has a serious history of misbehaviour (that I either missed or wasn't shared in this video) this was a Reddit Moderator level overreaction.
@@JRuni0r What I dont get is this: If the intended interaction is "thing hovers at X inches" no matter what the model does, it hovers at "x inches". Like how hard is that?
I think we need to have more of a conversation about whether infantry can punch an aircraft in flight.
Flying vehicle's should not be engage able unless the charger has the fly key word
@@michaeljones7916 well I thought this was the case anyway. I may be going from what I remember from 8th/9th though
@@michaeljones7916 Or there is a status for the aircraft that states its altitude. If it is flying low enough, especially after a gun run, it could fall into range of larger units.
@@michaeljones7916 Should be a "only works if you roll all 6s" kind of situation. Not 100% impossible, but allowable if extremely lucky; because rule of cool.
Infantry can't punch one in flight, but can if it's hovering, hence no longer an aircraft for rules purposes. It's a weird edge case where GW sell it as an aircraft so its kit is modelled for its aircraft stance, but it can choose to hover lower, which should make it chargeable but for being sold on a flying base.
The rules are clear that in hover mode or should be able to be charged, but GW sell the kit ignoring that. Not the players fault, but a stupid case if you can't charge it as then virtually no downside to using hover.
All i see here is that this judge should recieve a ban and not the player
Fr tho. Makes a ruling outside the game despite accepting the measurement at the time
Issues what sounds to be a first offense instant ban and win revoke despite already making a judgment, and did not refer to previous rulings with that judgement.
If the judge had done his fucking job and looked up previous rulings for the rule, this wouldn't even be a conversation and they'd have gotten on with his life. This is the judge just deciding how rules are post game and changing his mind.
Both of the judge's actions are completely incorrect, the post game red card for a false reason, and failure to adequately make a rules judgement in a game by his own inability to gather information to make an informed judgement (the entire reason he's there).
He should not be a judge. He's clearly not capable.
Both of the judge's actions are completely incorrect, the post game red card for a false reason, and failure to adequately make a rules judgement in a game by his own inability to gather information to make an informed judgement (the entire reason he's there).
He should not be a judge. He's clearly not capable.
Well to me it just means: never play in tournaments that arent friendly games.
a judge NOT knowing rules isn't a fault on the games producer its down to the judge themselves for NOT actively maintaining relevant knowledge of the rules, when u play the role of a judge u not only have the power to determine important calls but ur also the de-facto source for ANY and ALL info of the ENTIRE game for the venue at the time, when u make a ruling u damn make sure ur info is up to date
So TO screws up then punishes the player? Am I following this correctly?
Yes
It's such a undefined grey area of multiple rule interactions that its hard to say that the "judge fucked up" but he was certainly salty when he got home and found out that the player had fucking his mother... since that's the only explanation for such an unhinged lifetime ban ruling after the fact over the flimiest of excuses
TO only screwed up by AGREEING to the judges post event call but being the TO he has all the power to overrule a judge meaning that judge would have to bring in a higher power to overturn said overrule
The guy is an absolute chode and they wanted a reason to ban him lol
Imo, this isn't the kind of thing that a retroactive red card should be issued. Its fine if the TO at the event says "the proper model allows you to attack from the ground, consider it less than 5" and play it that way." But a retroactive red card for a few millimeters difference on the mounting of the model is hardly "modeling for advantage."
This is exactly what should have been done. If it seems suspect, or they have reasons to be unsure they need to make a call at the table to make an exception "consider it less than 5".
I hate to say it but this thing being discussed in public is a weak argument to strip a win and ban someone. I feel the other accusations are more relevant.
I think arguing that "my model is on a stand high enough that nobody can engage it in melee" is absurd and deserves a ban on its own 😑 some rule lawyering is expected at a tournament, but this argument is ridiculous and I wouldn't tolerate it.
@@drakebaker2769 I think he was arguing that you had to get within 1" of the base to be within engagement range (not that you can't get into melee range at all).
What if this wasn't the first offense?
@@wilky1189 I have no idea on that one. I don’t know any of the players, just giving my thoughts based on what I’ve been told.
Always model your models with tiny mirror panels so you can reflect light into your opponents eyes through out your match
🤣
The rules don't say you're not allowed to!
Well I can't read!- A black Templar player
@@nickclemitus4598 If those Black Templar players could read they'd be really offended by this!
I just measured my stormraven: without touching it, letting it sit naturally the way it wants, the base has no material under the flight stand, and the flight stand has not been painted. 5.25" from table to bottom of thruster. If I move the thruster up, like the model kit allows me to do, I can get another 1/8" off the table. A life time ban for this seems extreme or maybe my stormraven has had a lift kit installed since it's been sitting on my shelf the past 2 years lol
I hate to do this, but you are banned
5.25 inches for the wings is GW's intended measurement. So your model is perfect.
This is an absolute shitshow- post game ban based on less than a quarter inch difference that is likely entirely incidental. If i lived in texas I would ban this tournament from my schedule...
They literally are going to kill their own event for this.
Yup. This is the exact kind of crap that keeps people from continuing or even starting to play. Seeing it at the highest levels of play sends a HUGE message to not invest.
From everyone in the TX scene, their events only have success because they got their mits on a golden ticket major and the rest are basically no-shows or people who dont care enough
@@GitGud40kI'm a big fan of your Instagram for bringing the insanity of this to my attention
@@Gryffyth_Aurum as someone who plays casual this just affirms my dislike of competitive events of any form,
I live just outside San Antonio in Kendall County. Let me say that an event/organization that freely admits that 3 out of 4 possible explanations for the discrepancy wouldn't be the player's fault, but *still* goes ahead and publicly bans and libels the player after the fact (when he is no longer present to defend himself) is NO ORGANIZATION YOU EVER WANT TO DEAL WITH. Throwing in the deliberately ambiguous and incriminating "past history of events in the local area" and "angle shooting" slanders are really just parting shots meant to poison the well, it seems.
What's more, admitting that they don't see this as a precedent setting decision, but rather a one-time action targeting the specific player is not the defense they seem to think it is... seems they are saying, "it's OK, cause we really don't like this guy. You'll be fine, unless we really don't like you either."
Finally, what kind of fair play can you expect when the player is expected to know the basic rulings of the "right tournaments" better than the organization's own judges? I know I certainly would not know about rulings made at tables I was not at in tournaments I had not attended... and how the hell would I know whose rulings they consider cannon and whose they reject? Remember, in this case GW's own tournaments and organizers had ruled exactly the opposite way just recently...
This is an international hobby and these prats just tried, convicted, and executed/libeled somebody *in absentia* for VERY questionable reasons. What fool would put their public reputation in the hands of these arbitrary idiots?
Living in the Austin area, I've had to deal with these TO's many times and all you ever hear is "This isn't the first time" and "many people have had similar complaints" over the smallest of things like WYSIWYG. Never a shred of evidence of complaints from the actual community, just by the word of these judges. I've had quite enough and have stopped attending their events.
It's even worse when you consider in that region both inside and outside of that same circuit there are previous rulings that actually contradict and are contrary to the findings that were used to ban this particular player in this instance. It just makes it even more targeted. Because it's basically just saying "The rules and rulings don't matter even consistently within our own organization, or the greater organization that we stem from."
@@Quandry1hell, the supposed yellow card at another event against this player ruled on this interactiong in a different way. It feels like the circuit judges messing with the one player in particular
@@Quandry1 especially when GW gives a ruling at a official GW event in the USA that stormravens cant be charged, Is there even a test for becoming a judge like there is in MTG?
What a terrible judge... He should have either
1) Known that a flying stand is almost exactly 5" high and that it doesn't matter how the model is mounted, it is SUPPOSED to be chargeable, or
2) Acknowledge that the "measure from hull" makes no sense and use the base as reference, just like with Tyranid flying monsters.
Even admitting that a faulty tape measure or poor quality control could be the cause, giving out a red card makes no sense and can only be described as having personal issues with the player.
Also, its a tournament where people play with plastic toys... I love Warhammer, but the results mean nothing in reality. Its very much possible it was an honest mistake. Just roll a d6 and on a 4+ you can charge the Stormraven... problem solved.
Also, why the FUCK does a "judge" that doesn't even get paid have the power to ban a player in the first place ? Hire a proper fucking judge, pay them and only then should they be allowed to make calls like that...
From what I'm hearing. This particular general model actually sits slightly higher than 5" even when just pressure fit onto the flight stand. So technically it probably shouldn't be chargeable under any normal circumstances. But also taking photo's of a different model at a different time that would also have to verify it wasn't tampered with to fit within chargable range would also be required and the only real solution would be to actually set up an examination of the exact model in question instead.
This is the first time I heard of Measure from the Hull since I don't play the game myself, and honestly it sounds absolutely insane since it'd basically make building decisions and aesthetics have stupid meta utility in stuff like this.
its ridiculous that a 5° angle may result in a ban, even the glue being set up here or there may change the inclinaison that much
a 5 degree angle didn't result in a ban, being a known jerk that pulls this kind of stuff all the time did ,the 5 degree angle that won a tournament was just the last straw
100%, after watching this I think he was punished for pushing down on the nose. The ref must believe he specifically knew this would give him advantage. Why did the ref think this is much more muddled but I gathered there is a lot of context that we do not know. BL: the ref is convinced he brazenly cheated.
@@godforge3185that’s on the judge, not the player. The guy should be unbanned immediately and issued an apology
When the reasoning includes "a history of this sort of behavior" I dont think you get to put on your monocle and top hat and go on about the injustice of such a little thing causing a ban XD
@@jkdragonjk6895 please open the 5:00 timestamp and type reason note 1 into this thread
Why is there an arbitrary distance involved with all flying models when models can be almost any shape? WTF?
because it is GW ... and they don't know how to build a logical set of rules.
The whole modeling for advantage stuff is so stupid. LoS and the like should be more abstract so people can just use their stuff without this kinda idiocy. This game isn’t a fine tuned machine and treating it so competitive is beyond moronic. It’s like aggressive toy soldier playing. It just sounds stupid and it’s hard to imagine adults being this petty, but here we have it.
Correct. Other competition miniatures games (flames of war comes to mind) get their stuff sorted out with regard to LOS and don’t have these kinds of problems.
should all be base to base
@@Scotty86doo100%. Takes all the guesswork out of it and allows people to pose models creatively without being penalised
I just had this argument online about a Leman Russ with internal sponsons and a tank with the old style ones on from 20+ years ago mean they could fit between a smaller gap in the terrain.
Like if you worried about that then you must be a shitty player.
@@Scotty86doo Hell BattleTech's official rules, even when using the advanced ones including combined arms, don't even require the models in the first place.
This is next level petty and has home cooking written all over it. If the call was made in the moment then the call stands. The TO went home, had to do a science project and then banned a guy over millimeters of measurement, AFTER an official ruling was made. Alamo GT must not like their homies losing events. I hope that set of TO's stays in Texas and never runs any events Im at.
went home and did a science project that we can't be sure didn't involve tampering with this other model to make it work with this new retroactive model to claim as proof.
Insert joke about TOs measuring everything in millimeters 😏
@@MagicJugglergott’em 🔥
The Alamo Open is not a GW sponsored event and will lose interest for the real competitors.
I have two storm Raven gunships. They move around on their stands all the time when you move them.
So knowing that, would you claim that an opponent can't charge you due to the height of a wing you know can change throughout a game? Would you feel justified in measuring for shooting from that wing if it gave you an advantage while denying your opponent the same advantage?
How would you feel about the finger on the model during the call?
@@The_CGA the video maker even said in the interview that didn't happen, and thats a VERY bad call on the judge if hes letting people touch models during a ruling.
@@0redbishop0 If it was ruled that they couldn't disembark from that height then they can't be charged at that height either. That's where the issue came from. It was a clarification issue, not just "I want my cake and eat it"
@@The_CGA I can't speak for a Stormraven, because I don't have one, but when measuring my Vulture Gunships I have to push the nose down because otherwise it won't sit flat on it's base. (It's a very rear-heavy model)
It is rules interactions like this that make the game unfun sometimes. My head hurts after listening to this video, but thanks for sharing this issue.
It's not a complicated interaction in the end. The rules commentary covers Vehicles with Bases and allows models to disembark 5" vertical and 3" horizontal.
TO told him he can't disembark from the wings. So by the same notion, the wings can't be charged.
TO entertained the idea of being able to charge the wings during a game and decided to give the player a red card.
Regardless of where the player pushed on the model, the TO giving the opponent the allowance to charge, but the player can't disembark? That's scummy
@@grotwurksmekshop6607Oh wow that's scummy from the TO.
This is the exact kind of crap that keeps people from continuing or even starting to play. Seeing it at the highest levels of play sends a HUGE message to not invest.
Shit like this stopped me from playing tournaments anymore.
There are a lot of factors in all this, most I thought of initially were covered by the host or I saw in the comments.
But one thing that was screaming in my head almost from the beginning was, the judge retroactively decreed the actions ban able, hours later, at home, using a a different models then the ones played.
He listed two reasons how it could be the players fault, but also two how it could be not the players fault, one of which, modelling for advantage, would need the player’s model to be measured again, independently, the other, touching the model, should have been dealt with at the time.
It would be one thing to go home, review the footage, and realise that something was done that was classed as cheating. It is a totally different thing to go home and ‘remember’ what happened (human memory is not a trustworthy thing, especially for very small details you didn’t note at the time) and recreate it using totally different parameters.
It really sounds like the judge doesn’t know what, if any, problem actually happened, but is punishing the player without evidence.
If they thought about it at a later date, and was worried about something unsportsmanlike happening, then they should use that as a learning opportunity and strive to not make that mistake again. Or, someone got in contact with the judge and gave them a reason to make a retroactive calling.
So the judge got it wrong and then after the tournament changed the results and banned the player for life. I’d sue the TO if they lost prize money and possibly banned them from the whole circuit.
Might throw a libel claim in there too. Damaging a players reputation by claiming he's cheating by following the rules he was told at the table isn't a small thing.
I'll never forget the guy that modeled some awesome assault marines coming down for a landing, the flying base was hidden by awesomely sculpted plume of smoke from the jet packs firing so they stood up higher on the table. Person the guy was playing insisted they didn't get any cover saves because they were higher than the cover and he had line of sight on them. Guy was punished for cool modeling.
Yup.
This is the game that GW keeps making and players keep playing and buying. It’s perfectly possible to make an edition of 40k that doesn’t curb stomp the assault marine chad you’re remembering. They just don’t.
@The_CGA yep, that's because competitive players are easily fleeced. They'll go out and dump massive amounts of money on a whole new flavor of the month army, slap it together and throw it on the table at the next event so they can win. Then when it gets nerfed and there's a new flavor of the month army they'll throw it in a closet or sell it for next to nothing and buy the next one. These people are the reason GW does this.
Wait wait wait, they're not using standard rules for the units? They're like, quite literally going off the physical properties of the model? What is this clownshow nonsense?
And yes I know base measurements are going off the physical properties of the model, I think it's clear what I mean here.
@@EnsignEpic Giving me flashbacks to 4th editions LOS arguments. "I can see the elbow of that one Cadian guard, therefore I can fire at the full unit!" vs "Ah, my crippled Rhino is turned sideways and your Eldar can't see Land Raider behind it!" magic cylinder.
I disagree with you tbh, he added that to the model, he has to play it like that.
why should the player be punished for correctly expecting to be able to move into line of sight and be able to shoot the model.
That could lead to unfair situations where the player he’s playing against now suddenly cannot shoot.
However if any part of the model is behind cover even the base, it gets cover.
As someone who LOVES the Corvus Blackstar this really discourages me from ever using it, when its already pretty bad... Imagine using a model you love and getting DQ'd over some technicality. Getting DQ'd from a local community can be really bad for someone, imagine having all your friends get in the care for a 2 hour drive to a big tournament and you can't go because you wanted use your favorite model 2 years ago and a random judge made a bad ruling.
This really isn't anything new, players have had to adjust models over the course of the many editions 40k has gone through. I once had a friend convert an entire Tyranids army in 3rd ed to be crabs and crustaceans, he called it Hive Fleet Crustacia, come 5th ed, he was called out for "modeling for advantage," because his Carnifex's and Hive Tyrants were physically shorter than the stock built ones. Who remembers the kneeling Wraithknights or Wraithlords? How about an entire unit of prone scout marine snipers?
@@jjtgomez Yea, but if the ruling is this vague and goes back and forth between tournaments to a point not even judges can be consistent or understand the rules why is it resulting in a lifetime ban? Even if he was modeling for advantage make the rules clear so that this situation can't happen, because if it can trap a top player what about newer and less experienced players and judges? Also as someone more into the modeling aspect, it sets a bad precedent of discouraging kitbashing and modeling. Maybe the answer is just that aircraft have to go entirely.
@@PallyChan I think if anything, it highlights the need for better communication between event organizers with regards to cleaning up bad rules interactions. In regards to models on flight stands, this could easily be solved by GW to standardize the height by saying that all models on flight stands are to be considered no more than 5" in height regardless of how they are physically modeled. This would allow for any kitbashing, since height would be standardized.
@@jjtgomez Yes, something like this would be perfect! Or just model from the base so that the flight stand height doesnt matter (though I guess that could still be an advantage for hiding behind cover)
Did ya catch how the player was cheesing with his finger to throw off the balance of the mini? (Maybe)
So a Judge suspects a measurement/ruling error after the fact...measures a model out of his own collection and on a margin of what looks to be +/- 1/8" determines deliberate malicious intent sufficient enough to retroactively DQ an event winner and implement a lifetime ban?
Unless the player in question is guilty of a long history of the 40k equivalent of kicking puppies sounds like both the Judge/TO and the event all together is to be avoided.
Salty Judge from what I can tell
Player in question is infamous locally for his stormraven jank.
@@shatteredteethofgod not mutually exclusive
@scottcairns2933 I don't care if he's "Jank" the rule should be clearly defined in the rulebook, and the judge should have previous precedent from previous rulings. I'm guessing the reasons for him being infamous is the same reasoms that made the judge salty. The Hover rule should still prevent a vertical charge, if I base a model or change its pose slightly when I glue it there should never be a reason 1/16th or 1/8th of a inch of glue should make that difference.
@@Scotty86doo the rule is somewhat clear but requires the wing be 5” or less off the ground to disembark from the wing and if it’s more than 5” off the ground it’s unchargeable. I wasn’t at the previous GT he ran the jank Raven but was told he had it tilted for advantage and that he knows exactly what he’s doing. Not a rogue judge dropping the hammer on an unsuspecting carebear.
Accusing the player (Who I do not personally know) of modeling for advantage is horseshit. The model could have been bought second hand or commissioned. Did the TO know for a fact the player assembled it? I'll admit the pushing down on the nose was a bit sus but if the TO based his decision on "modeling' for advantage he needs to find a new hobby. I cannot even fathom why he was so motivated to go home and conduct his experiment. I saw RUclips channel where too guys were mocking him silly for doing such a thing. The scenario that happened where a charging unit was ONLY under a wing tip may occur 1 out 50 times. Nobody is going to say, "I think I will raise this wing tip up just past 5 inches in case my opponent is only able to get under it and no other part of my model." That's ridicules.
It's even worse. If you look at his pictures, he's taking the pictures from 2 different angles which would make the wing tip appear higher than it was anyway. He hasn't even proven that the model adjusts because his evidence is faulty.
So, I agree with you that the idea of reversing his decision after the fact, issuing a red card and a lifetime ban was BS. That said, this situation where the charging unit only made it under the wingtip would likely happen a lot more often in cases of premeasuring due to the horizontal distance of deep strike having to be measured from the wing, but the wing not being a valid target for the charge. This means that the player using the flyer could position it in such a way where the only parts of the model that someone could deep strike at an angle to would be the wings, yet those wings aren't valid targets for a charge, changing what should have been a 9" charge to an 11 or 12 inch charge from deep strike. Based on my understanding of the story, the player was regularly using this mechanic and positioning to ensure deep strikers could virtually never charge his aircraft.
In general, I think that rule interaction is a bit scummy, personally, but it IS the rules interaction, so I don't think it's the player's fault for utilizing the rules as they currently stand. Who's to say the rule wasn't used against him multiple times before he started using it? In such an environment, you adapt or you lose. The player also apparently even emailed the TOs and asked if they were ruling that the "back" of the model was greater than 5" or not, and was told that it was. So, perhaps the player should have clarified that he meant the "wings" which were positioned near the back of the model, but this was clearly an intended communication to clear this up before the tournament. I think issuing a ban after the fact was very scummy indeed. He should reverse the ban and issue an apology to the player.
@@marcusm3429 As Aircraft even in Hover mode have no OC did this really make or break that game?
Why don't they just make a general rolling that says all flight stand units count as 5 inches from the table regardless of physical height
Because that would be intelligent.
while it would solve the 'model for advantage' issue ... it doesn't fix edge cases that depend on the distance being just over or under a fixed number.
@@NotTheStinkyCheese It completely removes the ones based on "how far from this flying model is my model which is directly under it", which is what is being discussed here. What you are calling "edge cases" outside of that is what is called "range" and is an active mechanic, not some obscure thing.
@@NotTheStinkyCheese,
Except the fixed number is 5 inches. If you need to calculate the distance to something in 3d space... you already have the first distance (5 inches), then you can measure the distance on the ground (2nd distance), then do a bit of A squared equals the square root of A squared + C squared... simple math most students learn very early in their education... to find the "true" distance.
So the judge screwed up the measurement and they banned the player for it? Sounds like a complete shitshow of a GT and the GT banned the player to cover their own ass for not knowing the rules.
This seems stupid. Good to know that the Alamo GT judges are insane and that you shouldn't play there or get a lifetime ban for having assembled your model at a slightly imperfect angle on GW's notoriously sucky stands. Even the images are weird, the measurements shown look the exact same.
Edit: just got to the end where the judge says that retroactive red card bans are something that they have never done before and will never do again... Additionally "Well I welcome an appeal of the ban, except its not appealable at all for a whole year" is obvious horsecrap. NOBODY issues an unprecedented method of permabanning, from a regional event, with a direct accusation of deliberate cheating and deception, then follows it up with "well, they could have done their communication with us better and im sure if their communication improves it will be overturned after the next event :)". That isnt just dumb, that's fishy as hell.
It sounds like the ban was for actually messing with the model while the judge is measuring, which is fair, but I really don't understand how that was even possible in the first place. Surely, the judge should have clocked that while it was happening.
@@dozencatfish1667 That too, but If he was issued a lifetime ban for allegedy tampering with a model to get a favorable TO ruling, why would they "welcome him back if his communication improves?"
It's a crap TO. HE SHOULD HAVE A RULER, NOT A TAPE MEASURE!. also he had the option to say that the model wasn't legal before the tourney.
@dozencatfish1667 it shouldn't matter because the judge was in the wrong.
Check "Vehicles with Bases" in the app.
It states units can disembark 5" vertical amd 3" horizontal.
Judge stated player could not disembark from the wings.
How can the judge then entertain the thought of the wings being charged?
Even GW doesn't rule this way. For the record GW's ruling in tournaments, as shown in this video, is not what this judge went with.
lifetime ban when you measure a model at home...wtf
when you measure a different model at home, that you put together yourself and we cannot confirm or disprove that you did not infact manipulate the model to something non-standard to make it fit into your ruling. The exact model needs examined and measured again for comparison, not some different one constructed by somebody else.
@@Quandry1well actually the judge said if the player's model was >5'' up it's due to modelling for advantage and if it's less, the he presumes the player must have used his finger to tilt the model and maje it >5''. Basically the player is 100% guilty for either of the contradictory reasons because the judge is upset and embarrassed.
Also the ruling ostensibly does not "set precedent" because it's a bad ruling the judge does not stand by, but also if the player sucks up for a while year then MAYBE the judge will reconsider.
Petit tyrant.
@@ScotRotum still changes nothing of what I said about the different model being used as proof. And that doesn't even cover all the potential problems with it.
Interesting point, the "hull" definition is: For models that do not have a base, (...).
This would mean that hull measurement rules should never have come into the picture, because the Storm Raven does, in fact, have a base.
Not only that, but it's an Aircraft model, and according to GW's rules, you can only charge an Aircraft model if your unit has the FLY keyword. The Hull rule shouldn't have even been brought up in this sense as well.
@BronCral You would be correct except that, when using hover mode, the Storm Raven loses the aircraft keyword and all associated rules for being an aircraft.
"when measuring to and from a vehicle with a base (excluding aircraft and walkers) Always measure from the closest part of the model for all rules purpose (i.e measure from the hull or base, whichever is closest)"
From the section on vehicles with bases, yes the hull measurements come into play when the Storm Raven is in hover mode.
@@craftyfirestorm "Hull" only applies to models without a base though. Even in Hover mode, the Stormraven has a true base. A lot of aircraft have a clear base, but this model has a base like every ground model. So you would measure from the base, not the Hull.
@@BronCral "Hull" explicitly does not only apply to models without a base, the section I just directly quoted talking about hull is from the section on vehicles with bases. It outright states you measure from whichever part of the model, HULL or base, that is closest to the measuring point. Don't believe me, check the version 1.2 rules commentary, it's on page 16.
This feels very ham-handed and there are no exact way to mount your flyer, so I think this could easily be a mistake.
A lifetime ban feels pretty harsh.
Its also a model that has been around since early 5th edition and hasn't changed. Those stems get gummed up or weakened over repeated use. Its always to be assumed to be 5" or whatever from the table top, even if it Physically isn't. As long as your base is directly under the wing, your in engagement range.
Remember using one with my Grey Knights when they got their new Dex back then and loading it up with a dreadnought, Kaldor Drago and a Paladin squad and zooming it into the middle of the enemy force.
@@SirLANsalot If I'm understanding what happened right, this person had a different win pulled, and was punished, because a judge retroactively said the same model was more than 5" from the tabletop and so he couldn't use one of the model's abilities.
So, if the model is to be treated as 5", then the Judges should give him back a different victory and strike the Yellow card they gave him. However, if they're ignoring that ruling then this one is BS.
This reads like a personal vendetta.
@@arthurmoore9488 absolutely that judge should be banned from the scene permeantly. What I was saying is that model has been known, for many years, to have a pretty shitty base. Which is why people understand that if your base is directly under any part of the model, your in "melee" range....which is still weird for an aircraft LOL.
@@SirLANsalot Oh I agree that would be the easy way to handle it. that would mean going against not just this judge, but the other judge as well.
My point was he was retroactively denied a win, and possibly prize money, in one tournament, and now has been retroactively denied a win, and possibly more prize money in this one. The first win was pulled because the judge said the model was over 5" so it couldn't use it's ability. This win was pulled because the judge said the model should have been treated as 5" or under to allow the opponents ability (melee) to happen. Those rulings directly contradict each other.
I may be wrong, but I think both of those events took place in roughly the same area.
I don’t have a storm raven, but I have 3 Valkyrie, a Vulture, and two Voss Lightnings. All of them on GW stands. The stands do not fit so perfectly that I can’t move them a few degrees in any direction. With the Vulture, which has the sloppy Forge World casting, this can create more than an inch of difference. All of them also have some variation in stand height, which is greater than the variation in the cited example. Looking at the extra stands for other models that I haven’t built yet, some of them have two small ~1/4” tabs on the bottom (probably part of the casting) that I always had removed and sanded flat, and some do not; should those be counted in the “official” height? Heck, even if I just swap the same flier between different flight stands, each stand gives a different measurement (within about 1/3”). I remember having a slight problem with one of my Valkyrie when building where it looked completely correct, but the landing gear was off enough that it wouldn’t sit flat and I remedied it by gluing a piece of sand paper to a plate of glass and running the constructed model’s landing gear over it until they were all flush. Maybe 1/16-1/8 of an inch removed from the center one and less on the rest. Would fixing this be considered modeling to advantage? What if I modeled it with landing gear retracted?
This is why I stay far away from competitive play. It's cancerous and stifles modeling creativity all because GW refuses to use more sensible visibility and engagement rules.
I was just thinking that. I love to model my expensive armies in cool poses and look more alive. I would hate to get disqualified for a game I put hundreds of hours to build. If they are going to be that strict don’t let players build models. The game would die and that’s exactly why it’s stupid to be so strict.
10th de-simplified the game in many ways worse than where it tried to clean mechanics up like, cover. Take the arguing out of the game and there will be players!
I wonder how they did things back in 2nd edition. Just from reading the rule books I immediately identified multiple areas where the rules contradicted each other.
@@DGneoseeker1 You used to have a third person act as a moderator of sorts for games. You either talk it out or roll off to determine who is right. Fun is more important than balance.
I hope that the judge steps down over this to be honest. I mean, I thought this was a bad ruling, but the moment I heard that an event run by GW's events team had rule the opposite way on top of everything else, nah that's just wilful ignorance on the judges part. Ignoring the more official ruling in favor of your own on top of clearly targeting this player over something that you admit was just as likely GW's quality control than cheating is ridiculous.
Competitive play makes the entire game experience repulsive.
The game is inherently competitive.
@@terraneaux well that’s fundamentally wrong. The core of the game and it’s origins is DnD in space!
40K was a narrative RPG with a GM. Understanding the origins of the game makes it clear the current game design still has the same core.
15 years of 40K. The most fun I’ve seen anyone have in 15 years is throwing competitive out the window.
@@erupendragon7376 Just because there was a GM doesn't mean there isn't a winner and a loser. Scenarios had victory conditions.
Are you talking about "tournament" 40k?
I've played miniature games (not just 40k) since the 90's, and the most fun I've had is with other competitive players, whether at tournaments or not, who challenge each other mentally.
And then you get the scrubs who rant about how terrible "competitive" play is but constantly angle shoot and cheat, then claim ignorance of the rules. What it comes down to is that most competitive players care about playing a sportsmanlike game, the anti-competitive crowd will throw a tantrum to make sure nobody has fun if you don't let them win.
@@terraneaux having winners and losers does not mean it’s competitive. Looks like you should play more games. Go have fun buddy.
@@erupendragon7376 No, that's literally the definition of a competitive game.
You should use more precise language, unless your goal is just to hide your own scrubbiness and lack of sportsmanship.
If a player is going to be red carded and life time banned for a silly possible assembly mistake, or it shifting around over the course of a tournament, there should be a standardized reference packet for all these dimensions.
It's absurd how hard it was to find base sizes before Wahapedia, yet tournaments enforce base sizes
You see the problem is that you're significantly smarter than any of these people. So you're trying to bring sense into a world of monkeys
Fun note, these were second hand models the player bought pre-built from stores in his local area
@@grotwurksmekshop6607 ooof.
Don't use ruzziapedia as a source lmao.
@@Wes-xk6hlhe said use a Russian website during a massive info and land war from them vs NATO. Lol he's not smart
Why does it always seem like there's controversy in Texas for 40k
I've not ran into any issues so far but I'm also away from the bigger scenes in the cities
This happened in Texas just recently hey, Huh.
Because Texas is full of assholes, that's why they all moved there in the first place. No one else wanted the assholes to live near them so they had to fuck off into the desert to be assholes together.
These things happen everywhere. This was just at a big name event which gets more visibility.
@@nathanlewis2681 There is a Tau player from Texas that just cheats every event he goes to.
I like how poor quality control was not really taken into account, instead the player was penalized for "manipulating the model"
Warhammer tornaments are such a bad idea for exactly this reason. If you can build the kit out of the box- not even a conversion- and accidentially create an advantage so drastic that it changes the outcome of an event, I'm sorry, but this game is not suited to that kind of competative play. When its at its best its around game as a medium for storytelling and models as a medium for artistic expression. The tornament scene is a brick weighing down warhammer.
They really need to drop the dumbass LOS and measurement rules, if I shift my magnetized dragoon’s arm I shouldn’t be able to completely change the way an engagement plays out
The rules set allows ground troops to *melee* an *in-flight aircraft* ??!?!?!
Based on *vertical charge distances*????!?!?
And this the sort of reason I don't play 40k these days...
That seems like an extreme punishment for a problem that could very well have been a production issue, and applying that penalty after it's all over with is just ridiculous. I'm guessing he likely said something on social media they didn't like and this was retaliation.
Now I see why some players do not go to tournaments. And this case will stop even more players going to tournaments… sad
Ultimately, the TO's f'ed up. Screwed over a player retroactively who was playing it by their rules correctly. TLDR below this sentence.
So the issue is that the Player was playing it (and was told by the TO) that he could not disembark from the wings.
Disembarking has a 5" vertical, 3" horizontal requirement. So if you cant disembark, you can't be charged right?
Well this TO changed their mind after the fact and Red Carded the player (based on a Clutch City TO giving him a Yellow card because the player got the disembark clarified and the TO, a different one than the Alamo GT, changed their mind on distances after the fact.)
Edit: For those looking at the rules, check the Rules Commentary or the app for "Vehicles with Bases"
The GW rules commentary on this specifically says that you use *any* part of the model to measure from while disembarking, I'd have fucking flipped on them if they tried to ban me for playing by the clearly written rules 😂
Disembarking rules are different between model types. There is a section in the rules commentary called "Disembarking Large Models." The rule states that the unit must be set up wholly within 3" of that model, and if this is not possible, it sets up within 1" of the base. Nothing about 5" vertical or 3" horizontal, just purely wholly within 3" or if that's not possible, within 1" of base. Are you saying that it is possible to disembark a Redemptor from the wingtip and still count as wholly within 3" in all directions of the Storm Raven? Or is the counter argument that the Redemptor is not a large model? (/s) In this case, the TO was right that Redemptors couldn't disembark from the wing tips as they physically cannot achieve the requirement of being wholly within 3" from the wingtip, (even more so when you take into account that the player's Storm Raven's we physically taller than 5" off the table) as such are forced to measure to be within 1" of the base.
@jacket2848 it's under Vehicles with Bases.
The TO's are in their right to say that something hovering in the rough 5" area counts as above.
If it was blatantly under 5" I 100% agree with you
@@jjtgomez check the Rules Commentary under Vehicles with Bases. It should be in red
@@grotwurksmekshop6607 So you're just going to ignore the part of the rules commentary of "Disembarking Large Models"? Tell me, what else of the rules do you ignore to fit your narrative?
So the ruling of a company run tournament is overruled by a local one. Yeah, that makes sense, smh
Wow! Screw Alamo GT. Never going there. I would have demanded my money back and my scores completely scrubbed from the event.
The player should have been aware? How about the judge should have been aware? Thats their 1 job. Also this is a modeling game, tilting a flyer could be for coolness factor or variety in poses... really dumb ruling.
The player should have been aware of the ruling because they received a previous yellow card at an event in the same circuit from a different judge over the same question, about the same model. The issue is not inherently the discrepancy in the measurement, it's the pattern of apparent dishonesty.
It sounds like they intentionally played dumb to attempt to solicit the ruling they wanted (that it wasn't chargable), got that ruling, and that the judge found out he'd been deceived after the fact.
@peterstewart7332 the principles of human factors mandate that the entity with the most man hours of knowledge should be the responsible party. You have a collective of judges which combined bear a greater burden of knowlege than any one player. The judge bears the "knew or should have known" responsibility, let alone the T.O. as a whole. Maybe this guy was trying to pull a fast one afterall, but really this kind of retroactive try hard BS from the ruling party is not acceptible. The organizer and by proxy the judges should bear the ultimate blame here.
@@nicoleandscottnelson3933 In principle I agree, the person with the greatest exposure / experience should be the one responsible for making the right call.
And I suspect, had the judge simply made the wrong call, they wouldn't have vacated the win / banned him.
Where this gets fuzzy is when the other party (in this case, the player) has specific knowledge of the details and knowingly withholds them with the clear intention of hoping the judge got the (relatively nuanced) call wrong.
And lets be clear, this was not some father of 3 that plays an event or two a year. This was a high level, well known, event grinder.
What this guy got in trouble for wasn't "Oh, we made a rules mistake" it was "You knew what the ruling was supposed to be and convinced the judge that you didn't know."
The dishonesty and misreprentation is why he got slammed specifically for angle shooting by the judges. And rightfully so, because there's no place for that.
@peterstewart7332 ouchie. Well people like that definetly are ruining everyone else's experience
People wonder why I saw comp is toxic as fuck this shit is annoyingly common with comp players and judges
If I was the TO, I would just rule that hover doesn't change how you measure to it. That is just such a ridiculous rule interaction to take as is. I never would have even thought of that since it's just the same model and rules for measuring are written to make the models playable. Aircraft models are obviously playable measuring to the base as opposed to large hover tanks that have tiny bases hidden under them.
This is legit the only sane way to rule it. Actually can't understand why it would be done any other way in the first place.
I don't think hover does this. The rules in 10th just say if a model has a base you measure distances from the base. There is no reference to aircraft or vehicle keywords. There are also no exceptions in the deep strike, charge or hover rules.
It looks like both the player and the judge are operating with older edition rules.
@@davidjprentice152Look up GW's "rules commentary" and search for "vehicles with bases"
@@davidjprentice152it gets more complex in 10th as models with the fly keyword have further rules than just the based vehicle ones
Not only is this so petty, I think it's stupid in the first place you can charge a flying aircraft.
I'm sorry, isn't it a rule that you can't charge Aircraft AT ALL unless you can also Fly? What was making the charge? A Jump Pack unit?
Absolutely fracking absurd. That ruling is so asinine and petty, and the punishment so ridiculously severe, that the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that the judge had a personal vendetta against this specific player. Shameful.
That's the dumbest ruling I have ever heard. Mainly because measurements at the table is never ever accurate to a few milimeters anyways.
Completely overblown by the TO IMO. A complete overreach and abuse of power. It feels personal considering the personal histories involved. Both the TO and player in question are both competitive players in the Texas 40K tournaments. The TOs team itself is a high performing team. The player in question beat a team member of the TO in Round 5 of this event. So, impartiality IMO, by the TO is not possible and the TO should not have addressed this in the manner he did. If you make a mistake in your judgement, own up to it, don’t punish a player who was playing by your ruling. A life time ban is 100% uncalled for in this situation.
its also the fact that the rules interaction should of been the first thing considered. Player could not disembark from the wings so the wings could not be charged or be used to hold objectives
I wasn't gonna say it, but it does appear that the new winner of the tournament is a friend of the TO. Even if the ruling was not made for nepotistic reasons it's enough to make you question things.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I was at the Alamo GT the year before and the head judge was absolutely manipulating things in favor of his competitive team.
@aaronkelman6775 so then why did the TO rule in favor of the teammate?
I get it but reversing a decision after the fact in favor of your teammate?
@@grotwurksmekshop6607 He didn't at all. Nobody that directly benefitted was on his team. You don't seem to really be aware of what happened here and are regurgitating speculation from other folks that's just not correct.
A dude that's not even getting paid being able to screw over a guy's ability to play in locals and put his reputation into question AFTER a ruling the dude made might have been wrong is totally fucked
Man these judges really act like umpires, soccer referees, race finish reviewers, nascar post race inspectors and the only experience they have is they also play the game yet every other semi-competitive game/sport has trained judges but we cant expect that kind of quality for the plastic army men.
So I've broken all my SM Inceptor and Custodes bikes flightstands serveral times and fixed them up and there is no way they are the exact original size and if I lived in Texas I could get a lifetime ban for bringing them....
nice..
Is no one going to talk about the judge holding the measuring tape about 8-10" away from the model in question? That measurement if entirely bogus.
He's not measuring to the base man, he's measuring to the tip of the wing, which is what the question was about.
Bad call, unless they know something we don't (like he admitted it to someone). Otherwise, bad judge, throw him out barred from judging any future events.
Every time I hear about this kind of clownshoes goings on in the world of 40k comp, the more convinced I become that tabletop games in general, especially ones like 40k are completely antithetical to being played competitively. It's like trying to play Diplomacy or Risk competitively, but with even more room for edge case stuff like this happening.
I wonder how these rulings would intersect with the new flying base. GW is moving to a different model of flying bases where instead of being an X cross-section, it's a smooth curved stand like a larger version of the new flying stands they shipped with the Inceptors in 8th edition, with a ball joint on top, coupled with a small X cross section mounting point that fits into flyers' X mounting holes; the the mounting point has a concavity at the bottom that connects to the ball joint. This allows for greater pose variety on your flyers, since you can use the ball joint to change the apparent angle of attack on your flyer. And this is being sold with some 40k flyers that previously used the old flying stands -- for example, the Necron croissant flyer that came with their last big battleforce came with the new flying stand. I believe these new bases are also slightly taller than the old X cross section flying stands.
Is it modeling for advantage to build your flyer with the base it came with, if it came with the new stand? Is it modeling for advantage if you get one of the new flying stands from eBay to use on a flyer you bought that came with the old flying stand? Is it normally modeling for advantage if you use the new stand, but not if you make sure to mount the ball joint perfectly level? Should players who want to use the new stands have to present video unboxings of their flyers to prove that the flyer came with the new stand and they didn't buy it aftermarket?
Tzeentch screamers come with the most abhorrent ball joint bases. I stopped using them, they've wound up goodness fricking knows where. The models are practically flat, but I'd basically say to people "Yup, they're floating high enough you can shoot them over scatter/etc."
I dread to think of heavier models on that kind of stand...
I love defilers, absolutely love them. But god-damn are they in desperate need of a base. When every single one can take up a different space with no real 'default' posing, people putting it together in a particular way could be percieved as modelling for advantage, when it's total area appears to be less than someone elses defiler.
Event drop seems to be an extreme response to this case. A Ban in general is far over-reacting. A life-time ban, leadership should reconsidering this judges position with the team. In addition these flyer rules are ridiculous. For sure leaves people reconsidering going to the Alamo GT.
Easy fix to this is to just say, “any model with the Aircraft keyword is always treated as an Aircraft regardless if it is in hover mode or not” for the purposes of measuring a charge
Do you mean that it couldn't be charged by ground troops in hover mode? Being vulnerable to charges has been the trade off for being in hover since the aircraft's inception in 6th edition.
I'd flip it and say any aircraft in hover mode always counts as below 5 inches of height
@@Kindarya Or just use real height.
Let flying units fly, force them to spend movement if they want to get into melee or let non-flying disembark (you know, as the literal english definition of the words in the rules means). Just apply english and add that non-fly units have to end any move in contact with battleground normally/only on riser stands if climbing ruins and other terrain features.
I always just play that vertical distance for a model on the ground floor is ignored.
@@t0k3p0k3more likely OP meant "for the purposes of measurement" rather than "for the purposes of charging"
19:50 While it would be convenient to just measure to models bases, models like DE Raiders and Necron Doomsday Arks exist, with bases that are tiny in comparison to the model and create a whole bunch of problems. Like the doomsday ark is really hard to get into melee range with because the model physically blocks other models from getting close to its base.
I don't get why this is an issue but gluing your inceptors to their base is legal. That's modeling for advantage also. A lot of GW flight stands are on ball joints so you can creatively position your models. Could I adjust the angle it sits on its base during my turn? When is the cutoff point?
If GW doesn't put out official specs for how tall flying models are considered in game then this is a baseless claim. Most people with Eldar tanks either use a screw stand or put it on the ground which changes LOS. We should probably ban everyone who brought a nightspinner in 10th, yeah?
After reading others comments, this just created another barrier for entry on tournaments. People who don't know if they've built their model wrong and don't want to get publicly shamed on the internet.
Any rulings from previous events bring applied should be written out clearly in the event pack or it shouldn’t apply. This would have prevented the whole situation. The blame falls on the event organiser.
Anyone know who the judge is so i can avoid any tournament they are officiating? I don't have any models that would be in danger, but this judge is crazy and should be boycotted.
This is a rules issue - why don't flying models just have a fixed vertical value to add to measurements? How the model is built shouldn't impact game mechanics in this way in the first place. If you can get banned for building a model slightly wrong the rules are broken
this isnt a game meant to be played competitively
40k was never meant to be played as a competitive tournament game.
It should always of been kept a narrative based game in which we get to re-enact our imagined battles on the tabletop.
That is not how competitive games works, if you can win people will make a competition out of it.
@@paniago82 that's precisely how 40k worked for decades. It's a modem thing where people are forcing a narrative tabletop game into a tournament game.
@@paniago82a competitive tournament is not the same as a competitive meta-slaving esport game.
@@paniago82doesn't mean it's a good game for competitive play. Airsoft for example usually has a winning and losing side but the game is entirely built on the honor system for calling your hits. The more competitive in nature an event becomes, the more likely people are to cheat or violate the spirit of the game because they want the reward for winning. When people do that, it takes the mutual fun out of the game because it turns into players trying to ref every interaction and the concern about the other's enjoyment is lost. 40k is fairly similar to this in how the game works best when people play the game to have a fun battle, not to stomp their opponent into the ground because they have the better rule sets for their pieces of plastic.
The absolute worst part of 40k is that the shape/size of the models matters. Every unit should have a standard size, regardless of modelling. Its absolutely ridiculous that a marine with a raised sword is different than a marine with their sword pointing forward.
So in the (older) assembly manual are 4 ways shown how to mount the flyer on this stand. All change the height and such.
Then there are flyers who have a ball mount, meaning there is a sphere/ball at the upper end of the stand, allowing you to lot's of freedom how to glue it on.
And GW highly encourages players to go even further and find some cool ways to model it. Keep in mind too, that most of the flyers came out during way older editions, the Storm raven for example at the end of 5th. The rules back then were quite different.
All this means, that GW doesn't want you to rule so stupidly and just have fun! I hope you fact on GW tourneys they always try to find a middle ground or let the players roll a dice each other.
A judge made a wrong call instead of taking responsibility for the call he is blaming others for it. Does not matter he is getting pay or not he should known all the rules and that his responsibility so he should known this before he made the call. We can say he is not getting pay therefore he made the wrong call and that ok but still that his responsibility. Banning someone else for his mistake is just wrong if anything Alamo GT head judge should get a lifetime ban for being a judge anywhere.
Chevron Deference was repealed by the SCotUS; the judge's retroactive ruling is illegal and the "offending item" was legitimate and righteous until the end of the meet. The device is intended to interact in a specific way and the 10% engineering margin applies. Failing to address "class" of the items interacting is a fault of the judge and *the judge* should be banned from the event in the future.
This is equivalent to claiming that because there was a fingerprint on a card played in Magic that the play was illegal.
Some plastics shrink, did anybody verify the specifications of the models affected? No. No, because some egotistical idiot has an agenda.
that....that seriously sounds like theres some sort of behind the scene beef between the player and that judge/organizer.
GW has never officially stated how things are supposed to be mounted, the post is so subtly different one way or another that its very difficult to tell which way is "correct" - hell, my TessVault sits at a weird angle when i put it on wrong and i usually need to take 2-3 attempts to get it on correct so its flat and not weirdly dipped, my other models with that cross post i dont even notice if i put it on backwards. Not to mention what about alternative posts? ive seen several tournament lists where things on those flight stands were not using the normal flight stand and as a result were either much higher, at a dynamic angle, or lower than normal, and this has never been a thing before.
Banning someone for this is total BS. If i was in an area with this judge i would actively avoid any future tournaments that judge is involved in.
THIS is why I won't do tournaments anymore, I do not have the fucks to give about rules like this, but my opponent might and I just want to roll dice and play with my models.
This is the exact kind of crap that keeps people from continuing or even starting to play. Seeing it at the highest levels of play sends a HUGE message to not invest.
exactly theres no reason 2 models all but touching shouldn't be in melee distance if the one is not an aircraft, which hover isn't. theres no way this is how the game is intended to be played and just unfun rules lawyering nonsense.
I think it’s down to Games Workshop continuing to publish a game that can be cheesed (if guilty) or litigated (if bad judge). They’ve had literally 10 editions to clamp down and make a game that’s robust to competition play.
Narrative-chads stay winning
Wait... in this scenario, with the GMDK on the cork base... It's not gw official, which is the dread on the round base. Is it modeling for advantage?
I don't play tourneys but I have land speeders on slightly taller stands so the squad is at different heights cos that looks cool and dynamic. I'd say measure to plastic base for everything, it's only chunky rectangles that don't have base. But yes the GK baby carrier could be at advantage as it can see over shorter ruins. It's so petty I can't be bothered to waste my life playing these sorts of people.
The Dreadknight comes on an oval base, the same one as the T’au Ghostkeel & the current Carnifex.
Let me clarify, the base is legal, and the cork is not. The cork makes the dreadknight like half an inch or more taller.
@@moomixgaming9986 Ah, yeah, that definitely could be considered more egregious than the “modeling for advantages” the TO argued lol
@@MorphicGalaxy well, id say its what puts the GMDK in range to the storm raven.
Eh hull rules for aircraft is just dumb for a model that high up it should focus on base, size save the hull rule for ground vehicles.
Because Gunships always hover at the same exact height lol. This rule lawyering game is nuts.
Without being able to see exactly what happened with a video I don’t think such a harsh call can be made. Memory is such a weird thing sometimes and the judge may be mis-remembering so with a possible doubt I don’t think the ban or even result should have been changed
So, making a fancy base that elevates the mini = modeling for advantage. The game needs to go back to ignoring extended and spiky bitz for LOS. Stupidest thing I've ever seen is sticking a long spear out to get LOS and shooting at the top of a banner. Your cool radar dish model should totally ignore the dish for LOS.
Nah you don’t understand if I shift a magnetized dragoon’s lance down 3mm I can see your character’s 3rd tentacle
Don't get me started on the gladiator lancer shooting out of cover with 1mm of hull visible...
At this point all events should have a house rule that "Any point of an Aircraft is considered 5' off the ground for the purpose of Hull Charge"
Seeing as GW is smoking meth when selling models and smoking pot while ruling
Funny thing, TO ruled that the wings could not be Disembarked from (per the Vehicle with Bases rule) so why were they chargeable?
More Like drinking when FAQ-ing.
Standard Flight bases are Over 5.5" and if this is the only one of the hovering models this is a problem for where a heldrake for example isnt then Id opt to say you cant melee any hovering unit. Punching a Helicopter seems dumb to me lol.
Page 7 of the Core Rules, under 'measuring distances':
'When measuring the distance between models, measure between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, measure to the closest point of any part of that model instead.'
So this entire situation is caused by not checking the rules.
A Stormraven has a base, so you measure from the base.
no a storm raven is a vehicle so you measure from hull not from base its also in the core rules
@@lucasflanery9534yes, except in this case where this same tournament said you couldn't disembark from the wings which requires the exact same 5in
Oh my, my Droppods will have a field day here, iam still using the old Forgeworld Droppods which you cant shoot through, makes it a fun deal for true line of sight stuff.
One of my opponents wanted to play by the rules and insisted he couldnt see my infantry models cause Line of sight and hidden behind "terrain"...quotes as it was a flat piece that is supposed to be low terrain he couldnt shoot through.
This edition gets more stupid by the minute imo.
This here is exactly why I don't play competitive
It's so rare to ever see something like this in the comp setting. If you don't like competitive games, that's fine, but don't use the rarest of instances of cheating as an excuse.
@@timb.4516 This wasnt a case of cheating. This was a case of an incompetent TO.
TO stated player could not disembark from wings (per Vehicle with Bases rule you can as long as within 5" vertically and 3 Horizontally) so the wings should never been an area to charge
@@timb.4516lol cheating. More like bad TO
what a stupid rule and stupid judgement. an aircraft should be flying or it is not. the hovering rule should just not exist. a "hovering" aircraft should just be treated as a ground unit and measurement made to the base.
I thought the rule when charging aircraft was the only thing that can do it is another aircraft
Nope. Only models with fly can charge an aircraft.
But a Stormraven in hover mode isn't an aircraft.
his opponent was friends with the TO is my guess...
Also a judge going players should be aware of previus ruleings even if I am not is the higth of hypocracy
The real bannable offense here is the measuring rules, frankly.
Way too sweaty for me. This is why I avoid competitive and tournament play.
You should not be able to melee an aircraft in the first place. -_-