quote:

---

Originally posted by Dapuma


Fundin Strongarm: When we played, you tried a "trick" with your ranged melee hide with the Sneak to kill my Kord. He did not get extra damage for being outside range 6 and being hidden, but you said he did. I did not call you a cheat. I just figured you didnt know the rule and that you thought it worked differently. We got a ruling and the game went on. I assumed you made a mistake, not that you intentionally tried to cheat me. That is why there are judges, to make sure disagreements are settled. There are a lot of confusing rules in a miniature game. Not knowing every single idiosyncrasy doesnt make someone a bad person.

.
.
.
In regards to the last game, there was a judge there ruling on everything that was contested. Everything was overseen by a disinterested 3rd party.

I am sorry you feel your son got the short end of the stick. I had a judge rule on everything to make sure it was fair. I did everything by the book and the judge agreed. I cannot do more.

Dapuma

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunthar

Is that clear enough for you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunthar

quote:

---

Originally posted by AesophDarkfable
I got to say I agree on this one here. I was going to say something but decided it wasn't my place and to let it slide, but I've got follower tendencies so now that its broken I will echo the sentiments of Dagni.

---

I guess I wonder why YOU would think this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ack

.....If you are going to a qualifier with a secret band youve only played against yourself with.. thats crazy. everyone must be bouncing ideas off other folks. some of them just happen to be part of the "elite" crew.. but why would you want to discuss a build with someone who you consider to be your inferior when it comes to warbanding? dont you want BETTER opinions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IanB

You'd think by now I'd have gotten over my Ghendar/Gunthar confusion... but no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghendar

quote:

---

Originally posted by IanB

You'd think by now I'd have gotten over my Ghendar/Gunthar confusion... but no.

---

heh, did I miss something?
No really, did I?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IanB

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghendar

quote:

---

Originally posted by IanB

You'd think by now I'd have gotten over my Ghendar/Gunthar confusion... but no.

---

heh, did I miss something?
No really, did I?

---

Not really, your board names are just similar enough that I often forget you're two different people until you both post in the same thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by doubtofbuddha

Technically I didn't post the tournament report that included the post. Someone else did. I just did not chose to divulge the warband in that thread, largely because I was keeping a secret of someone else.

However, I've taken the complaints to heart, and I will refrain from posting tournament reports until the season is over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoons

Heh, was there any doubt (not the-of-budda kind[)]) that this thread would get snippy? I count at least 3 different arguements er.... exchanges of information going on, most of which have nothing to do with the original topic.

Ok. Can we just have a big group hug, admit that nothing is ever easy, and we're all missunderstood but wonderful people.

[:X]:sniff: I love you guys.[:o)]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by doubtofbuddha

Technically I didn't post the tournament report that included the post. Someone else did. I just did not chose to divulge the warband in that thread, largely because I was keeping a secret of someone else.

However, I've taken the complaints to heart, and I will refrain from posting tournament reports until the season is over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagni

[quote]Yeah, that's what I expected the result of that thread would be. It's a shame, since I'm sure many people never had any problem with it, and would've liked to see these tournament reports, even incomplete.

- Dagni

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoons

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faragdar the Wise
qualified judges (like me)

---

I'm not implying you're not competent or capable, but what do you mean by qualified...ANYONE can claim to be a qualified judge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by doubtofbuddha

However, I've taken the complaints to heart, and I will refrain from posting tournament reports until the season is over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faragdar the Wise

The fact that there is no qualification system for DDM judges is a problem. The only metric by which a person can claim to be a "qualified" judge, right now, is a track record of previous DCI sanctioned events that they have judged. I agree with the assessment that some sort of test is needed. It need not be any more elaborate than the qualification test to become a GM for the RPGA.

A similar system for DDM would probably be a good idea. Take a test and become a qualified judge. Then you progress by the number of tournaments that you judge. For national qualifiers, you should have X number of tournaments under your belt. For nationals, you should have X + Y tournaments that you've judged. Others have raised the point, though, that such a system is likely only to be effective if DCI and WotC provides an incentive system for judges. Again, it probably need not be any more elaborate than the RPGA GM rewards system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rolland

One last thing about this topic before this thread slips completely into the non-sequitar tangent ether.

The questions I can't seem to get out of my mind are:

A: If a player who allegedly by his own admission "has only been playing the game for about a month" , why should he be questioning basic concepts of the game when playing veteran players (many of whom allegedly corrected him)?

I understand that the level of competition is much higher for a qualifier and that emotions run much higher, but at some point one would think (perhaps naively) that a rookie would defer to the veterans if nothing else because this game has a rather steep learning curve. But perhaps I'm just being naive, having no other tourney experience in any other games (such as the more cutthroat Magic tournies).


B: If it is true (as alleged), why would someone (either judge or player) refuse to look at a diagram that very succintly lays out in diagram the rules in question?

Although it is just heresay, as I did not attend the event in question, I feel that these events are very disturbing if true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagni

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rolland

One last thing about this topic before this thread slips completely into the non-sequitar tangent ether.

The questions I can't seem to get out of my mind are:

A: If a player who allegedly by his own admission "has only been playing the game for about a month" , why should he be questioning basic concepts of the game when playing veteran players (many of whom allegedly corrected him)?

I understand that the level of competition is much higher for a qualifier and that emotions run much higher, but at some point one would think (perhaps naively) that a rookie would defer to the veterans if nothing else because this game has a rather steep learning curve. But perhaps I'm just being naive, having no other tourney experience in any other games (such as the more cutthroat Magic tournies).


B: If it is true (as alleged), why would someone (either judge or player) refuse to look at a diagram that very succintly lays out in diagram the rules in question?

Although it is just heresay, as I did not attend the event in question, I feel that these events are very disturbing if true.

---

On A) I think that's exactly why he might NOT have gone to the judge the first time. Oh, ok, well this guy probably knows what he's talking about, I've only been playing a month, I guess I shouldn't bother a judge about this inconsequential thing, I can still get to... here. However, by seventh round, it's a key situation this time, he's been giving in to his opponents all day without even checking with the judge, he finally says to himself that's enough, let's at least check with the judge first.

A player that's been playing for a month sometimes will misread or misunderstand the rules, especially if he doesn't read Rules threads a lot or play against a lot of experienced tournament players. The player may have only been playing a month, but that doesn't mean he has any reason to believe his understanding of the rules is flawed. That doesn't mean he should blindly trust what his opponent tells him! As a judge, that's exactly the attitude you do NOT want players to take.

---

quote:

---

The right thing to do is get a ruling from the judge the very first time it came up. Failing that, however, finally going to the judge in the seventh round is not, in and of itself, a bad thing or the wrong thing to do - it's the right thing to do (at least in a normal tournament, with a good judge).

---

quote:

---

On B however, I have no idea. There hasn't been any detail for all of us who weren't there as to the exact actions of any of the parties involved when debating or making the bad rulings. Probably that's just as well, the precise specifics maybe don't need to be aired on MaxMinis.

---

quote:

---

----

Oh, additional example: at the latest MtG prerelease, I've been playing maybe 5 months now, and I was playing a player first round of the tournament, and he tried to do something that I didn't think could work. He said that he had very specifically checked with the Head Judge of the event who had said it worked as described. I believed him. ...But I still called over a judge, who then called over the head judge. The judge had, in fact, told that player it would work as he wanted, and reaffirmed that ruling. But when I explained why I didn't think it would work, he kinda smacked his own forehead, apologized, and agreed with me.

The point is there was some real peer pressure to not even get the judge in the first place. But a player ought to get the judge when he's not sure about a ruling, even if the opponent is sure.

---

quote:

---

Plus, I've been the opponent who 'knew' the rule and was wrong before, and it's ten times worse if no one corrects you (until afterwards) than if the judge comes over and corrects your mistake immediately.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rolland

I appreciate the post Dagni, and I had thought of similar situations such as you brought up in your responce post and the earlier post you made reg. this issue. I also appreciate that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, which is also a very good point that both your posts make.

The only thing that makes me think not lean this way in this case (and it's only if said allegations are true), is we're talking about something as fundamentally basic to the game as charging (not exacly something very subjectively debatable) which is covered explicitly by diagrams in the rulebook. On the bodyguard issue I would be more inclined to give a player the benifit of the doubt, because it could more likely be a situation as you explained above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vrecknidj

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rolland

I appreciate the post Dagni, and I had thought of similar situations such as you brought up in your responce post and the earlier post you made reg. this issue. I also appreciate that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, which is also a very good point that both your posts make.

The only thing that makes me think not lean this way in this case (and it's only if said allegations are true), is we're talking about something as fundamentally basic to the game as charging (not exacly something very subjectively debatable) which is covered explicitly by diagrams in the rulebook. On the bodyguard issue I would be more inclined to give a player the benifit of the doubt, because it could more likely be a situation as you explained above.

---

It turns out that the Bodyguard had been allegedly taking special ability and spell damage for allies previously in the day, that the player had been told he couldn't do that, and that against fresh opponents he did it again anyway. If thisallegation turns out to be true, it's clearly way, way over the line.

Dave

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fundin Strongarm

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dapuma


Fundin Strongarm: When we played, you tried a "trick" with your ranged melee hide with the Sneak to kill my Kord. He did not get extra damage for being outside range 6 and being hidden, but you said he did. I did not call you a cheat. I just figured you didnt know the rule and that you thought it worked differently. We got a ruling and the game went on. I assumed you made a mistake, not that you intentionally tried to cheat me. That is why there are judges, to make sure disagreements are settled. There are a lot of confusing rules in a miniature game. Not knowing every single idiosyncrasy doesnt make someone a bad person.

.
.
.
In regards to the last game, there was a judge there ruling on everything that was contested. Everything was overseen by a disinterested 3rd party.

I am sorry you feel your son got the short end of the stick. I had a judge rule on everything to make sure it was fair. I did everything by the book and the judge agreed. I cannot do more.

Dapuma

---

As already said, thank you for posting in a thread that really has not been kind to you.

Yes, I incorrectly played the Kenku's Ranged Sneak Attack ability against you. I apologized when I was found to be incorrect and your AoKord was placed back on the board. I had (inadvertently) played it correctly until that point but was sure to be within 6 if I intended to do sneak damage for the rest of the tournament.

I, too, assumed you had mistakenly applied the Bodyguard ability to the Chaos Hammer damage. There was "no harm - no foul" when it was pointed out differently to you and the game went on. At that point, the idea of you being a cheat was the farthest thing from my mind. (Even the picking up and placing of pieces in their new location I had little trouble with, though it can be hard to tell if you have moved correctly.) I assumed you would play the Bodyguard's ability correctly from that point on, just as I did with the Kenku.

---

quote:

---

I cannot speak to what happened to Dave's son in the 7th round matchup. I was not there and did not hear about it at all. I just wanted to point out that you knew the rule for the Bodyguard's ability versus damage from spells from our earlier game. I have no idea if you played the ability correctly or not during that game.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagni

quote:

---

Originally posted by doubtofbuddha
However, I've taken the complaints to heart, and I will refrain from posting tournament reports until the season is over.

---

Yeah, that's what I expected the result of that thread would be. It's a shame, since I'm sure many people never had any problem with it, and would've liked to see these tournament reports, even incomplete.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kithmaker
I definitely see this exchange as a perfect example of top players "colluding/ scheming/ obfuscating/ whatever" that may offend some people (as has been mentioned in this thread).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kithmaker

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagni

quote:

---

Originally posted by doubtofbuddha
However, I've taken the complaints to heart, and I will refrain from posting tournament reports until the season is over.

---

Yeah, that's what I expected the result of that thread would be. It's a shame, since I'm sure many people never had any problem with it, and would've liked to see these tournament reports, even incomplete.

---

I believe I'm a disinterested party to this line of discussion, since you guys (Jesse and Robert) have no clue who I am (although I talked briefly with Dagni at Winter Fantasy), but as a neutral observer on this thread, I definitely see this exchange as a perfect example of top players "colluding/ scheming/ obfuscating/ whatever" that may offend some people (as has been mentioned in this thread).
Edit: Though I would say that I enjoy reading the reports.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vrecknidj
The only thing that makes me think not lean this way in this case (and it's only if said allegations are true), is we're talking about something as fundamentally basic to the game as charging (not exacly something very subjectively debatable) which is covered explicitly by diagrams in the rulebook. On the bodyguard issue I would be more inclined to give a player the benifit of the doubt, because it could more likely be a situation as you explained above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felagund
What? What was even remotely offensive about that exchange? How is that scheming or colluding or obfuscating?

Doubt gave in to the complainers, and Dagni said that it was unfortunate, but what he expected. Am I missing something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newtoncain

Hun? What was this thread origonally about?[:(]

---