Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

[Avaris]

That leeway is an organizational nightmare though. You cant leave a subjective way out for people coded into your system; by all means, have TOs / Judges be able to apply their own judgement based on experience, but if you codify a way out then everyone will take their 'free cheat' chance claiming to be new / just gotten free time to read their rules / dumbfounded by the rapid fire once every 6 months rules changes less than 4 pages long, etc.

Oh absolutely, it’s difficult, and I’m not suggesting that genuine mistakes should go unpunished. You should face a penalty for making mistakes, and a more severe one if it can be proved to be actual cheating, and thisharsher penalty should also apply if you make too many mistakes of the first type.

The problem is what punishments do you give. If every identified mistake results in a game loss you encourage people to try and use the punishment system to make their opponent forfeit the game, perhaps by forcing them into making rules mistakes. But if someone is intentionally cheating you want them to face a definite penalty. You need leeway whilst allowing for clear examples of intentional cheating to be quickly dealt with.

[Cheesegear]

But what if nobody's ever pointed it out? If you make a mistake, and nobody ever calls you on it, why would you assume you aren't doing things correctly?

"If nobody calls you out, then there's no problem."
Like I said. Saying things confidently and quickly - even if you're wrong - will get you pretty far.

It's...Bad.

As a slightly different angle, I feel it is important to distinguish between cheating and genuine mistakes because it diminishes the perceived severity of ‘actual’ cheating.

The perceived severity of any mistake - intentional or not - is how much it effected the game.

Does it really matter if your list is 2 Points over the limit?
Does it really matter if you use Command Re-Roll twice in the same phase?
Does it really matter if you forgot the FAQ, and only paid 1 CP for an Assassin?

...Maybe.

Rather than ambiguous nonsense, it's way easier to say "Cheating is cheating, how 'bout you just don't?"

If you define every mistake as cheating...

...then people will be better incentivised to learn the rules and not make mistakes.

You want to have clear, unambiguous punishments for willfull cheating while still having some leeway for genuine mistakes, and that is where intent becomes an important distinguisher.

LansXero already nailed it. You can't give people leeway, because a skilled liar will simply have a 'free cheat' in their pocket. If you allow an "I'm sorry, I wont do it again." to absolve responsibility, things go downhill pretty fast.

Having a definition of cheating that requires intent is a useful tool in responding to it.

But, how do you determine intent? Is there a judiciary panel and investigation on whether you actually did forget a rule?

"Tell me, sir. How many times have you read the FAQ that changes this specific rule? A specific number, please."

The problem is what punishments do you give.

Depends on the meta. Depends on the player. Depends on the environment. Depends how badly the 'mistake' affected the game.
A good three-second 'Booo' is pretty standard.*
Usually a rematch is involved.

It a tournament you might see a loss of a few points, maybe even a DQ. But for some reason 40K TOs have a hard time doing the proper DQ, because it causes bad publicity and an unFun atmosphere...Or something. I don't know. I've seen plenty of things that would get people DQ'd in an M;tG tournament, but at 40K one? No banhammers. It's...Not right.

*'Learn to play, scrub.' is also pretty popular.

[Avaris]

The perceived severity of any mistake - intentional or not - is how much it effected the game.

That’s a good metric. Very subjective though, as is the intent approach. All these things are difficult to judge after the fact is the problem.

Another problem though, is that this:

"Cheating is cheating, how 'bout you just don't?"

Leads, IMO, to this:

I've seen plenty of things that would get people DQ'd in an M;tG tournament, but at 40K one? No banhammers. It's...Not right.

It’s semantics, but having cheating as a different level to mistakes allows nuance. Organisers are unwilling to pull out the banhammer because they don’t want to create an unfun atmosphere, but if all ‘cheating’, intentional or not, is treated equally they have very few other options available. Choosing between punishing players abusing the rules and risking driving off less experienced players is a difficult balance. I’m not sure there’s a right answer.

One approach would be a system of penalty points. Each mistake incurs penalty points: get too many in one game and you forfeit the game, get too many in a tournament and you’re DQed. These should be awarded regardless of whether it was an unintentional mistake or not. Then also have a line of ‘if it is proved you are intentionally cheating, you’re disqualified’. But a points system only works if all players buy into its importance, so that actual cheaters can’t try and talk their way out of getting points, and you need to be careful about the level that you set limits at.

[Destro_Yersul]

"If nobody calls you out, then there's no problem."
Like I said. Saying things confidently and quickly - even if you're wrong - will get you pretty far.

It's...Bad.

Again, not what I said. There is a problem. The problem is that the person making the error doesn't know there's a problem. You're the one who brought law into this. You can't do that, and then NOT expect me to argue using meticulously precise language.

Rather than ambiguous nonsense, it's way easier to say "Cheating is cheating, how 'bout you just don't?"

"Don't make mistakes, ever, or you're a cheater."

Following the rules requires knowing the rules. At a tournament level, I'd very much expect everyone to have read every faq, and to be familiar with the rules of the game and of their army at the very least. But casually, in a store or gaming group or with friends? It's really easy to forget things. Especially things that have been changed.

[Cheesegear]

Again, not what I said. There is a problem. The problem is that the person making the error doesn't know there's a problem.

Why not? Why don't they know that there's a problem? Like I said, your army, is your responsibility. By not knowing your rules properly, you are being irresponsible.
"It wasn't on purpose." might absolve you of guilt. But not responsibility - you still did the thing.

Following the rules requires knowing the rules.

I don't expect you to know my Codex. I expect you to know yours.

If you use a unit, you should know what it does.
If you use a Stratagem, you should know what it does.

Because if I don't know what it does, I'm going to ask you, and if you tell me something that isn't true, that is your fault, whether you do it intentionally or not.

[Drasius]

If you know, and you do it with the express purpose of breaking the rules, that's cheating whether someone calls you on it or not. If you don't know, and never get called on it, then it's a mistake that has yet to be corrected. This is why Mens Rea is a thing that exists: because intent is important.

Yes, intent is important, it's the difference between me playing with that opponent again or not, but it's still cheating. Unintentional rulebreaking will get you some heckling from myself and other store patrons, intentional deception will be a fast track to getting invited to leave the store for good if you don't have enough shame not to leave of your own accord. Both are cheating.

If you want to use Latin lawyer speak examples, the difference between murder and manslaughter is intent, but the result of the action is the same, though the punishment is less severe.

It’s semantics, but having cheating as a different level to mistakes allows nuance. Organisers are unwilling to pull out the banhammer because they don’t want to create an unfun atmosphere, but if all ‘cheating’, intentional or not, is treated equally they have very few other options available. Choosing between punishing players abusing the rules and risking driving off less experienced players is a difficult balance. I’m not sure there’s a right answer.

One approach would be a system of penalty points. Each mistake incurs penalty points: get too many in one game and you forfeit the game, get too many in a tournament and you’re DQed. These should be awarded regardless of whether it was an unintentional mistake or not. Then also have a line of ‘if it is proved you are intentionally cheating, you’re disqualified’. But a points system only works if all players buy into its importance, so that actual cheaters can’t try and talk their way out of getting points, and you need to be careful about the level that you set limits at.

So, cheat as much as you can, until you get caught, then have a good excuse? Sounds bad man.

"Don't make mistakes, ever, or you're a cheater."

Yep. See, it's not that hard of a concept after all.

Following the rules requires knowing the rules. At a tournament level, I'd very much expect everyone to have read every faq, and to be familiar with the rules of the game and of their army at the very least. But casually, in a store or gaming group or with friends? It's really easy to forget things. Especially things that have been changed.

Then go play power level with the other people who struggle with adding up casuals where sticking to the rules doesn't matter quite as much.

At the end of the day, play to your meta - if you have a group that is fast and loose with the rules to an extent, you are going to have to accept that, find a new group or not play many games. Same with a group that plays as per RAW no matter what.

My HH group is pretty free and easy with bending rules for the sake of convenience (measuring arcs is a close-enough-is-good-enough affair, number of models under a template is always generous, any coherencey is done by eye, mysterious terrain / objectives are very rarely used), while my local GW plays RAW 99% of the time with the handful of contentious calls generally discussed to consensus among the neckbeards and store owner and that ruling stands until FAQ'ed otherwise. I play accordingly, though I have to hold my tongue a bit in the HH group on occasion.

[Cheesegear]

ION that hopefully goes somewhere:

Grand Master Voldus is a Grand Master, he has rr1 Aura, and an Iron Halo, he does not have a Psychic Hood.
But, if you were painting GKs like Blood Ravens, and you wanted him to stand out (which you always do, with Character models), would you:
a) Paint him blue, like a Librarian, or
b) Paint him like a Captain?

On the one hand, I want him to be a better version of Diomedes (i.e; How a Captain of a Company that is exclusively Psykers would actually be represented on the table). On the other hand, I want him to stand out.

Maybe I can do what Deathwatch does; Paint the guy like a normal Blood Raven, but the 'Psyker' bits (shoulder pads, psychic hood) blue. Actually, I might test how it looks on my Sergeant models to make them stand out before I Dettol my Voldus for the second time in a year.

...Maybe this is a question for the Fluff thread.

[Wraith]

Maybe I can do what Deathwatch does; Paint the guy like a normal Blood Raven, but the 'Psyker' bits (shoulder pads, psychic hood) blue. Actually, I might test how it looks on my Sergeant models to make them stand out before I Dettol my Voldus for the second time in a year.

...Maybe this is a question for the Fluff thread.

Funny you should mention Deathwatch - I've seen people painting Blood Ravens Librarians before and they often tend to do the same thing; paint the model Librarian blue, but give them a red arm to denote them specifically as a Librarian amongst a bunch of Psykers. It also works in the same pattern as Diomedes, who wears the red of his Chapter but has his left arm in gold to denote his rank.

(...Don't ask me what a Blood Raven Librarian seconded to the Deathwatch would look like, though. Black armour, red arm, silver shoulder pad? I'unno.)

That also has the added benefit of not making them look like a Thousand Sons unit - their Heresy-era armour was red and gold, and there's a variant of one of their cults that kept the red and gold but added blue shoulders/details.

[Cheesegear]

Funny you should mention Deathwatch - I've seen people painting Blood Ravens Librarians before and they often tend to do the same thing; paint the model Librarian blue, but give them a red arm

Well, yeah. That comes from the original Index Astartes article in White Dwarf a few months after DoW came out.
You know...The one that said the Chapter is all about Psykers despite the game not implementing them at all.

Spoiler

Show

I even have the issue.

The image you linked comes straight out of the Deathwatch: Honour the Chapter sourcebook. Had I an actual Librarian (e.g; Jonah Orian), the one red arm was exactly how I was going to paint him.
My issue is that Voldus, per GK rules, isn't a Librarian.

...Don't ask me what a Blood Raven Librarian seconded to the Deathwatch would look like, though. Black armour, red arm, silver shoulder pad? I'unno.

Kill Team Cassius. Ever heard of it?

Spoiler

Show

I believe Jensus Natorian is the first official Blood Ravens model...Ever? He seems painted like all other Deathwatch Librarians. Mostly black, but with blue 'psyker' bits where it counts.

I have a Blood Ravens Librarian I made for my Deathwatch Campaign. I'll see if I can dig him out.

EDIT: Found him.

Spoiler: Brother Nazeem

Show

Force Khopesh bit comes from Tomb Kings, RIP.
Dude is barely highlighted. I'd be tempted to fix him if Librarians weren't terrible.

That also has the added benefit of not making them look like a Thousand Sons unit - their Heresy-era armour was red and gold...

My understanding that that Blood Ravens looking like pre-Heresy Thousand Sons is a feature, not a bug.

[Wraith]

My issue is that Voldus, per GK rules, isn't a Librarian.

Okay, I'm with you now.

In that case; you're NOT painting "Voldus". You're painting a guy who happens to resemble him, but comes from a different Chapter which has it's own organisation and traditions. You are, after all, being scored on how the army LOOKS, not on how good the rules are for your army.

You're painting Blood Ravens Chapter according to Blood Ravens' tradition. All BR psykers get inducted into the Librarium, and thus are blue. You are NOT painting a Grey Knight, who don't paint their Librarians blue - you're painting a Blood Raven, who DON'T allow their psykers to moonlight in other roles. They either're in the club or they're not, there's no middle ground.

Unless you decide you don't want to paint him blue. That's your prerogative. But in the Blood Ravens, Psyker = Librarian = Blue.
...Which technically means that all of your Squad Sergeants/Justicars and other Characters ought to be blue as well, come to think of it, if you are wanting to obey their traditions to the very letter. Blood Ravens don't have non-Librarian Psykers, they just have a lot of Librarians.

Kill Team Cassius. Ever heard of it?

It's not that I haven't, more that I just never realised he was a BR. For some reason I remember him being an Ultramarine - perhaps I was thinking of a different set. Or maybe I just saw the blue and my brain just 'phoned it in for the day.

My understanding that that Blood Ravens looking like pre-Heresy Thousand Sons is a feature, not a bug.

I mean, you're not wrong. The question that I was trying to imply was, do YOU want them to look like a meme-y version of the Blood Ravens with the joke for all to see, or did you want them to look more serious? It's not for me to say either way - I'm painting my Thousand Sons red with blue shoulders because I like that scheme, but I'm not the one that will have to put up with people asking the same questions and making the same jokes at me all day.

[Cheesegear]

You are, after all, being scored on how the army LOOKS, not on how good the rules are for your army.

I forget who said it, but yes. I am casual filth.

You're painting Blood Ravens Chapter according to Blood Ravens' tradition. All BR psykers get inducted into the Librarium, and thus are blue.

So, in that case, you're saying that similar to say, Deathwing (Bone/White) or Ravenwing (Black), you're saying that the entire Blood Ravens 1st Company, being all Psykers, would therefore be all Librarians, therefore, they would be blue, not red. That's...Not what I wanted to hear. But it would make sense.

But also, they have a Librarius, which isn't the 1st Company.

you're painting a Blood Raven, who DON'T allow their psykers to moonlight in other roles.

Unless the Psykers are also Veterans, which inducts them into the 1st.

[Wraith]

Continued answer in the fluff thread, since we're no longer talking specifically about your miniatures but heraldry instead.

[Destro_Yersul]

Why not? Why don't they know that there's a problem? Like I said, your army, is your responsibility. By not knowing your rules properly, you are being irresponsible.
"It wasn't on purpose." might absolve you of guilt. But not responsibility - you still did the thing.

I don't expect you to know my Codex. I expect you to know yours.

If you use a unit, you should know what it does.
If you use a Stratagem, you should know what it does.

Because if I don't know what it does, I'm going to ask you, and if you tell me something that isn't true, that is your fault, whether you do it intentionally or not.

Sure. Mistakes are still the responsibility of the person making the mistake. It not being cheating does not absolve them of the responsibility to fix it. It is, after all, still wrong.

But it is not wrong with intent, and therefore is a less serious offence, undeserving of sanctions beyond taking steps to correct it. Wraith provided an example above, with Ogryns, and I have one of my own: Not casting the same psychic power twice in one turn. The codex doesn't say this anywhere, the rulebook doesn't say it, and it certainly never used to be like that. I don't play that much. So when I tried to cast... I don't remember the name of the power, but it's the TS one that gives -1 to hit, on two different squads, and my opponent went 'you can't use the same power twice' I said 'oh, right. I'll use X instead.' and the game continued. No harm, no foul.

Yes, intent is important, it's the difference between me playing with that opponent again or not, but it's still cheating. Unintentional rulebreaking will get you some heckling from myself and other store patrons, intentional deception will be a fast track to getting invited to leave the store for good if you don't have enough shame not to leave of your own accord. Both are cheating.

If you want to use Latin lawyer speak examples, the difference between murder and manslaughter is intent, but the result of the action is the same, though the punishment is less severe.

I can and will use Latin lawyer-speak examples. Law is my field, and semantics is everything. Jumping straight to murder/manslaughter is a good example of the importance of intent, though perhaps a little much in terms of severity. I have another example.

Suppose the residential fencing bylaws allow for a backyard fence with a maximum height of 1.8m (roughly 6ft). Suppose a homeowner, not knowing this, installs a fence with a height of 2m (just over 6.5ft). Now suppose that extra 6" of difference goes unnoticed for a very long time. The fence clearly breaks the rules. The homeowner probably should have checked zoning bylaws, but they didn't. Maybe they didn't think to measure the fence sections they purchased, maybe they came from another district where the regs are 2m. It doesn't really matter why, they still broke the rules without intending to. So when the bylaw enforcement officer comes along, they're going to need to redo their fence, but they probably won't be fined. Unless they don't change their fence. Once they know what they're doing is wrong, if they keep doing it? Most people, I think, would agree they deserve a fine for that. But most people would also say they don't deserve a fine for doing it in the first place.

You can't interpret this as 'cheat as much as you can until you get caught,' because knowledge of the offence is a key component of the offence. If you don't know, it's not cheating. If you do know, it is.

Yep. See, it's not that hard of a concept after all.

It's a patently absurd concept. It being easy to state doesn't make it any less worthy of ridicule.

[LansXero]

Relaxing the rules during casual play creates poor habits and make people who should know better fall into mistakes / cheat due to being used to doing it that way. Its better for everyone involved for rules to be enforced regardless of the level of competition, so that the experience remains constant and people build proper practices.

On a different topic, got a couple of games with Craftworlds vs IK/Assassins/Space Marines and Imperial Guard holding a fortification. Won both games, in points and nearly table'd both opponents. Craftworlds seem really solid at the moment, even if not running 6 planes. But I still hold hope for the Sisters book to tear me away from this xenos... affilction.

Eldrad is pretty useful, but boy do spiritseers and warlocks make or break your list. Having mine targeted early by eliminators, shieldbreakers and a vindicare almost cost me the game.

[Manticoran]

Relaxing the rules during casual play creates poor habits and make people who should know better fall into mistakes / cheat due to being used to doing it that way. Its better for everyone involved for rules to be enforced regardless of the level of competition, so that the experience remains constant and people build proper practices.

Maybe this is an American English vs Australian English thing or something, but if you tell someone they're cheating in the communities I belong to, it's worse than say, calling them a dogf*cker. You are implying that they are a bad person, and usually when people are caught cheating in things they're not just corrected but often straight out banned from showing up again.

So making the distinction between people who are cheating, and people who are making mistakes, is important. You still correct the people who are making mistakes, you don't let them get away from it, you might even punish them for it, because it's important to encourage people to not make mistakes. But it's not cheating, because cheating gets no one ever playing games with you again, and if it's a tournament with prizes or something, you banned from the local scene entirely.

It's important to distinguish between making mistakes and cheating, not because as you seem to be arguing that making mistakes is still bad, but because actual cheating is orders of magnitude worse, and if you group "mistake" errors in with cheating errors, it doesn't let you punish the cheaters to the degree they deserve for being the scum of the earth.

[LansXero]

I get that its a cultural thing. My main language is spanish though, so either english will give me trouble.

People around here have the expectation when you show up to play that you know your stuff. 'casual' might as well be a curseword, much like cheater is for you. Take soccer, our national pasttime: you are expected to play, to play well, and to not make stupid fouls or give advantages to the enemy team. Im not talking organized sport, Im talking 9 year olds showing up at a park and seeing other kids playing. Sure, there is no lineman and there are a ton of local made-up rules, but you dont get away with 'Im too new, didnt knew' even at that age. It could even end up in a fistfight if you get too riled up.

Our other national pasttime, DotA, is even worse. Kids will insult and berate complete strangers when they screw up or forget how to item build. And if you "feed" (even entirely unintentionally due to just sucking at the game) you'll get **** rained up on you. Yeah, US kids are toxic too, but in their little houses behind their little headsets. Peruvian kids are nasty right on each other's faces at LANs after school, even to kids 1 or 2 grades above them.

So it ends up with a culture of 'dont **** up, and if you do, get used to being treated like **** for it, or get good at not getting caught'. Which is both good, as it makes people accountable and encourages them to be alert, and bad because it makes crooks out of people or causes some of them to give up.

[Forum Explorer]

Maybe this is an American English vs Australian English thing or something, but if you tell someone they're cheating in the communities I belong to, it's worse than say, calling them a dogf*cker. You are implying that they are a bad person, and usually when people are caught cheating in things they're not just corrected but often straight out banned from showing up again.

So making the distinction between people who are cheating, and people who are making mistakes, is important. You still correct the people who are making mistakes, you don't let them get away from it, you might even punish them for it, because it's important to encourage people to not make mistakes. But it's not cheating, because cheating gets no one ever playing games with you again, and if it's a tournament with prizes or something, you banned from the local scene entirely.

It's important to distinguish between making mistakes and cheating, not because as you seem to be arguing that making mistakes is still bad, but because actual cheating is orders of magnitude worse, and if you group "mistake" errors in with cheating errors, it doesn't let you punish the cheaters to the degree they deserve for being the scum of the earth.

Yes, I think this is it exactly! Calling someone a cheater is a serious offense in my mind. And if I ever thought someone was deliberately cheating? Not only would I refuse to play them, but I would actively warn other people about their cheating. Which in turn, could lead them to being shunned from the community at large if their behavior continued.

Making mistakes on the other hand? Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. At least once or twice, particularly when you are still new to the game. So long as people learn from their mistakes, I don't mind them, and same with most other people in our meta.

[Cheesegear]

Making mistakes on the other hand? Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. At least once or twice, particularly when you are still new to the game. So long as people learn from their mistakes, I don't mind them, and same with most other people in our meta.

For whatever reason, I use Command Re-roll twice in the same phase. I just...Forgot. My opponent, likewise, does not call me out - they forgot, too.
CP re-rolls are usually pretty clutch, so the effects of the re-roll end up being something that directly affected my ability to win the game.

I've been playing 8th Ed. since it started. I am not new.

Did I cheat my opponent out of a win?
Or did I advantageously error them out of a win?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

If I'm called a cheater for making a mistake, I'm not likely to ever play there again. How am I supposed to learn what is still a relatively new game for me (I've been collecting for years but only played single-digit proper games) if I can't make a mistake without being shamed or becoming a pariah? Especially now there are FAQs on FAQ's on Erratas on Beta Rules all on a single topic, so I can't simply check my book for the rule anymore.

So I hope that there's just differing levels of societal expectations behind calling someone a cheat, like LansXero explained, maybe its part of having a hyper competitive culture more broadly. But up here in Canada, if you were to say someone was a cheater for an honest mistake, either they'd be cast out for being a cheater, or you would for being a poor sport and crying wolf.

Edit: I'd say you made a mistake, and the results of that mistake cost your opponent a win. I can see even in your alternative language, inventing a more active verb to simply mean "making a mistake" puts more intent into the action than just "made a mistake" does.

[FireJustice]

For whatever reason, I use Command Re-roll twice in the same phase. I just...Forgot. My opponent, likewise, does not call me out - they forgot, too.
CP re-rolls are usually pretty clutch, so the effects of the re-roll end up being something that directly affected my ability to win the game.

I've been playing 8th Ed. since it started. I am not new.

Did I cheat my opponent out of a win?
Or did I advantageously error them out of a win?

Doesnt matter the intent in this case. if it affected the game and you won because of it, your win is invalid and should be a loss.
Around here, cases like this one, (after the game is done) is comes to the T.O. and your adversary to do with you.
And it's good sportmanship to concede if you detect a mistake that made you win the game.
Giving back prizes too.

other point is calling every mistake a cheat don't do anything good.

They only get caught in act (or streams, when the game allows it, and there's a point that people don't want their game streamed exactly because it will get every mistake on camera, extra scrutiny for what? to entertain viewers? hard pass for many! so good for comunity. And yes. Everybody make mistakes. Even the best ones, after 6h of play. Then again, 40k is unreasonable opaque with it's rules so it's harder to check everything)

Even mtg, that punishes real cheating, have a guideline that "exist"at best - as I see more and more pros getting caught on camera - more rules how to punish don't solve the problem. They just learn how to not get caught.

Even store owners won't care for cheaters, as long they expend regularly and do not get caught enough to blow whistles, even if they never admit, people gotta pay the bills.

[LansXero]

If I'm called a cheater for making a mistake, I'm not likely to ever play there again. How am I supposed to learn what is still a relatively new game for me (I've been collecting for years but only played single-digit proper games) if I can't make a mistake without being shamed or becoming a pariah? Especially now there are FAQs on FAQ's on Erratas on Beta Rules all on a single topic, so I can't simply check my book for the rule anymore.

You download BattleScribe, of course.

But more seriously, its all about managing expectations. For example, we have a guy who is new and is playing Space Wolves. Similar situation to yours: collects, doesnt play, he is playing narrative with a more veteran player. He makes mistakes all the time, but he TRIES to avoid them. He straight up said "I want to learn. Call me out when I screw up". He asks, before he makes a move or a roll, to clear a rule if he has doubts. He asks on our FB Chat when he wants to try a new unit and isnt sure how a rule works. And when he inevitably screws up? He apologizes and learns. He doesnt get all defensive and touchy going "HEY IM ONLY HUMAN! THIS IS SO HARD, CUT ME SOME SLACK!". Which is I think the main issue here: Mismatched expectations. I dont think even here if you were open about just learning and wanting some training games (as in, not "real" games) anyone would mind. But if you try to surprise people and then hold on to your "Im new" crutch when found out? That would get you called a cheater, not because of intent to deceive, but out of failure to owning up.

Even mtg, that punishes real cheating, have a guideline that "exist"at best - as I see more and more pros getting caught on camera - more rules how to punish don't solve the problem. They just learn how to not get caught.

Even store owners won't care for cheaters, as long they expend regularly and do not get caught enough to blow whistles, even if they never admit, people gotta pay the bills.

Garbage store owners who own garbage stores that cant afford to stay open without their regular, cheating whales perhaps. Do not throw us all in the same sack, spending power doesnt mean you get to screw other players and cant be touched. I've thrown out several whales who thought their reckless spending somehow made them better than other people, half because of whatever they did, half because they would act all hurt and surprised, thinking they got leverage on me just because they bought more stuff.

MTG is remaking their judge program tomorrow by the way, so Id pause on using it as a reference for rules adjudication. There have been a ton of changes as of late, but it (and TCGs in general) doesnt make any allowances for 'newbie mistakes' either in tournaments or your regular casual REL events. You are of course free to issue nothing more than a warning, but its left to judge discretion, not a hard rule that 'newblets be forgiven'.

[Forum Explorer]

For whatever reason, I use Command Re-roll twice in the same phase. I just...Forgot. My opponent, likewise, does not call me out - they forgot, too.
CP re-rolls are usually pretty clutch, so the effects of the re-roll end up being something that directly affected my ability to win the game.

I've been playing 8th Ed. since it started. I am not new.

Did I cheat my opponent out of a win?
Or did I advantageously error them out of a win?

If both you and your opponent don't notice, than how would you even be aware that you made a mistake in the first place? In that case, no I wouldn't say you are cheating. I see that all the time from people who typically play their friends, instead of at the local store. They'll get rules wrong, because they interpreted them oddly, for whatever reason. Or they aren't aware of the FAQs in the first place. So they played who knows how many games incorrectly. But I wouldn't say they cheated in those games. Both their opponent and themselves thought they were playing correctly, so in my mind, how is that any different from homebrewing a rule or the like?

But let's say, hypothetically, you were being streamed, and afterwards the audience called you out on it. The honorable thing to do would be to contact your opponent and the TO if it is a tournament game, and discuss how impactful that extra roll was. Did you reroll a fail into a fail? Okay, likely doesn't matter, keep the result as is. Did you save a crucial character, or make an important charge? Or something else that's critical? Then talk about it, maybe give your opponent a couple of extra points (and the win if that gives them the lead), or maybe it was an utterly massive roll that the game hinged on, and you concede the game outright, giving him the win.

But if it was just a game for fun? It doesn't truly matter. Strive to do better next time, apologize to the audience for your failings, and don't forget again. Use the shame to be more careful next time, but don't go freaking out about it either. Your reputation will take a bit of a hit for a while, but that's all.

[LeSwordfish]

I really don't get why the distinction between "deliberate" and "accidental" is so hard to grasp. You all do have a theory of mind, yes?

[LansXero]

Because people who are good at lying, like me, know how easy it is to get away with it, specially if the receiving party doesnt care enough to scrutinize what they're being told or has not much of a stake on the line. "Intent" is very, very hard to prove; I could fudge rolls and stats all the time and with a straight face tell someone I didnt remember and be sorry sounding completely sincere, while being completely full of it. And so can anybody, so why make a distinction that benefits those who lie better?

[LeSwordfish]

In a tournament or competitive environment then the way you treat cheating and mistakes doesn't need to be much different (or the consequences don't need to be but the way you do it should be, because you're a reasonable human being.) But that's treating two things the same way: it doesn't mean they are the same.

Outside of a tournament then you have no particular need to treat them the same way. The fact that someone can lie and make one thing seem like another thing doesn't make them the same.

Ultimately forgiveness for mistakes is just part of being a pleasant person to be around. Surely that's more important than winning at toy soldiers?

[Avaris]

As others have said, I think it’s a difference in language expectations. For me, ‘cheater’ is a significant accusation with serious consequences. People being regularly called cheaters for making a genuine mistake would create a hostile atmosphere that I wouldn’t feel comfortable playing in, regardless of if I was the person being called this or not. I could play perfectly and have none of my games decided by this, but if I saw others being regularly accused of cheating for making honest mistakes I probably wouldn’t go back.

As for whether winning a game based on an error neither of you pick up matter? It honestly depends. In a standard pick up game: no, not at all. Were both players satisfied with how the game played out at the time, and had fun? If yes, that’s the only metric the matters. The result of the game is irrelevant, therefore so is the undetected unintentional mistake. If I identify a mistake in a game I’ve played I’ll tend to alert my opponent to it, and we’ll discuss how it might have changed the game in a theoretical sense, but typically we’ll agree it probably wouldn’t have changed the outcome, as there are many other factors to affectthe result.

In a tournament though, it absolutely does matter, and even genuine mistakes need to be acted on in some way. It is for the TO to determine how to police this, how they wish to correct for mistakes, and how they deal with people intentionally cheating. For my money, intentional cheating needs a severe punishment once proved, so there is a large risk to being caught, whereas genuine mistakes need a much lower penalty so as to not create a hostile atmosphere. If genuine mistakes have a too high penalty you risk unscrupulous players trying to pressure their opponent into making a mistake and then calling them out on it to get the opponent penalised, but if there is no sanction it risks the tournament being decided by whoever makes the most mistakes in their favour, which is unacceptable.

[Forum Explorer]

Because people who are good at lying, like me, know how easy it is to get away with it, specially if the receiving party doesnt care enough to scrutinize what they're being told or has not much of a stake on the line. "Intent" is very, very hard to prove; I could fudge rolls and stats all the time and with a straight face tell someone I didnt remember and be sorry sounding completely sincere, while being completely full of it. And so can anybody, so why make a distinction that benefits those who lie better?

Now you are starting to get into the philosophy of societal behavior and questions like; is it better to behave ideally or pragmatically?

And yeah, it is a difficult problem, particularly if you have a lot of cheaters and/or new people getting into the hobby. How I compensate for it (for reasons, I'm bad at detecting liars) is to not only know my rules as close to perfectly as possible but also all of their rules. And then to be aware enough of what they are doing to catch any mistakes they might make.

And I do. Like I said, just this weekend I caught my opponent trying to give orders to Bullgryns. He honestly thought he could, but I called him out on it, we looked it up, and now he knows better. I caught him right when he tried to do it, so nothing happened in our game as a result of it. I'm not perfect, and honestly as a result I likely know my own rules a little less. (Today I learned that the Nova Lance shoots at S6. I thought it was like a Star Lance and shot at S8. Whoops.)

[Cheesegear]

I really don't get why the distinction between "deliberate" and "accidental" is so hard to grasp.

Because at a certain level of play, and with certain types of people, it's almost impossible to tell the difference, and 'But I didn't mean to!' doesn't actually resolve the problem.

Outside of a tournament then you have no particular need to treat them the same way.

"I cast the Power that means you can't shoot my Suppressors."
Pretty sure that's cheating. Suppressors aren't Phobos units.
"What!? Suppressors are so Phobos units. Why else would they be in the book?"
You can check if you want.
"WHAT!? If you can't cast on them, then Suppressors are ****."
They sure are.
"Ugh..."
So you've thought Suppressors were Phobos units the entire time?
"I thought they were. They're in the book."
So you've been cheating the entire time?
"Turns out! ...Looks like I'm not using Suppressors anymore. Ugh...The only reason I was using them is 'cause I thought you couldn't shoot them!"
lol

That was me 'Catching someone cheating', and the conversation I mentioned which started the whole thing.
The word 'cheat' was used several times and the guy I was talking to, fully accepted that he had been cheating - by accident - the entire time.

Did I label him a 'cheater' and ostracise him forever? Hell no. I'm probably going to play him again this week, where I guarantee he'll screw up a rule again, and I'll say he's cheating, then, too.

For me, ‘cheater’ is a significant accusation with serious consequences.

Are you in a tournament playing for a prize pool? Did you cost your opponents a shot at that prize pool? Then yes.
Are you playing locally with the regulars in your FLGS or club? Cool. You get about ten seconds of 'Learn to play', and maybe a 'Don't do it again' if someone's particularly butthurt if what you did significantly affected the game.

People being regularly called cheaters for making a genuine mistake would create a hostile atmosphere...

If you're a person, who treats people like people, then there is a difference between 'cheating' and 'accidentally cheating' that anyone with more than two social skills to rub together will be able to reconcile. In less than a minute you'll go from 'Cheater' to 'Bad at games.' Hanlon's Razor goes into effect. If you're not cheating maliciously, that will come out within twenty seconds.

[Manticoran]

"I cast the Power that means you can't shoot my Suppressors."
Pretty sure that's cheating. Suppressors aren't Phobos units.
"What!? Suppressors are so Phobos units. Why else would they be in the book?"
You can check if you want.
"WHAT!? If you can't cast on them, then Suppressors are ****."
They sure are.
"Ugh..."
So you've thought Suppressors were Phobos units the entire time?
"I thought they were. They're in the book."
So you've been cheating the entire time?
"Turns out! ...Looks like I'm not using Suppressors anymore. Ugh...The only reason I was using them is 'cause I thought you couldn't shoot them!"
lol

See where I'm from when you got to "So you've been cheating the whole time" and when you said that everyone who heard the word cheating would have gone quiet, and the guy you're talking to would be about to would be flabbergasted or about to try to fight you for calling them a cheater when they made a mistake.

Then people would come over and try to figure out what happened while separating the two of you, and would probably decide that you were making a false accusation because that's just not what that word means here, or alternatively would look at banning the person you said was cheating.

Which is to say, you calling it cheating is fine, but understand that for some of us that's an incredibly charged word, and that you're not going to convince us it's ok to call people a cheater casually any more than I'd accuse someone of stealing from the store.

[Destro_Yersul]

Yeah, I was thinking about this more today, and going through and looking at the actual contents of the posts here, I'm pretty sure you all actually agree with me that there's a difference. It's just that you think it's ok to call both things cheating, and I don't. That's probably a language thing.