judges playing the game?

[jkdboxer]

Hello Sirs I wanted to know if a judge can play the game of heroclix to compete for the prize support as long as they follow the guidelines of heroclix rules of tournament play? Reason I ask my store charges a $5.00 dollar fee to play they had asked me to judge so I would like to know if Im paying the fee is it ok I play for the prize as well?

He kept the green lantern prize for himself and said he would give me a check mate card hes a big lantern fan so he took it.

So I wanted to pay to compete for a lantern since I wouldnt get one for judging?



Thank you Sirs for your time.

[Pepsirox08]

Judges get the prizes for free anyway, there is no reason u should get multiples...

[MopedKid86]

Way back when, our judge at my old venue asked me to be a stand-in judge since he wouldn't be around on a specific week. Basically just to have the rulebook on hand and get a prize whether I won or lost.

In addition, I was informed that if I won I'd get two prizes. (LE SV Dr. Hank Pym, as I recall)
I did not like this.

I informed the other players that If I ended up winning first place, the prize would go to the second place player, and Fellowship would go out as normal.
If you're getting a judge prize just for being there, just make sure not to get two. That's uncool. :-)

[styx]

As a Judge.

I and other local judges typically only play when there is an odd # of players.

At my venue about half of the players were envoys when the old WK collapsed. (There were 4 venues all scheduled so no games overlapped, etc so there were a lot of us) If the judge is involved in a needed ruling we just ask another judge.

If a judge plays they get nothing more than the usual judge reward, leaving the prizes for the players. It has worked for us for quite a few years.

I am not saying this works for every venue, but it works for us. And until there is a fully functioning OP structure with a new Judge structure do what works best for your venue, but be fair.

[jkdboxer]

Way back when, our judge at my old venue asked me to be a stand-in judge since he wouldn't be around on a specific week. Basically just to have the rulebook on hand and get a prize whether I won or lost.

In addition, I was informed that if I won I'd get two prizes. (LE SV Dr. Hank Pym, as I recall)
I did not like this.

I informed the other players that If I ended up winning first place, the prize would go to the second place player, and Fellowship would go out as normal.
If you're getting a judge prize just for being there, just make sure not to get two. That's uncool. :-)

No they didnt have a green lantern for me the store owner kept it he gave me a card? Thats why I wanted to play since I wouldnt get the green lantern I figure I could play for it.

[Munchoboy]

Hello Sirs I wanted to know if a judge can play the game of heroclix to compete for the prize support as long as they follow the guidelines of heroclix rules of tournament play? Reason I ask my store charges a $5.00 dollar fee to play they had asked me to judge so I would like to know if Im paying the fee is it ok I play for the prize as well?



Thank you Sirs for your time.



P.S.

From what I undderstand judges can now play as well maybe I might be wrong not sure?

Pepsirox08 is correct in that there should be no need for the Judge to compete in the event for the prize; they should receive a copy of the prize after they have successfully run the event in question.

This is, of course, presuming that the prizes are coming from an official WK OP kit, which includes prizes for the Judges running the events (with the exception of the Lantern 3D objects..?).

Judges running an event are not allowed to play and compete for the prize. It is generally a conflict of interest to do so, and potentially distracts the Judge from being available to make rules calls when asked upon to do so.

That said, it is generally accepted for a Judge to play the Bye player should there be an odd number of players in the event. Since the Bye Player automatically receives Win for that round (with 0 points), the game is just for fun.

I hope this has been helpful. :classic:

[normalview]

Judges get the prizes for free anyway, there is no reason u should get multiples...

Not true. The prizes are now the venue's to hand out as they see fit (they have to buy them). WK includes recommendations for distribution and event scenarios with the kits, but that is all they are: recommendations. If the venue chooses to give out a portion of the prizes to the judges as a "thank you" for their time and effort, that is all well and good... however, nothing says the the judge is guaranteed to get anything at all.



To the original poster, from the Comprehensive Tournament Rules:

1.3.6 Judges Playing in Events
Judges can’t participate in an event as players if they are the judge of record for it or fulfilling the explicit duties of the judge of record. They can’t win prizes in the event, and they can’t be entered into or advance in the structure of the tournament. Judges are allowed to play a casual game with a player who has a bye, time and rulings permitting; this game can’t be officially recorded or have any influence on the outcome of any tournament.


Please note, though, that while these Comprehensive Tourament Rules are still theoretically the law of the land, it is not uncommon these days for venues to modify or completely disgard them... after all, as I stated above, the venue owns the prizes and they can do with them as they wish. Bottom line, ask your venue if it is cool with you to play/compete for the prizes while judging; I personally wouldn't do it (just to avoid any appearance of impropriety), but the venue does have the final say.

[jkdboxer]

Pepsirox08 is correct in that there should be no need for the Judge to compete in the event for the prize; they should receive a copy of the prize after they have successfully run the event in question.

This is, of course, presuming that the prizes are coming from an official WK OP kit, which includes prizes for the Judges running the events (with the exception of the Lantern 3D objects..?).

Judges running an event are not allowed to play and compete for the prize. It is generally a conflict of interest to do so, and potentially distracts the Judge from being available to make rules calls when asked upon to do so.

That said, it is generally accepted for a Judge to play the Bye player should there be an odd number of players in the event. Since the Bye Player automatically receives Win for that round (with 0 points), the game is just for fun.

I hope this has been helpful. :classic:

As I said if you read?

No they didnt have a green lantern for me the store owner kept it he gave me a card? Thats why I wanted to play since I wouldnt get the green lantern I figure I could play for it. So everyone who one got the lantern but me? I guess I got ripped oh well.

[Big ED]

Pepsirox08 is correct in that there should be no need for the Judge to compete in the event for the prize; they should receive a copy of the prize after they have successfully run the event in question.

This is, of course, presuming that the prizes are coming from an official WK OP kit, which includes prizes for the Judges running the events (with the exception of the Lantern 3D objects..?).

Judges running an event are not allowed to play and compete for the prize. It is generally a conflict of interest to do so, and potentially distracts the Judge from being available to make rules calls when asked upon to do so.

That said, it is generally accepted for a Judge to play the Bye player should there be an odd number of players in the event. Since the Bye Player automatically receives Win for that round (with 0 points), the game is just for fun.

I hope this has been helpful. :classic:

You don't even need a Judge to hold tournaments anymore per the Organized Play Instruction Sheet. So why can't the judge play?

There is no Approved Play Program as well like in the old days. If the Venue pays for the kits and they are requiring an entry fee from him, IMO he should be able to play as well. Just my 2 cents. ED

[Greth]

The problem with a judge vying for a tournament prize is that the judge will always have an advantage. All his moved are "pre-judged" to be properly within the rules while all his opponents moves are always subject to judicial review.
At my venue in PENSACOLA the judge will occasionally play when there is an odd number, but does not play for the prize. This I have no problem with. It is merely an opportunity to be further educated on the rules

[normalview]

. All his moved are "pre-judged" to be properly within the rules while all his opponents moves are always subject to judicial review.

See my note above about impropriety, but I do want to point something out here: if you do play against a judge, don't be afraid to ask questions.

The judge IS the final authority at an event, true. But there have been times when playing byes where I'll make a mistake... I have brain farts just like anyone else and I'll do something a little on the stupid side of things. Now, when that does happen, I always appreciate when my opponent says, "Hey, are you sure you can do that?" Great, problem caught, we move on. On the other hand, if I realize later on that I really shouldn't have done that one thing with that one character, I'll then wonder why my opponent didn't say anything... did they not notice? Or did they just not want to question the judge? And did they think I was trying to cheat them (I hope that they realize, no, that'd be pretty dumb since they have the auto-win with the bye, but I still wonder)?

Asking questions never hurts. The only caveat is that when a judge does make an official ruling on a question, respect that ruling and go with it. If you think it is incorrect, you can always discuss it later.

[Bloodsword]

Myself and another judge, that play at two separate venues have taken the old "unrestricted" way to play. When the judge was allowed to play as long as there was an alternate judge to make rulings.

It works great for both our venues. We both get to play twice a week, giving up our "judge prizes" and instead try to win them. We do not make rulings on our own games. We always turn to each other when we are involved in a game.

We have been doing this since Wizkids first shut down. And once things were up and running we asked our players at both venues if the liked it. And they all agreed.

[Munchoboy]

As I said if you read?

No they didnt have a green lantern for me the store owner kept it he gave me a card? Thats why I wanted to play since I wouldnt get the green lantern I figure I could play for it. So everyone who one got the lantern but me? I guess I got ripped oh well.

I was just trying to further illustrate the point. Playing a BYE and competing in the event are two different things.

You don't even need a Judge to hold tournaments anymore per the Organized Play Instruction Sheet. So why can't the judge play?

There is no Approved Play Program as well like in the old days. If the Venue pays for the kits and they are requiring an entry fee from him, IMO he should be able to play as well. Just my 2 cents. ED

If the Venue asks jkdboxer to be the Judge for the events, there's no reason he should not be held to the standard by which Judges (IMO should) run events, which Normalview provided above. Likewise, there is no reason for the Venue to be charging jkdboxer for the privelege of running the event either.

That said, I agree with Normalview. If folk want to disregard the tournament rules, that is totally their decision. Like Normalview, I also believe it is a conflict of interest for a Judge to compete in an event they're running.

[Blue Atoll]

As a judge, I play the bye round, that's it. I never play for the prize. I haven't had a bye round in many weeks at my venue. Consequently, I haven't played in almost 2 months. That's ok, its part of judging and being fair.

As for judges getting judge prizes, WizKids made things very uncomfortable by only sending 2 of each Lantern in the prize support for TB&TB. WizKids recommended prize disbursement had the judge receiving, I think if I remember right, 2 Lanterns as judge prizes, neither of which were the Green Lantern.

For some judges, we made arrangements for getting all the Lanterns through other sources. For others unable to do this, they are faced with the choice, do they take a prize meant for players (Fellowship) as a judge prize or do they compete as a regular player for the prizes they want (in your case the Green Lantern object).

Its a tough call, people are giving up their evenings/weekends to judge events and WizKids made it difficult to thank them for their time. I did notice that this problem should be going away (again) in the Web Of Spiderman release which has 3 sets (including a judge prize) of its 3-D objects.

Looks like WizKids listened to us again...

[RavenProject]

You don't even need a Judge to hold tournaments anymore per the Organized Play Instruction Sheet. So why can't the judge play?
That depends on the Venue and its player base.

I recently had a big surge in new players at my Venue. As a result, I'm fielding a lot of questions. There's no way I could compete in the event and have it be fair to my opponent. Heck, it isn't fair to me to get pulled away so much if I'm actually playing to win.

On the other hand, if you're playing with a group of experienced players and those kind of calls rarely arise, then it's more feasible for the Judge to join in as a competitor.

-J

[Big ED]

That depends on the Venue and its player base.

I recently had a big surge in new players at my Venue. As a result, I'm fielding a lot of questions. There's no way I could compete in the event and have it be fair to my opponent. Heck, it isn't fair to me to get pulled away so much if I'm actually playing to win.

On the other hand, if you're playing with a group of experienced players and those kind of calls rarely arise, then it's more feasible for the Judge to join in as a competitor.

-J

I heard ya, where I play at everyone is pretty confident with the rules so the Judge plays. He doesn't win much but he's able to play and have fun.

ED

[BluSummers]

For years, at the venue I judge at... I only play if there is an odd number or am requested to play. IF I manage to win anything, I give the prizes to the next deserving player. I already have my judge/envoy prize set... no reason to keep another.

As for the OP's store owner keeping the Lantern and giving him the card... that's just kinda dick on the Store Owner's part. Maybe he should have ordered another OP Kit and kept one of the lantern's from that... that way none of the players or I get shorted. That's what my venue owner does.

[MopedKid86]

For years, at the venue I judge at... I only play if there is an odd number or am requested to play. IF I manage to win anything, I give the prizes to the next deserving player. I already have my judge/envoy prize set... no reason to keep another.

As for the OP's store owner keeping the Lantern and giving him the card... that's just kinda dick on the Store Owner's part.

Agreed. Our venue had our judge pay for the Prize Support kit, which I didn't think sounded fair in the least. He does get to keep one of each LE, and he didn't seem to mind, so it's alright.
Their table fee is also very reasonable (2$, waived if you spend 20$ that day) and it is a business.

I haven't actually seen our Judge play, as I'm fairly new, but apparently he has dice that roll like mine so...

[ThorKnigh83]

I am a judge and the view we have adopted at my venue is that if I play then i forfeit my judge prize and have to play for it like everyone else. we have a few other very experienced players at my venue which make rulings on any games Im involved in and if there is a disagreement we pull out the rull book and show proof. I myself told everyone before we started this run of events that I would be deffinately playing in any event that was competing for one of the lantern objects as there are only 2 weeks if you go by the recommended distribution that the judge is to get one of the lanterns. It is a good fair system which no one at my venue has had the slightest problem with.

[Impulse-ive]

I thought judges not longer got prize support? if they don't have anything set aside for the judge i say...pay, play and win what you can.

[TopDog]

Since the OP specifically asked about the Green Lantern, it should be pointed out that Wizkids/NECA only included 2 of each lantern in the prize kit for B&tB. There were 5 each, Bruce, Clark, & Diana, and 3 each of the Feat Cards (which anybody can print now). One Lantern for first, one for Fellowship. So the only way your Judge will get a lantern is if he plays for it.

[tyroclix]

Judges get the prizes for free anyway...

That may be the recommendation from WK but if the store buys the prizes they don't have to give anything away. The only rule stipulation I saw is that its "not for sale".

[tyroclix]

Its a tough call, people are giving up their evenings/weekends to judge events and WizKids made it difficult to thank them for their time. I did notice that this problem should be going away (again) in the Web Of Spiderman release which has 3 sets (including a judge prize) of its 3-D objects.

Looks like WizKids listened to us again...

I don't know if WK made it easier by simply adding a prize. I think charging the venue is what makes Judges getting anything "difficult".

On the other hand, if you're playing with a group of experienced players and those kind of calls rarely arise, then it's more feasible for the Judge to join in as a competitor.

That's kinda where we are at. 90% of questions asked are PAC questions or answered in the rulebook. Of those 90% of questions, about 90% of them are asked by 1 player.

My venue I used to be the "judge", now I go by "WizKids Blue Lantern". I plan and run events, bring & laminate maps, design and pay for the participation prizes. Arkham Asylum was the last time I received a prize as a Judge since it was the last time we had prizes.

I spent the following year playing and giving out my participation prizes.

Then we got screwed out of HoT prizes and eventually got the hand-me down leftovers.

Because I was trying to do my part in re-establishing HeroClix I increased the prize pool with the prizes (venue didn't offer me any, anyway) and I played only when there was an uneven amount - which left me sitting out of a lot of events and missing out on all the prizes except the Silver Anvil, although I did score a Mjolnir (sans card).

When BatB prizes were sold, the venue didn't offer me any of them, again. They contemplated having a table-fee (which I knew my players were against) so I worked a 10 week prize support schedule with prizes for First, Fellowship, Second and Third place plus moving at least 4 cases of product. Thanks to player interest there is still no table-fee and they have only 1 case left (with 5 weeks of play to go).

Rather than miss out on any prizes again, I play in events. I feel uncomfortable playing when there is an uneven number, and we haven't had any yet - so I gotta think about that one some more - but I throw down with the rest. I am ineligible for Fellowship, of course, but wherever I place is what I get (finished 6/10, 8/10, 2/10, 2/10, 3/8) so I have gotten 3 prizes in 5 weeks.

If we get a slew of new players or lots of new rules then I may be forced to retire for a while, but so far its working out as far as I can tell.

[Dikarika]

At my local venue, we only have two of each lantern object.

My local judge has been playing in those events.

I don't mind at all. He should have just as much chance as us to get an item.

[MuskieLodge]

I'm the "non-voy" (THANKS, Munchoboy!) at one of the local Venues. I take one of each of the prizes--assuming there's three in the pack--as "Judge support", and hand out the others as the games permit. With the Lanterns, there were only two of each given to the Venue. I pulled one of each for the Venue's use--as part of a "borrow bin"--and will hand out the others during the next two months before Web's release. This way, even folks who didn't win any given Lantern Object can still borrow one from the Venue's Object pile for the night, and hand it back in.

I play at my Venue when there's an odd number of players, for the bye round, and never "competitively".

When I visit another Venue, I almost never play for the prize. I play to win each game, of course, but in the unlikely event I win the tournament, I just pass it on to the next player.

And that's the view from this little corner of the 'clixing 'verse.

Muskie

[Komixfrk75]

I don't think it should really matter....Wizkids doesn't recognize judges ...So therefore play....

[spike1138]

As a judge, I play the bye round, that's it. I never play for the prize. I haven't had a bye round in many weeks at my venue. Consequently, I haven't played in almost 2 months. That's ok, its part of judging and being fair.

I'm in the same boat. I rarely get to play. Most times I don't mind not playing. I like putting together the scenarios at the shop and teaching new folks how to play the game.

When turnout is good, I definitely prefer not playing so that I can focus as much as possible on judging. That hasn't been easy lately, though, since I've got some folks who haven't played since the Infinity Challenge/Hypertime days, some who haven't played since Armor Wars/Icons, and some who are brand new to the game. Needless to say, I'm seriously looking forward to the Blackest Night starter coming out so that everyone's (ideally) on the same page, rules-wise.

I do have to bite my tongue, though, when I hear folks at the shop brag about their awesome win-loss record -- but that's probably a discussion best left for another time and thread. :tired:

I can't wait for San Diego Comic-Con. It's a chance to meet new players and play while someone else judges! :laugh:

[absolutvt69]

I think it just depends on the judge, venue, players and situation.

[Surfer13]

Here is my take as a judge...

No way!

If I want to play for the prizes then I need to go somewhere else to play, or I can quit judging and play at my regular venue.

My venue isn't rewarding me every week. There are limited lanterns, and my venue is giving the players a chance to win them.
And that's okay with me.

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

Hello Sirs I wanted to know if a judge can play the game of heroclix to compete for the prize support as long as they follow the guidelines of heroclix rules of tournament play? Reason I ask my store charges a $5.00 dollar fee to play they had asked me to judge so I would like to know if Im paying the fee is it ok I play for the prize as well?

He kept the green lantern prize for himself and said he would give me a check mate card hes a big lantern fan so he took it.

So I wanted to pay to compete for a lantern since I wouldnt get one for judging?



Thank you Sirs for your time.

According the WizKids Official Comprehensive Tournament Rules, no, a Judge can't play for prize support.

But the judge gets Judge Awards, as laid out in the OP Kit direction sheet.

Here is a link: (right-click to save .pdf)

WizKids Official Comprehensive Tournament Rules (http://www.clan-vga.com/stark_tower/heroclix_resources/old_rules/comprehensive_tourney_rules.pdf)

[Rahe Stone]

As stated, Judges DO NOT have prizes set for them. They have suggestions to the store for which to provide as prizes but are not obligated to give them out. THis has been said many times in this thread even.

As for the rules, I don't think those are technically rules anymore, but they are good suggestions. However, if the players are competent and the judge has no prize, I say go for it.

[tchipley]

There ain't no more judges. There are folks that know the rules.

I'd say it's up to the venue to determine what works for them.

[ShadowMark]

There ain't no more judges. There are folks that know the rules.

I'd say it's up to the venue to determine what works for them.

This is what I have been thinking. It is ENTIRELY up to the venue whether or not to give a "reward" to the person "organizing" the event. They paid money to get the kits, the do what they want with them, in regards to running tournaments.

I don't mean to sound rude to the "judges" on this thread but, THERE ARE NO MORE JUDGES. When WK came back, they even said that all OP events are up to the venue. There are no more official judges.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the ones who do run events, because without you, we as players could not play the game we love, but you are in no way entitled to a "reward" as a judge. If the venue wants to give you a token of appreciation, so be it.

On a side note, the venue I go to, the "judge" has run one event since B&B's release, but he made sure he got all of his "rewards" for being a "judge". On top of that, his kid plays to compete as well.

But, back on track, I may have sour grapes toward the judges I have played with, but with no official OP yet, I would do one of 3 things:

Ask the players if they would not mind if you competed for the prize,
Respectfully decline the "fill-in judge duty" so you can play,
Or, ask the venue if they could move the green lantern prize to a later
week so you can compete when the normal judge returns

[styx]

According the WizKids Official Comprehensive Tournament Rules, no, a Judge can't play for prize support.

But the judge gets Judge Awards, as laid out in the OP Kit direction sheet.

Here is a link: (right-click to save .pdf)

WizKids Official Comprehensive Tournament Rules (http://www.clan-vga.com/stark_tower/heroclix_resources/old_rules/comprehensive_tourney_rules.pdf)


Not saying I disagree with you, but the rules from that link became essentially worthless the day the old WK closed their doors. The new WK has not made an official declaration as to 'official' envoys. Without official Envoys there are no rules only suggestions.

[normalview]

Not saying I disagree with you, but the rules from that link became essentially worthless the day the old WK closed their doors. The new WK has not made an official declaration as to 'official' envoys. Without official Envoys there are no rules only suggestions.

So you allow proxies and other forms of cheating then? ;)


And if you don't, why not? Those rules were in the comprehensive rules doc, too. :confused:


Kidding aside, I'll never really understand how it is okay to use this or that section of the rules document, but not these parts over here. How do you justify something like that?

[Munchoboy]

Not saying I disagree with you, but the rules from that link became essentially worthless the day the old WK closed their doors. The new WK has not made an official declaration as to 'official' envoys. Without official Envoys there are no rules only suggestions.

Suffice to say, I disagree with you. The rules are not "worthless" by any stretch of the imagination.

I'll never really understand how it is okay to use this or that section of the rules document, but not these parts over here. How do you justify something like that?

Agreed, the Tournament Rules and the APCR provide structure and a consistent gaming experience. Its not as if the rules were so restrictive and/or despotic that folk should feel the need to "liberate" themselves from them. That's just silly. :p

Frankly, I'm wondering how anything actually gets done at these Venues that seemingly operate without envoys or rules.

Who runs these events?
How do they run the event if there are no more rules?
Why do they run the events if they don't get to play and/or don't receive compensation for the effort?
Who decided these rules (*points at these rules*) are worth observing, while those others (*points at those others*) are not?

This all seems rather silly to me. If a Venue asks you to run their events for them, you are essentially their Judge. Whether you're "officially" recognized as WK at this juncture is irrelevant to the responsibility placed in you.

I would hope that anyone approached to run events would make a serious effort to running a smooth, inclusive event. If that's the case, I don't know why one wouldn't use the rules structure that was in place for close to a decade. Why reinvent the wheel?

Don't get me wrong, I understand modifying the rules to fit one's Venue and players, that's just smart math. But disregarding them totally? That's shortsighted IMO.

Additionally, I would also hope that the rest of the players would demonstrate a level of respect appropriate to the person running the events as well. Again, it's irrelevant if one's efforts are recognized by WK, but it is critical that their efforts are recognized by their players.

As for compensation, I agree with what's been said already; that's for the Venue and the Judge to work out. Frankly, players' opinions are really besides the issue, IMO.

Trust me, if this were an easy role to do well, anyone could do it.

Just my $.02

[spideyguy51]

I play the bye rounds because we usually have an uneven number.

[styx]

So you allow proxies and other forms of cheating then? ;)


And if you don't, why not? Those rules were in the comprehensive rules doc, too. :confused:


Kidding aside, I'll never really understand how it is okay to use this or that section of the rules document, but not these parts over here. How do you justify something like that?


I was just refering to the Envoy portion, not the game in general. There are no more official envoys. But...

As far as cheating and proxies, those should be covered by the core rulebook and common sense. Proxies are not in the core rulebook, thus are not allowed. Cheating should be anathema. The comprehensive docuement is there to fill in the holes created by those people who you do not want to play with in the first place.

Common Sense is now extinct so we have to have rules for the rules.

[rpweld03]

My city has three venues, and a crowd of players who come and go for clix on three different days (depending on work schedules, spouses, etc.)

Each of the three venues has picked a different player to be that venue's official judge. "Official" in the eyes of that venue, if not in WizKid's. The judges then set the standards of using the most current rulebook & PAC, the players' guides, errata, and so on as though there had been no hiatus and WK was still running OP. Just because there is no judge tracking system and so on, doesn't mean we can't keep things standardized between the venues for the players. I'm the last of the three judges to come on board, and I definitely agreed with the other two that we should run all three venues the exact same way. No house rules, no variations.

In all three venues, the judge does NOT compete in the tournaments. If there is an even number of players, he sits around and reads comics or something between rulings. If there is an odd number of players, he might get to play whoever has the BYE, but that is the player's option not a requirement. So, the trade-offs for judging are that you don't get to play as much as other people and you can't win any prizes. So at each venue, we try to make sure the judge gets one of everything, just as was done before the hiatus.

The only differences between our venues, really, have been that we run our tournament schedules differently. One shop only got one BatB OP kit, but the others got two each. So, each judge set up a different tourney schedule. At the store where there was only one kit, it ran just the way the sheet that came in it suggests. The suggested judge rewards give him everything but the lanterns. So far, however, he's won all but one of them at the other two venues.

At another venue, the two OP kits came in simultaneously. The regular judge at that venue and I decided to run two concurrent tourneys, one for regular players, and a junior league. Unfortunately, nobody signed up for the junior league, so we eventually just merged the two OP kits. This means that the judge at that venue can give out three sets of lanterns (possibly instead of maps, which he's just giving out to anyone who shows up) and still keep one set for himself.

The third venue, where I judge, was new and somewhat uncertain about us playing there. So, instead of a long tourney schedule, I compacted it to 5 weeks, giving out lots of prize support each week in order to draw as many players (aka store customers) as possible. Week five was a booster draft where each player drew a random lantern to use on their team and to take home with them. I gave out almost the entire kit in five nights, but I did keep one of each LE, card, and lantern for myself. However, the venue decided around week three that they liked us being there and got another prize kit from their sister store that wasn't running clix. Now I'm running another 10-12 weeks, from which I won't take any prize support.

So, for the OP: I hate to say it but I don't support judges playing. However, the BatB kit when run as suggested on the sheet (which is optional, mind) is very lame, and not just because it does not give the judge one of everything. Heck, the best way to get a map off that sheet was to intentionally come in second. Lame. Were I you, I'd have rearranged the suggested schedule, done away with second place prizes, given a map to every player who showed up (as was regularly done in the old days of... Hammer of Thor) and have kept one of everything for myself. But hindsight is 20 / 20. With your current situation... good luck.

[Munchoboy]

I was just refering to the Envoy portion, not the game in general. There are no more official envoys. But...

"Official" is irrelevant; if your Venue has selected someone (qualified) to run the events, they are the Judge and their rulings should be respected.

Whether or not there is a larger envoy program in place really doesn't matter in this instance.

As far as cheating and proxies, those should be covered by the core rulebook and common sense. Proxies are not in the core rulebook, thus are not allowed. Cheating should be anathema. The comprehensive docuement is there to fill in the holes created by those people who you do not want to play with in the first place.

Common sense is not a universally agreed upon item. It really has no place in rules or event arbitration.

I also disagree with the point that the Rules are there to "fill in the holes created by those people who you do not want to play with in the first place". The Rules offer much-needed guidelines (for newer Judges especially) as well as provide structure and consistency. They create an environment wherein players can reasonably set their expectations to.

Common Sense is now extinct so we have to have rules for the rules.

Well, this is Heroclix after all. ;) :laugh:

[Munchoboy]

So, for the OP: I hate to say it but I don't support judges playing. However, the BatB kit when run as suggested on the sheet (which is optional, mind) is very lame, and not just because it does not give the judge one of everything. Heck, the best way to get a map off that sheet was to intentionally come in second. Lame. Were I you, I'd have rearranged the suggested schedule, done away with second place prizes, given a map to every player who showed up (as was regularly done in the old days of... Hammer of Thor) and have kept one of everything for myself. But hindsight is 20 / 20. With your current situation... good luck.

For the most part, I agree with pretty much everything above.

[zero_cochrane]

There ain't no more judges. There are folks that know the rules.

I'd say it's up to the venue to determine what works for them.This is basically true, at least as things currently stand.

For many venues, what works best is adherence to the traditional WK model. I would go so far as to say that overall, it is the best model. However, that doesn't make it the best model for your venue, and it's not the way things are run at our venue.

We have a modest turnout (between six and twelve players per week) with prize support consisting of items from the OP kit, some older LEs, and booster pulls. Every player puts in $5 per week to buy boosters, which are opened and added to the LEs to create a prize pool. First player gets first pick at the prize pool, but everybody gets one or more picks; this means that your record is important even if you're not coming first.

If we have an even number of players, our judge does not play. If we have an odd number of players, he'll join as a mostly-normal player. The judge does not make rulings on his own games; if they're necessary, experienced players who are not involved in the match will reach a consensus. He also doesn't take OP kit items from the prize pool (but may often choose a rare or generic he needs from the booster pulls).

This basically works for us. Our judge isn't a dictator, plays mostly comic-accurate teams (often based on whatever mods he's most recently done), and makes rulings quickly so that everybody can get on with their games. We have a good mix of experienced and new players so rulings aren't a big deal; sometimes you just ask the guys at the next table over and they clarify the rule for you. The judge does do a lot of the organising stuff that nobody enjoys, and sits out to ensure that nobody has to take a bye, and for that we feel that he basically earns his rewards.

This works for us. It won't work at every venue.

[absolutvt69]

The BatB prize kit set up put judges in a weird position. Since a kit only came w/ 2 of each of the lanterns (by far the best prizes in the set) a judge (or venue) was forced to decide... do I keep one set as a judge reward and only give away one copy to the winner (no fellowship, no second place) or do I put them both up as prizes and basically get nothing for judging. In the latter scenario, I don't think I can fault a judge for wanting to play. I mean in that case not only are you not getting a prize for judging, you basically are giving up your right to compete for a prize too. It would be all the work of judging and absolutely none of the benefits. Sure you could do it for the "love of the game" but I think it's easy for people to say that when they aren't the ones having to make that choice. Finally, I imagine if the players were presented with the option of "judge gets one, the rest of you compete for the other" or "everyone competes for two, including the judge" most players would probably prefer the second simply because it gives them twice as many chances to get one.

[sol]

If we have an even number of players, our judge does not play. If we have an odd number of players, he'll join as a mostly-normal player. The judge does not make rulings on his own games; if they're necessary, experienced players who are not involved in the match will reach a consensus. He also doesn't take OP kit items from the prize pool (but may often choose a rare or generic he needs from the booster pulls).

This basically works for us. Our judge isn't a dictator, plays mostly comic-accurate teams (often based on whatever mods he's most recently done), and makes rulings quickly so that everybody can get on with their games. We have a good mix of experienced and new players so rulings aren't a big deal; sometimes you just ask the guys at the next table over and they clarify the rule for you. The judge does do a lot of the organising stuff that nobody enjoys, and sits out to ensure that nobody has to take a bye, and for that we feel that he basically earns his rewards.

This works for us. It won't work at every venue.

More or less, this.

[absolutvt69]

We have a modest turnout (between six and twelve players per week) with prize support consisting of items from the OP kit, some older LEs, and booster pulls. Every player puts in $5 per week to buy boosters, which are opened and added to the LEs to create a prize pool. First player gets first pick at the prize pool, but everybody gets one or more picks; this means that your record is important even if you're not coming first.

If we have an even number of players, our judge does not play. If we have an odd number of players, he'll join as a mostly-normal player. The judge does not make rulings on his own games; if they're necessary, experienced players who are not involved in the match will reach a consensus. He also doesn't take OP kit items from the prize pool (but may often choose a rare or generic he needs from the booster pulls).

This basically works for us. Our judge isn't a dictator, plays mostly comic-accurate teams (often based on whatever mods he's most recently done), and makes rulings quickly so that everybody can get on with their games. We have a good mix of experienced and new players so rulings aren't a big deal; sometimes you just ask the guys at the next table over and they clarify the rule for you. The judge does do a lot of the organising stuff that nobody enjoys, and sits out to ensure that nobody has to take a bye, and for that we feel that he basically earns his rewards.

This works for us. It won't work at every venue.

I'm in a similar situation at our venue. There there is a $5 entry fee and booster prizes are given based on attendance. If we have less than 4 players we're not supposed to get any additional prizes... so if we have 3 players (or 1 less than we need to get the next tier of boosters), I'll chip in $5 too and play as mostly regular player. The alternative would be everyone else pays and gets no extra boosters. I'll take a booster prize sometimes but never any of the OP kit because I have it all already. Back at HoT we didn't get a kit but someone was nice enough to send us one copy of each of the LEs and such. I didn't play for those either and instead bought or traded for them all online.

Otherwise I'll play the bye round and count it as such for the other player as to not influence the results unfairly.

[ThorKnigh83]

I agree with Absolute on this. I have been the judge for my venue for a long time and have never minded judging since I got my prize for my work but ast he current structure sits and since we always follow the recommended schedule for prizes i made the choice to play and sacrifice my prizes for most of the events of this set to have a chance at the lanterns. I will qualify the only reason for this is is because we got one prize kit and we only have one venue within 100 miles of the city im in. I also do not have the extra money to buy the lantern's and pretty much everyone has already said they would not trade for their lanterns. So lately at our venue we have had a prize for 1st,2nd,3rd,4th and fellowship as we modified the recommended to 1st gets a lantern, fellowship gets a lantern, and 2nd gets the 2 feats featured that week and 3rd and 4th split the judges feats. On weeks with an actual LE we have still been doing it the same way. If someone im playing has a dispute or rules question we ask the other experienced players at the venue if we cannot resolve the situation.

[Puuka]

Judges get the prizes for free anyway, there is no reason u should get multiples...

Not with the B&B. They only sent two of each version of the Lanterns for prizes.

[IceHot]

As I said if you read?

No they didnt have a green lantern for me the store owner kept it he gave me a card? Thats why I wanted to play since I wouldnt get the green lantern I figure I could play for it. So everyone who one got the lantern but me? I guess I got ripped oh well.
You need to have a talk with your venue about what you feel is just compensation for your time and decide with your venue if you should....


Play in the events
Get automatic prize support
Have the chance to win a prize
Get free event entry
Get some other form of compensation
Be replaced by a different judge and enjoy being a player


Its doesnt sound like you reached an arrangement with your venue that you are satisfied with. You should discuss it with your venue and consider in a polite way the option of stepping down and returning to player status. Not a threat, but rather the option that best suits your level of time investment.

[Suttkus]

The BatB prize kit set up put judges in a weird position. Since a kit only came w/ 2 of each of the lanterns (by far the best prizes in the set) a judge (or venue) was forced to decide... do I keep one set as a judge reward and only give away one copy to the winner (no fellowship, no second place) or do I put them both up as prizes and basically get nothing for judging.

Weird...

When we opened up our eBayed prize kit and read the official "suggested tournaments" with judges getting maps while winners got lanterns, we were ticked off, to put it mildly. It really felt like WK had violated the basic principles, the trust upon which the system had been founded.

Then we got into the kit itself and found it had 4 copies of each lantern, 5 copies of each figure, and 6 or 7 (I can't remember right off) of each ATA.

Lucky us! Especially given we functionally have two judges.

I was hoping that the "suggested tournaments" sheet was based off some former, horrifically bad idea that judges should get maps, traditionally just handed out as participation prizes, instead of lanterns. Seriously lame idea. I hope to hell WK doesn't pull this again with Web of Spider-man. We scrapped the suggestions and arranged our own games.

Griping aside, my brother and myself do not participate in the tournaments for the prizes. We usually get to play since there's two of us, but our games count as byes for our opponents and we get nothing but the enjoyment of playing. It's simply a conflict of interest to make rulings when they affect whether or not you get something. I doubt I would long participate in a system where such rulings were the norm.

[Surfer13]

Finally, I imagine if the players were presented with the option of "judge gets one, the rest of you compete for the other" or "everyone competes for two, including the judge" most players would probably prefer the second simply because it gives them twice as many chances to get one.

But you are excluding the "Players compete for both, judge gets nothing" option which I am sure that more than a few people would say is the right thing to do.

I am doing this to help out my venue, not get all the rewards. I can understand a judge wanting some reward for their efforts but with only two lanterns available, maybe the judge and venue should work out which two (or at most three) lanterns the judge will get for running events and which others will have the players competing for both.
Judging is work, but it doesn't entitle you to all of the best prizes, either. A little compromise goes a long way.

I know when my venue ran with two judges that I made it clear to the other judge that I was not eligible for fellowship, nor would they be. I felt too strongly that rewarding a playing judge with a discretionary prize could be seen as favoritism or buying favor.
I feel no differently about judges playing, even if someone else is caling their game.
Seriously, does no one see anything wrong with a player being the judge of the whole tournament except for one game, and letting someone under their jursidiction be in charge of that? Does no one else see how a player could see the situation as the 'player' making calls favorable to the 'judge' in exchange for the 'player' receiving them from the 'judge'? That the 'player' could be setting themselves up for a fellowship reward at a minimum just by playing ball?

If I walked into a venue for the first time and the judge was competing for prizes, I would certainly see the deck being stacked against me, and there being a special player assigned to judge the judge wouldn't make me feel any better.

A judge should do their utmost not only to call the games fairly, but to present no image that the games will be called in any other manner. It is not merely whether any impropriety takes place or not, but whether there is even a reasonable appearance of impropriety.

While I don't do it for a number of reasons, playing a game against the player that got a bye is one thing. As long as it doesn't interfere with a judge's ability to call the rest of the games as needed, it doesn't matter.
But actually playing? Competing for a prize? That has impropriety written all over it.

Just looking at the amount of plastic used for the figures and character cards vs. what was used for lanterns and their object cards, it seems that Wizkids could have made one less of each LE character and one, or maybe even two more of each lantern and saved money by using less material, but that is a different argument. We got what we got, and no one is entitled to have it all just because they are a judge.

/rant. :cool:

[RavenProject]

Then we got into the kit itself and found it had 4 copies of each lantern, 5 copies of each figure, and 6 or 7 (I can't remember right off) of each ATA.
The standard prize kit contains two of each lantern and three of each ATA. You got lucky with that one.

-J

[RavenProject]

There ain't no more judges. There are folks that know the rules.

I'd say it's up to the venue to determine what works for them.
Since we're being picky...

There ain't no more Envoys.

Based on the documentation which continues to be produced by WizKids, "Judge" remains the term for the individual(s) managing an event. It's like calling someone the "Dungeon Master" or the "Storyteller."

While Judges are no longer officially sanctioned by or reporting to WizKids, the role itself remains relevant.

-J

[styx]

Anyone here remember the Demo events WK required be run every month?
I usually just scheduled them a couple hours before my first event for the month.

[Thrumble Funk]

It's like calling someone the "Dungeon Master" or the "Storyteller."

My judge will hereby be referred to as a level 10 Miniature Dungeon Master.

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

So you allow proxies and other forms of cheating then? ;)


And if you don't, why not? Those rules were in the comprehensive rules doc, too. :confused:


Kidding aside, I'll never really understand how it is okay to use this or that section of the rules document, but not these parts over here. How do you justify something like that?

I use that Comprehensive Tourney Guide as written, except where newer rules over-ride the text in that guide, e.g. proxies. Proxies are allowed now, so I allow them, and over-ride the guide in that aspect.

A few weeks ago, we had two guys tie in the tourney, and I used that guide to determine a winner....

...but the funny thing is they both tied in wins and losses, tied in victory points, and their opponents both had the same win/loss records, and scored the same amount of victory points as well. It way all they way down the list in that guide to determine a winner. That guide is still great.

And we already know that when the old WizKids shut their doors, there rules aren't done away with with the new WizKids. If that was the case, the old keyword lists would be void, the Fantastic Four Rulebook would be void, the Adventure Kit scenario rules would be void, and on and on.

Until WizKids releases a new Comprehensive Tournament Guide, that is the one I'll use for my venue.

Now, since I pay for the prize support myself, I run a couple of house rules. Nothing major, very minor ones. And according to the Comprehensive Tournament Guide, that is completely acceptable, as they layout what house rules are acceptable and which ones aren't.

[normalview]

Proxies are allowed now, so I allow them, and over-ride the guide in that aspect.


This is incorrect. Print-n-Play is allowed now... and that is it. You still can't have a printed dial or a custom painted Silver-Anvil-as-Mjolnir and such. "No proxies" is still very much an active rule.

[Munchoboy]

This is incorrect. Print-n-Play is allowed now... and that is it. You still can't have a printed dial or a custom painted Silver-Anvil-as-Mjolnir and such. "No proxies" is still very much an active rule.

Per usual, Normalview is correct. :classic:

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

This is incorrect. Print-n-Play is allowed now... and that is it. You still can't have a printed dial or a custom painted Silver-Anvil-as-Mjolnir and such. "No proxies" is still very much an active rule.

I should have been more specific. I meant proxies of cards, such as feats, objects, bystander tokens, and BFCs, which is what Print and Play is, proxies.

[tyroclix]

Seriously, does no one see anything wrong with a player being the judge of the whole tournament except for one game, and letting someone under their jursidiction be in charge of that? Does no one else see how a player could see the situation as the 'player' making calls favorable to the 'judge' in exchange for the 'player' receiving them from the 'judge'? That the 'player' could be setting themselves up for a fellowship reward at a minimum just by playing ball?

If I walked into a venue for the first time and the judge was competing for prizes, I would certainly see the deck being stacked against me, and there being a special player assigned to judge the judge wouldn't make me feel any better.

A judge should do their utmost not only to call the games fairly, but to present no image that the games will be called in any other manner. It is not merely whether any impropriety takes place or not, but whether there is even a reasonable appearance of impropriety.

While I don't do it for a number of reasons, playing a game against the player that got a bye is one thing. As long as it doesn't interfere with a judge's ability to call the rest of the games as needed, it doesn't matter.
But actually playing? Competing for a prize? That has impropriety written all over it.

Here is why I disagree - the rules are what the rules are.

Only Fellowship is left up to opinion.

There is no opinion about Flurry & CCE working together - they don't.

HSS & Phasing? Not gonna work together either.

All the effects are written out in several documents. So when a situation arises, its not about "what I think" but "what it says" - and that's just reading, which nearly anyone can do.

[Surfer13]

Here is why I disagree - the rules are what the rules are.

Only Fellowship is left up to opinion.

There is no opinion about Flurry & CCE working together - they don't.

HSS & Phasing? Not gonna work together either.

All the effects are written out in several documents. So when a situation arises, its not about "what I think" but "what it says" - and that's just reading, which nearly anyone can do.

So you are saying that everyone knows the rules, and interprets them the same, and that there is a magical answerbook to solve every problem?
Of course, there won't be any problems since everyone can read...
How can anyone actually believe that? And how do you know that some venue hasn't houseruled CCE to work with charge and/or flurry?

These games aren't a democracy or even a republic. They are a dictatorship with the venue sitting on top of the heap and the judge somewhere below that. The best you can hope for is a benevolent dictator appointing a fair judge to oversee things, but if the dictator doesn't care and the judge is out for him or herself, then you have no chance of coming out on top unless it suits the judges whim.

I mean, at the end of the tourney what if the judge awards himself fellowship or just declares himself the winner, regardless of the outcome of any games played?
Seriously, if the venue doesn't care and just orders the Heroclix and all they tell you is that you have to take it up with the judge, then what is your recourse?
You won't find the answer to that in your magical answerbook. :cool:

[Rahe Stone]

I mean, at the end of the tourney what if the judge awards himself fellowship or just declares himself the winner, regardless of the outcome of any games played?
You won't find the answer to that in your magical answerbook. :cool: If a judge does that, more than just you will complain, and if a whole tourney full of customers complains, there will be motion. If there isn't why even shop there. Id rather not play then play at that environment.

Again, its all about the players and how they feel about it. If a judge wants to play because they either aren't getting judge prizes or the prizes arent good, then who is to stop them.

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

Seriously, does no one see anything wrong with a player being the judge of the whole tournament except for one game, and letting someone under their jursidiction be in charge of that? Does no one else see how a player could see the situation as the 'player' making calls favorable to the 'judge' in exchange for the 'player' receiving them from the 'judge'? That the 'player' could be setting themselves up for a fellowship reward at a minimum just by playing ball?

If I walked into a venue for the first time and the judge was competing for prizes, I would certainly see the deck being stacked against me, and there being a special player assigned to judge the judge wouldn't make me feel any better.

A judge should do their utmost not only to call the games fairly, but to present no image that the games will be called in any other manner. It is not merely whether any impropriety takes place or not, but whether there is even a reasonable appearance of impropriety.

I agree with you. The judge should never, ever have any influence on the outcome of the game. I'm a judge, and I've always played in the Bye Rounds, but my opponent gets the automatic win and 0 victory points, as laid out by WizKids.

If I was to award victory points, or even partial victory points, or was competing for the prize as well, now I'm no longer an unbiased judge, and I'm having an impact on the outcome of the tournament.

It's too bad that high schools, colleges, and parents are so lackadaisical when it comes to teaching ethics. Good ethics are a very rare things these days. People see good as evil, and and evil as good.

If you think that a judge should be able to compete for prizes and have an effect on the outcome of the game...

... then you must also agree with the following....

1) Referees in sports games should be able to play by catching balls or scoring TD's, helping a particular team out.

2) Referees should be allowed to place bets on games they are refereeing. This happens in the NBA all the time, as they are under the influence of organized crime. Come on Pete Rose, you are my hero! Teach those ethics bro!

3) Casino dealers should be able to wager their own money in games of Black Jack, etc. Why not? If you can do it HeroClix, why not cards?

And I can go on and on.

What ever happened to judging because you love the game. Not because you get a judge prize. That is an added bonus. For Brave and the Bold, the only judge prize I took was a map. The rest has been thrown back in the prize pool. I give our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place prizes, give out a fellowship prize, and have still stretched the 10 weeks of prize support to 14 weeks of prize support. I don't judge so I can be rewarded with material items. I judge for the love the game.

It's too bad more people don't have that attitude. When WizKids "died" the first time, it was funny watching all the LE Shark Judges leave the games in droves because they no longer got their little plastic toy anymore. While us real fans stuck through it, played and ran tourneys every week, and the real fans came to play the game without prize support. That was a real eye-opener. Seeing who the lemming prize sharks were, and who were the real fans. Now some of those lemmings have come back now that there is prize support again. I don't want people like that at my venue, and I go out of my way to let them know that. They aren't welcome at my venue's games.

Bottom line, it's unethical. But I understand many people don't even know the definition of ethics, and if they do, they have a lack thereof.

[normalview]

Are there any new questions?


The original poster has had his question answered a couple times now... I realize that some might feel strongly about this issue, but please remember that this is the rules forum. If you'd like to continue this discussion, I'd kindly ask that you take it somewhere else.

[Blaiser]

The judge at my venue plays anyone that is getting a bye round but DOES NOT play for an additional prize. The week where the green lantern was the prize for the recommended tournament list given out by Wizkids, the judge prize was 2 ATAs. So the original poster here got what he would have gotten and should not be trying for more prizes. If the green lanter is important to you (don't now what it would be given what it does) there's always ebay.

EDIT: Sorry Norm, didn't see your post until after I'd posted mine.

[tyroclix]

I mean, at the end of the tourney what if the judge awards himself fellowship or just declares himself the winner, regardless of the outcome of any games played?
Seriously, if the venue doesn't care and just orders the Heroclix and all they tell you is that you have to take it up with the judge, then what is your recourse?
You won't find the answer to that in your magical answerbook. :cool:

So by a "judge" not playing then the lion lies down with the lamb and everything is perfect...? (see nv, a question!)

Cheaters, swindlers, and scammers are going to cheat, swindle and scam regardless of whatever rules you want to apply.

Issues that come up in a game are rule issues. The rules are what the rules are. Need an example - check out this forum. I don't recall ever seeing an answer to a rules question be "Who knows? I guess just pick what's best for you." There has always been an answer that fits within the current rules. Sometimes clarifications are needed but there is always an answer even if its tentative.

Hence the rules are what the rules are.

Some players have used loaded dice - so therefore players should be given a new set of dice each game? Wait, the judge could secretly give everyone bad dice except his pal who is going to give Fellowship to anyway so back in the parking lot the FS winner can give the judge the prize...

Corruption can't be removed 100% from the system. A game being played between 2 adults (or semi-adults, anyway) following the same rules have common ground on all issues.

The problems you have are about individual people. I'd agree those people would suck. Those people suck regardless if they are playing or not. So sit out or not the net result is exactly the same.

:cool::cool:

[Suttkus]

As Judge, I'm often called on to make rulings that have little to do with the rules, typically involving players trying to jigger the dice or arguing about whether they're laying properly flat.

[zero_cochrane]

But you are excluding the "Players compete for both, judge gets nothing" option which I am sure that more than a few people would say is the right thing to do.Up until the point that there is no judge at the venue, perhaps.

I feel no differently about judges playing, even if someone else is caling their game.
Seriously, does no one see anything wrong with a player being the judge of the whole tournament except for one game, and letting someone under their jursidiction be in charge of that? Does no one else see how a player could see the situation as the 'player' making calls favorable to the 'judge' in exchange for the 'player' receiving them from the 'judge'? That the 'player' could be setting themselves up for a fellowship reward at a minimum just by playing ball?[/QUOTE]I think you missed the part where other experienced players will generally be called on to reach a consensus for any rulings required by the judge's game. Hard to have the conspiracy of corruption that you're imagining if it's a group of people or a different player each time a call is required.

But honestly, judge calls aren't needed very often at our venue.

[RavenProject]

Here is why I disagree - the rules are what the rules are.
Take a look through the Rules forum, and tell me again that "what the rules are" is readily apparent to every player.

-J

[Munchoboy]

Here is why I disagree - the rules are what the rules are. Take a look through the Rules forum, and tell me again that "what the rules are" is readily apparent to every player.

Agreed.

All the effects are written out in several documents. So when a situation arises, its not about "what I think" but "what it says" - and that's just reading, which nearly anyone can do.

I hope the implication is not that Judges are simply regurgitating information here, because that would be silly IMO.

(Good) Judges often act as the point of contact for info re: the game, they serve as de facto leaders in their respective clix communities, and provide an inclusive environment wherein to play. That all goes beyond rules reading IMO.

If being a (good) Judge were easy, than yes, anyone could do it.

[ThorKnigh83]

All this is a bit ridiculous anyways as venues can do whatever they want with prize support and run events however they choose now. In the end I was the judge at our venue for a couple of years and still fill that roll in that i set up the tourny and if someone has a question i am normally the first to answer but from here on out we are sacrificing any judge prizes to increase our prize pool for all players and I too am playing. If we have an arguement we just simply can look up the answer and if there is no answer to the question someone has we roll to see how it will be played for that week and then post a question here in the rulse forum. Seems to be a good system to me but perhaps Im just a corrupt judge as some would seem to indicate is the case. Since I can't possibly be impartial if im playing in the tourny despite the fact that I know every player and they all know I do not make rulings based on what I think might win me the tourny. Also the other experienced players will answer questions when the crop up and if there is still a dispute we always turn to the rules for the answer. its more of a concensus thing these days.

[ThorKnigh83]

I agree with you. The judge should never, ever have any influence on the outcome of the game. I'm a judge, and I've always played in the Bye Rounds, but my opponent gets the automatic win and 0 victory points, as laid out by WizKids.

If I was to award victory points, or even partial victory points, or was competing for the prize as well, now I'm no longer an unbiased judge, and I'm having an impact on the outcome of the tournament.

It's too bad that high schools, colleges, and parents are so lackadaisical when it comes to teaching ethics. Good ethics are a very rare things these days. People see good as evil, and and evil as good.

If you think that a judge should be able to compete for prizes and have an effect on the outcome of the game...

... then you must also agree with the following....

1) Referees in sports games should be able to play by catching balls or scoring TD's, helping a particular team out.

2) Referees should be allowed to place bets on games they are refereeing. This happens in the NBA all the time, as they are under the influence of organized crime. Come on Pete Rose, you are my hero! Teach those ethics bro!

3) Casino dealers should be able to wager their own money in games of Black Jack, etc. Why not? If you can do it HeroClix, why not cards?

And I can go on and on.

What ever happened to judging because you love the game. Not because you get a judge prize. That is an added bonus. For Brave and the Bold, the only judge prize I took was a map. The rest has been thrown back in the prize pool. I give our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place prizes, give out a fellowship prize, and have still stretched the 10 weeks of prize support to 14 weeks of prize support. I don't judge so I can be rewarded with material items. I judge for the love the game.

It's too bad more people don't have that attitude. When WizKids "died" the first time, it was funny watching all the LE Shark Judges leave the games in droves because they no longer got their little plastic toy anymore. While us real fans stuck through it, played and ran tourneys every week, and the real fans came to play the game without prize support. That was a real eye-opener. Seeing who the lemming prize sharks were, and who were the real fans. Now some of those lemmings have come back now that there is prize support again. I don't want people like that at my venue, and I go out of my way to let them know that. They aren't welcome at my venue's games.

Bottom line, it's unethical. But I understand many people don't even know the definition of ethics, and if they do, they have a lack thereof.

do you not realize if someone had good ethics and morals then they could easily play in the tourny they are judging because then they would indeed be unbiased so i think those that can't judge and play are the ones who have bad ethics because they are so overcome with the desire to win that they throw their ethics out the door. perhaps a revision of ethics is in necessity. the reason we have generally had the rule of judges not playing is because of the lack of ethics out there. So before you call someone elses ethics into question cause they play in tourny's they judge then you should know the person and their ethics and morals. just because alot of people don't have them doesnt mean that applies to all judges everywhere.

[Munchoboy]

All this is a bit ridiculous anyways as venues can do whatever they want with prize support and run events however they choose now. In the end I was the judge at our venue for a couple of years and still fill that roll in that i set up the tourny and if someone has a question i am normally the first to answer but from here on out we are sacrificing any judge prizes to increase our prize pool for all players and I too am playing. If we have an arguement we just simply can look up the answer and if there is no answer to the question someone has we roll to see how it will be played for that week and then post a question here in the rulse forum. Seems to be a good system to me but perhaps Im just a corrupt judge as some would seem to indicate is the case. Since I can't possibly be impartial if im playing in the tourny despite the fact that I know every player and they all know I do not make rulings based on what I think might win me the tourny. Also the other experienced players will answer questions when the crop up and if there is still a dispute we always turn to the rules for the answer. its more of a concensus thing these days.


I think a better way of saying it is that if it works for you, your Venue, and your players, then by all means do it.

That said, the rest of us are discussing the system as it was, and as it seems to be now as well as the merits of both. Are there strong opinions? Certainly, but this is the Realms after all. :laugh:

This seems to be crux of the disagreement to me; there is one group discussing the merits and validity of the system as it was (and for many of us, still is), and another group discussing what works at their Venue. IMO, there is really no need for judgement (see what I did there?) or defensiveness. They are both really two different discussions and both have their merits.

[Munchoboy]

do you not realize if someone had good ethics and morals then they could easily play in the tourny they are judging because then they would indeed be unbiased so i think those that can't judge and play are the ones who have bad ethics because they are so overcome with the desire to win that they throw their ethics out the door. perhaps a revision of ethics is in necessity. the reason we have generally had the rule of judges not playing is because of the lack of ethics out there. So before you call someone elses ethics into question cause they play in tourny's they judge then you should know the person and their ethics and morals. just because alot of people don't have them doesnt mean that applies to all judges everywhere.

I think one's morals (not really an issue IMO) or ethics (this is the issue) are pretty much irrelevant in regards to the appearance of impropriety.

Some anecdotal evidence:

My players like me, respect me, and, most importantly, trust me. I earned these gifts from my players after much time spent doing what we do. To put myself in a position that could potentially color that perception would do both my players and me a disservice IMO.

I also have to disagree with the point you make regarding having the rules governing Judges' participation in the first place. It was a proactive measure to avoid the perception or appearance of Judge's taking advantage of their role, something we see most everyday in any walk of life with authority figures. Questionable ethics are certainly not the sole baliwick of Heroclix Judges after all.

In summation, I like to say that, again, if your way works for you, then cool. But I think I would avoid overly generalizing the issue if I were you.



"What if you'd won? Never put yourself in the position where you can take from these men."

-Lt Winters, to Lt Compton; Band of Brothers.

;)

[ThorKnigh83]

I think a better way of saying it is that if it works for you, your Venue, and your players, then by all means do it.

That said, the rest of us are discussing the system as it was, and as it seems to be now as well as the merits of both. Are there strong opinions? Certainly, but this is the Realms after all. :laugh:

This seems to be crux of the disagreement to me; there is one group discussing the merits and validity of the system as it was (and for many of us, still is), and another group discussing what works at their Venue. IMO, there is really no need for judgement (see what I did there?) or defensiveness. They are both really two different discussions and both have their merits.

agreed you are indeed correct that would be a better way to word it.

[ThorKnigh83]

I think one's morals (not really an issue IMO) or ethics (this is the issue) are pretty much irrelevant in regards to the appearance of impropriety.

Some anecdotal evidence:

My players like me, respect me, and, most importantly, trust me. I earned these gifts from my players after much time spent doing what we do. To put myself in a position that could potentially color that perception would do both my players and me a disservice IMO.

I also have to disagree with the point you make regarding having the rules governing Judges' participation in the first place. It was a proactive measure to avoid the perception or appearance of Judge's taking advantage of their role, something we see most everyday in any walk of life with authority figures. Questionable ethics are certainly not the sole baliwick of Heroclix Judges after all.

In summation, I like to say that, again, if your way works for you, then cool. But I think I would avoid overly generalizing the issue if I were you.



"What if you'd won? Never put yourself in the position where you can take from these men."

-Lt Winters, to Lt Compton; Band of Brothers.

;)

another excellent point. i just get chaped sometimes hearing people say that a judge cannot be impartial if he is playing. Even Magic has now allowed judges to play in tournements they are judging they just cannot make rulings on their own games and it has worked rather well for them as well. But i do indeed see your point.

[Quebbster]

Are there any new questions?


The original poster has had his question answered a couple times now... I realize that some might feel strongly about this issue, but please remember that this is the rules forum. If you'd like to continue this discussion, I'd kindly ask that you take it somewhere else.

Man has a point.