Do I have to make my roster *before* the game?

[Akaiyou]

Hello guys,

 

I have a question about setting up a 40k game with someone.

 

pg 86 of the rulebook says that you must

 

1. Choose point limit

2. Choose forces

3. etc etc

 

So my question is about point #2. Choosing forces.

 

This does not specify that you must choose your roster anywhere.

 

Does this mean that i'm allowed bring anything I want to the table even if i don't specify or write down what ugprades/wargear/psychic powers the unit has and select them mid-game?

 

For those confused, here's some examples. Is the following legal?

 

A Necron Army with a Necron Lord doesn't specify that he has anything other than a Resurrection Orb and a Warscythe (which are visible upgrades) so that If im in a situation where I want to get an Inv save i can add phase shifter as one of his upgrades mid game to save against a lascannon lets say?

 

Or if i'm in a tight spot I can instead say that the lord has Veil of Darkness in order to avoid combat midgame?

 

Is this all legal?

 

If my opponent fields a carnifex can he walk it up the board and decide midgame wether the carnifex has +I, +WS +W which totals up to 25 points or wether i prefer to use +Sv which cost exactly the same as long as my total roster for the army never exceeds the agreed point limit?

 

What in the rulebook would prevent me from doing such things? the rules on page 86 are written vaguely I cannot undersatnd them well so can anyone explain how it works? And what is allowed/what isn't?

 

Is NOT GOING OVER AGREED POINT LIMIT the only rule subject to choosing forces? With everything else being interchangeable after the game is already in progress?

 

Thanks for your help.

[Chengar Qordath]

The entire army list, including all units, upgrades, and everything else, has to be decided on before the start of play. It is generally required that you have a written down army list that includes all units and upgrades in your army, and it is a point of courtesy to allow your opponent to read over your list before the start of the match. Changing unit gear or upgrades in the middle of a match is cheating.

[Starblayde]

The entire army list, including all units, upgrades, and everything else, has to be decided on before the start of play.

This. Your force is your roster, army list - or whatever you want to call it - that you pick before the game begins. All of your examples given, as Chengar Qordath said, are plain cheating, as you cannot conjure up a new piece of wargear from hammerspace in the middle of a battle.

 

Last night, however, I forgot to choose my Librarian's powers, so picked them a couple of turns in. I think the Gods didn't like this, as I promptly rolled an eleven on both turns 3 and 4 when trying to Machine Curse a Vindicator that was immolating my squads. Needless to say, after seven turns of play, my only remaining model was a one-armed Dreadnought. It wasn't pretty, and neither was the scoreline of 8 kill points to 1.

[rat of vengence]

I think they considered "Choose Forces" so obvious that it didn't need further defining.

 

If you and your mate agree to keep things fluid, go ahead. But if you pulled that on me mid-game (and with no army list I would be watching VERY closely) you would likely never get a 2nd game with me.

 

I don't know if you are trying to find a loophole or asking a genuine question (I'll give you benefit of doubt :)), but the straight answer is that most people would regard it as straight out cheating.

 

RoV

[Isiah]

Yep no loophole there. Pre-determined fully itemised army roster beforehand is sacrosanct for both player sanity and some kind of gaming equality (as far as that goes with different Codexes :lol:).

 

Cheers

I

[Akaiyou]

Ah ok thank you all it appears that I am NOT crazy.

 

I've been debating this point for days now, with the planet diplomacy campaign organizer and the Ork player that beat me.

 

Because low and behold that's exactly what he did to me! He edited his force mid-game at his convenience and argues that this is all legal because he claims he never went over the points.

 

I asked the campaign organizer to count the game as invalid, since from my point of view and understanding of the rules the Ork player CLEARLY cheated.

 

And then the organizer actually supports the Ork player's claim that no where in the rules does it say that you CANNOT change your list mid-game. So I just needed to ask around online and see if i'm the only person on earth who doesn't change his list mid game.

 

So thanks to the many of you who confimed that i'm not the crazy one here.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Ah ok thank you all it appears that I am NOT crazy.

 

I've been debating this point for days now, with the planet diplomacy campaign organizer and the Ork player that beat me.

 

Because low and behold that's exactly what he did to me! He edited his force mid-game at his convenience and argues that this is all legal because he claims he never went over the points.

 

I asked the campaign organizer to count the game as invalid, since from my point of view and understanding of the rules the Ork player CLEARLY cheated.

 

And then the organizer actually supports the Ork player's claim that no where in the rules does it say that you CANNOT change your list mid-game. So I just needed to ask around online and see if i'm the only person on earth who doesn't change his list mid game.

 

So thanks to the many of you who confimed that i'm not the crazy one here.

 

Forgive me, but were both the organiser and the ork player in kindergarden?

[Akaiyou]

The ork player is in high school the organizer is a grown man.

 

Neither one of them seemed to agree with me that you can't edit the list midgame and held onto the claim that it's 'ok' to change the list midgame. Finally the issue was resolved with the organizer counting the game as invalid on the account that the Ork playe rwas over the point limit.

 

(not on the account that he was editing his list midway)

 

so whatever, as long as that BS game doesn't count i'm happy.

[thade]

You might want to find another place to play. <3 I'm sorry you had to go through that. What they are doing to you is the equivalent of telling you That a pawn on a chess board was ACTUALLY their Queen in disguise, and the Queen you just killed was actually a pawn, also in disguise. "Of course you feel for it; aren't I very clever? What? It's not like I have more pieces than I did before, or different ones even."

 

Full disclosure is the way of it at my club, and you need to have your list pre-imagined before the game. We all make a point of announcing everything about our armies to one another (e.g. this squad is combat squadding, this squad is deep striking, this squad is outflanking, etc.). Anyway, if he cheated, he technically forfeited that match...so congratulations on winning. =)

[Akaiyou]

This is an email he sent today in regards to the matter for those interested:

 

Let's get one thing straight...

 

Nothing in the rules (pg 86-87) states that one has to have a roster before a game, In fact, it is only required in tournaments. This is because tournament organizers need to validate the list prior to the games. No one wants the hassle of voiding games due to errors.

 

The rules only states that one needs to be within the point limit agreed upon and follow the prescribed force organization when they choose their forces. While a list can help itemize the forces, it is not an absolute requirement to have.

 

The only time a roster is mentioned is on page 92. This deals with letting your opponent review your roster. Even then, it does not specify how immediate a roster needed to be provided to the opponent. It may be common sense, but then again common sense is not the rule. It is only a guideline.

 

One can play a game with an opponent without a list written with their opponent's consent. If you agree to play them anyways, then you must accept this limitation. You can always refuse to play someone without a completed roster at the time.

 

Lesson here is that if you agree to play someone without a list to begin with, don't call foul afterwards that they performed an illegal procedure in your book.

 

In addition, there are some flaws to accepting rosters as absolutes.

 

#1 who is to say that one could not carry a second list to fit the situation?

#2 who is to say a player didn't make a mistake while following their proper list?

#3 who is to say that memories didn't get fuzzy after time?

 

but wait, you say... you're telling the truth, you say... The question I have is how can I verify what you are telling me? Why should I believe your word over the other person? The burden of proof is the accuser. The person being accused is innocent until proven guilty. It is not that I refuse to see certain view points. It is that certain view points cannot be verified. If it cannot be verified, it is hearsay. I cannot use hearsay to rule against someone else. If you expect me to be fair and impartial, this is the standard I use.

 

The only verifible truth after the fact is what was actually fielded in the game. IE, hey I had to kill 12 tyranids when your squad on the list only had 9 paid for. Or, wait, you used multabombs on one of your squads when none of the squads had paid for the upgrade. If you have photos, great! It makes my life easier.

 

Since I am not going to bother second guessing people, if anyone accepts to play against someone who does not have a written list, it is their own fault for creating the situation. I will only bother with situations where they actually exceeded their allowed point total.

 

Like Nathan said, GW rules are open to fudging. They did not set out to make cohesive rules like other competitive games. As such, you'll just have to accept how I choose to do things.

 

 

 

 

 

Charles

Campaign Organizer

 

and this was my response to him 5 minute ago in regards to that lastest email:

 

I did mention several times that we could ask online and that was becaues i was asking online as we spoke and debated the matter on here. And i just needed to know if it was just me that felt you can't change the list midway no matter what.

 

Even though as you pointed out others did point out that there's nothing specifically saying you cannot, everyone does agree that at the very least this is very poor sportsmanship if not flat out cheating.

 

And also over and over again the matter i was bringing up to your attention was that he changed his list. Rules say the opponent can show the list after the game (which is what he did) and like you said he doesnt have to show it immediately after.

 

Wether or not he shows his list before the game or after assuming that he has a list (which is what he said to me that he DID have a list and that it was the one he emailed to me) then all rules to the game have been satisfied.

 

Now that his list did not match what he played was something I noticed right away and saw he was over on points as well as that he edited his list mid way to suit the situation. And i kept pointing this out to you and you refuse to accept it for lack of proof.

 

So here is a scenario I present to you to show u why saying 'there was no list during the game to confirm this' doesnt really work.

 

The rules never say you MUST show your opponent your list prior to the game beginning. Disclosure can be done AFTER the game.

 

That means that you can STILL alter your list during the game according to what you are stating. And at the end of the game you reveal your list to your opponent and your opponent says 'hey! you used a ton of flamers but in your list all your weapons are melta guns! you changed it during the game because i had no tanks just infantry! you cheated!'

 

Then what??

 

How do you PROVE this as the player that was cheated? If no one else was there to witness the game. If the cheater comes to you and sends you a battle report of the game claiming to win. What protects the other person against this? When he comes to you and says 'hey! that game didn't count the other dude meltaguns in his list but used them as flamers in the game when he saw i had no tanks!' Are you going to say 'well what proof do you have? If you can't show proof then the game has to count because you played it, even if your opponent's written list didnt match what he actually used in game.

 

Please answer that.

[OwlandMoonGuy]

I certainly hope you didn’t have to pay an entry fee to play in this campaign.

 

“Nothing in the rules states that you have to play 40K to determine a winner. All GW rules are arbitrary and since they are arbitrary they can’t be understood and if they can’t be understood they can’t be moderated so if you want to play Warmachine, Tiddlywinks or Mrs. Pacman instead of 40K then that’s fine according to our campaign rules.”

 

After running more campaigns, leagues, tournaments, RT’s, ‘Ard Boyz & what have you’s over the years, I've found that there are very simple ways a facilitator can ensure that the gaming stays optimally fair & balanced. Seems like the organizers here don’t take their role serious enough to implement them.

 

Personally, if I were playing in this campaign I'd drop out. My gaming time is too valuable to spend arguing the principle ownership of the burden of proof.

 

Please take my comments for what their worth. Issues like these strike a nerve with me so this is all just MHO, -OMG

[JamesI]

I completely agree with OMG here. Drop out or insist to see your opponent's list before each game at this rate.

 

Once the game starts, the lists are set. Can't keep a 200 point reserve to make decisions based on in game needs.

[KhorneHunter57x]

It appears that the rules-lawyering organizer forgot the rule at the top of page 2.

 

So with him I could take Khan on his bike and after everything has outflanked replace him with Vulkan? :P

 

But I agree with OMG and JamesI on this one.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Some people...

 

*gestures to his servants* Quick! Fetch my flamer!

 

Really, I suggest you leave said campaign, complain to the manager of the store, and, if the organiser is the manager too, take your business elsewhere.

[Grey Mage]

Wow.... Id drop out of this campaign so fast... and take anyone remotely considered a friend with me.

[IronFortress]

So I am running around correcting the misconception about what happened...

 

I happen to be the Campaign Organizer here...

 

Let me make it clear that there was no switching during the actual game.

 

What did happen can be viewed in two ways...

 

One person receives gets 1st copy of the roster on email which was wrong and a 2nd copy later on that is conveniently correct.

 

One person sent the wrong copy to begin with and the correct copy happens to be the same as a revision the opponent came up with.

 

 

Both player agreed to play a game where one person did not have a written list. My position was that you are responsible for your own game. Nothing states how army lists are to be treated in a non-tournament game. If you agree to play, then you accepted that one must have full trust in the other person's submission of the list after the fact. I'm not going to babysit people. There certainly isn't any army list registration in the campaign. The point of the campaign was to provide a overarching reason to play 40K games. Everything else, I left it to the players. I only generate the missions and ask for the results of the games.

 

I chose to ignore the issue of having an actual list because the players agreed to play without it. I also chose to ignore the explainations on the different lists, because I cannot prove either point of view. The matter focused solely on whether a player fielded more than what was noted on the correct list.

 

 

No one is saying to allow changing of wargears mid-game. It is the appearance of fudging the actual list after the game had actually finished with the two different lists. Appearance is not enough to call someone a cheat. If anyone is going to call someone out, I would expect something more than "it looked suspicious".

 

There was no declaring what one unit was or had and then changing it on a later turn... The issue here was whether or not a player altered his list after a player trusted them to be accurate. Of course one had to choose their forces to know if the were under the point limit. Of course, you cannot change the list afterwards. The problem here is how to you confirm and prove someone did make alterations to their list intentionally after the fact when there was no list at the beginning of a game to compare with? If you can answer this, you are psychic...

[KhorneHunter57x]

Welcome to the B&C IronFortress! We hope your stay will be enjoyable.

 

So, as usually happens in these cases, you need to hear both sides of the story.

 

However, I feel that the opponent should have told before the game that the list sent via e-mail had been revised.

[IronFortress]

What if it really wasn't revised? What then? How would any of us feel if it was genuinely a misunderstanding with the lists?

 

This is the point I make. As a Organizer, I realize my position to be fully impartial and to deliver my verdicts with both authority and facts. By siding with a player only based on circumstantial evidences is a detriment to the whole campaign and to the position.

 

Fact is that both player agreed to play without making one of them write out the forgotten list. If they accepted this condition to playing, then I cannot and will fault either player later on in this issue.

[KhorneHunter57x]

Wow. Dude, you would make a great lawyer (and I mean that in a positive way).

 

Honestly, you are right. Without evidence, you had no way of knowing what had happened.

[thade]

This entire issue could have been averted had you not waived the requirement for lists. Before I play any game, we all compose our lists, even with a pen and paper just before the game, so we know that our points are balanced and that there are no surprises. If you walked into a GW event (or any LGS event I can imagine) and told them "Nothing in the rules says you need to have a list," it would not go over well. <3 It's something they require for a reason. The game is not about surprises; the game is about strategy, given full disclosure.

 

I recommend you start requiring lists. =) And I'd also encourage you to require WYSIWYG, as it too sort of "counts as" a list and will help prevent this kind of thing.

 

Please don't take offense, but asserting that "They agreed to it, so them's the breaks" is I think not the solution here.

[IronFortress]

Thanks for the encouragement KhorneHunter.

 

As far as having a list, thade...

 

As many pointed out, it is an understood thing that people need to have a list both for their opponent's sake and their own sake. I know that, we know that, but you know what.... it just happened to be omitted from the written rule, except in tournaments... But in this instance, both player allowed themselves to play with one side not having one. It is not a fault of the system. It is a fault of the players in this case. Both are responsible, one for forgetting and the other for allowing.

 

I will be the first one to admit that this is one of the loosest campaign you'll ever find. But the rules are solid and actions have exciting. If people are interested, i'll also start posting here for people to see how it works. We have close to 40 people signed up at the moment. It can be scaled for many people or much less. Who knows what will happen after this outburst...

 

 

On the matter of "game is about strategy, given full disclosure", I would argue against perfect intelligence as to which similarly looking rhino actually has Khorne Berzerkers and which has Plague Marines... It should be like a fortune cookie...

[Grey Mage]

What if it really wasn't revised? What then? How would any of us feel if it was genuinely a misunderstanding with the lists?

 

This is the point I make. As a Organizer, I realize my position to be fully impartial and to deliver my verdicts with both authority and facts. By siding with a player only based on circumstantial evidences is a detriment to the whole campaign and to the position.

 

Fact is that both player agreed to play without making one of them write out the forgotten list. If they accepted this condition to playing, then I cannot and will fault either player later on in this issue.

Fair enough. That is a more reasonable set of events... and one I can understand.

 

Of course- most emails these days are dated, and timed, so it would be easy to check if the list was emailed before or after the game... *shrugs*.

 

Note: I consider "choose forces" to include "write/type/print/draw" a list up.

[thade]

I'm sorry, I won't relent here. The purpose of the game is *fun*, and that is in the rule book. If one or more of your players are having a heated disagreement over something so simple as magically shifting points, I would be concerned that they're not having fun. This could again be alleviated by requiring lists. Since everybody here unconsciously expects lists, this is a small thing.

 

"Fault" doesn't belong to either of the players. I'm afraid that the fault here is yours, as you are the organizer. That you signed on to B & C to defend this point indicates to me that you perhaps understand this and are doing your best to remedy it. I applaud you for this.

 

My recommendation stands that you should require lists to avoid this sort of thing. With such a large event, I can't understand why you wouldn't require lists. Lists don't cause problems, they prevent them (like, for instance, this one). Lists are not a big deal, and you could even make the change mid-event. The only reason anybody would complain is for the simple reason that they'd rather be able to exploit a fluid army (one that can change it's wargear and options mid-battle); anybody who's playing with a normal, static list would be completely unaffected by this change.

[IronFortress]

I would agree, Grey Mage...

 

However, the Ork player forgot their written list at home... So he did choose his forces as dictated by the rules. He also did provide a roster for the opponent after the game. It is established that the rosters were send after the game.

[thade]

Having re-read a few posts, I admit I may have taken up too harsh a stance here. I see that you were requiring lists in general (or at least, that is my understanding now) but one party forgot their list.

 

I think the party that forgot their list should've taken some time to recapitulate their list on paper. At a 40ish person event, someone must have a copy of their codex they could borrow =) (unless they're like Dark Eldar or Inquisition?).