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

[IronFortress]

I can see where you are coming from thade...

 

I will spell it out in future campaigns I manage to run. Currently, one does have to choose a force within point limits. Naturally, the only way to verify that is through a written roster. It was just not written explicitly... I hate micromanagement... I might have to write a campaign player's code of conduct booklet too...

 

You know what... nobody ever read tose darn things... everyone stilll want the abridged version...

[Frosty the Pyro]

I can see where you are coming from thade...

 

I will spell it out in future campaigns I manage to run. Currently, one does have to choose a force within point limits. Naturally, the only way to verify that is through a written roster. It was just not written explicitly... I hate micromanagement... I might have to write a campaign player's code of conduct booklet too...

 

You know what... nobody ever read tose darn things... everyone stilll want the abridged version...

I have never done a 40k tourny, but I read all the rules of any game or event I play. I could quote or paraphrase weapon statisitics and rules (even some obscure ones) from memory before I ever owned a model. I remember when I realized I was a rules lawyer, but in the judge/official way, not the munchkin way.

[thade]

I might have to write a campaign player's code of conduct booklet too...

 

I endorse this idea. Sportsmanship is really what makes this hobby fun; it certainly can't hurt to enforce it.

[thade]

I have never done a 40k tourny, but I read all the rules of any game or event I play. I could quote or paraphrase weapon statisitics and rules (even some obscure ones) from memory before I ever owned a model. I remember when I realized I was a rules lawyer, but in the judge/official way, not the munchkin way.

 

It's funny, but I've quickly become the same way. I can quote chunks of the rulebook as a result of having studied it like a textbook once a day for these past five months. At the most recent club tournie I was at, they tapped me as a back-up to resolve rule disputes. It's funny how many long time players fall into one of two categories:

1. I don't read the rules, really.

2. I keep confusing 4th and 5th ed.

 

Sorry to veer OT. <3

[OwlandMoonGuy]

Hello IronFortress & welcome to the B&C.

 

I appreciate you posting as in these discussions over rules we hardly get both sides unless someone feels strongly when it comes to one of the opposing views.

 

First off, to the rule interpretation at hand, I assume that you agree that a player cannot choose to alter an army list mid-game. As in, you can’t start with list “A” and at turn three chose to switch to list “B” – somehow reconciling the units lost in the first two turns. If so I also hope you agree that to do so would constitute cheating.

 

Secondly I still think there’s a fundamental misinterpretation of the rule you quoted on pg. 92. IIRC, 5th Edition 40K was the first to mandate that post-game army list disclosure is not a sporting courtesy but a rule. This infers that they must have one prior to the start of the game. Specifying a post-game time limit isn’t necessary in this context. All rules lawyering aside, a “statute of limitations” isn’t required to play 40K.

 

Of course, two players can agree to omit any game rule they like but that’s at their own discretion, and really something that should only be done in friendly games. So I believe there you are quite right, if one of your players agreed to omit this rule then it’s theirs to live with the consequences. I’m with you 110% there.

 

That being said, I disagree with your points concerning the idea that rosters cannot be viewed 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?

The event organizers merely need to require a master copy of every participating army list and to be prepared to produce them as needed. So if a player “forgets” to bring their own list, then the organizers can provide it for them.

 

As I stated in my post above, I’m not pretending to be an arbiter in this case. It’s your campaign and you can run it as you see fit. I do honestly sense that you want to run a game that’s fair and impartial to all players. I’ll still hold to the fact that some added accountability can go a long way to ensure that issues like these don’t arise.

 

Again, thanks for sharing. I do hope you find more use for your B&C membership than explaining your position in this topic. There always room for more dedicated fans of the hobby.

 

Cheers, -OMG

[IronFortress]

Thanks for the welcome.

 

The thing about army list is that it does not carry from game to game or mission to mission. It is intentionally loose in order to allow everyone the ability to play. The only limitation is max 1 special character and play an equal points game. There is no preregistration of games involved. Plus the potential of having over 30+ rosters per week is rather cumbersome. The campaign focuses on the collective result of every player of a faction, not the individual's army list.

 

Perhaps I should just post the campaign on B&C for people to see what is involved...

[Akaiyou]

Ok after reading your post Charles I have to point out the following because to say that changing the list mid way wasn't part of the issue is not being honest here. I've been debating that issue CLEARLY over and over and your response to it as others saw is that once I accept the game and the opponent has no list, that I am responsible for whatever my opponent chooses to do.

 

I didn't even have to put it in those exact words and many others who saw your email got that very same exact interpretation of what you were trying to say. So I know for a fact it's not just me that's taking it the wrong way or something. This is what you've actually been saying wether you realize it or not.

 

For starters WHEN we started the game Alex asks to see my list and i say 'sure', and show him my list on my psp as usual anyone who's EVER played a game with me knows that my lists are always on point and NEVER over on points or anything illegal about them by standard 40k rules!

 

I ask to see his list and her says "I left it at home" and I give him a dirty look (dude why would u leave it at home?) and I ask him if he knows what's in it? He says YES, so I say 'are you sure? and are you below 2000 points?' and he says 'yeah i know it by memory and im only 3 points over' and i say 'no that's illegal bring it down' and he says 'ok I have 15 grots, i'll take out a grot they are 3 pts' and i'm like 'ok but email me your list i'm going to make a battle report'

 

I mention this part just so you all can see how full of crap this guy is, his first list is supposedly 2003 pts!

 

I will now further clarify this for all parties interested this was the list that Alex Flatto (the Ork Player) sent to my email on Oct 31st 2009 after we played our game on Oct 30th 2009.

 

++ Edited non-B&C compliant material. I ++

 

This is straight from my GMAIL account look at the date and everything and it doesnt match his original 2003 pt list. I question him about that list and correct it for him while we chat through gmail chat and texting he didn't even remember using Armour Plates on his killa kans! Or using the rokkit launcher he denied both and so i tell him 'you are 30 points over man you added armour plates and rokkit launchers to that list mid game and you didn't have them on there.

 

Mind you taking out those killa kans was vital to the game and he shoot rokkits to get rid of my tyrant guard. We argue about his list for about 2 or 3 hours! No joke this guy tried everything from telling me 'oh the grots didn't do anything all game lets just count them as if they werent on my list' to 'where in the rules does it say that i need your permission to proxy!'

 

So then he sends me this a day and half later:

 

++ Edited non-B&C compliant material. I ++

 

and all of a sudden there's no need to argue! woohoo he has a valid list the game counts! Claiming this was his list all along and that the preivous list was a 'typo'. Notice that his 'new' list is simply an edited version of the first one adding the upgrades I pointed out and removing a meganob to be under the point limit. (where did the meganob go? is what i'm asking)

 

Would you believe him? I certainly don't. His 'changes' were a bit too convenient and he did not mention any typos when i was chewing him out about the list he sent and had him look it over several times on Oct 31st to prove my point. Everything that came out his mouth was an excuse for cheating.

 

I brought this point up to the organizer telling him 'this guy was over on points, he used stuff he didn't have, that he just added mid game' and I got into this whole debate about how changing the list mdigame is NOT illegal with the organizer.

 

Just to be clear that i'm NOT making any of this crap up here is exactly what I wrote to the CO

 

Dude how else can I explained it to you. I will do this exactly as I explained it to him, this is a basic of 40k.

 

You NEED to have an army list BEFORE you play the game.

 

Page 86 of the rulebook is very clear about this.

 

This is what he did:

 

1. Forgot his list

2. Deployed his forces

3. Added upgrades to his forces DURING the game, since he did NOT have a list with him.

 

I found it really weird how that game went, i asked him to send me the army list that he said he forgot at home.

 

He sends me the list, and his written list does NOT match what he used in game.

I point this out to him by taking the army list that he sent me himself as the army list he was meant to play in that game showing him how he's 35 points over and he says 'oops my mistake'

 

2 whole days later he sends me a text message saying "dude i was actually 5 points under, blah blah blah my list is legal" and he says he sent me an email with his CORRECTED list that he used. That he claims was all in his head during our game.

 

His corrected list looks EXACTLY like the list that I SENT TO HIM! Pointing out what he added to his original list minus 1 meganob.

What a coincidence all of a sudden he has a legal army...2 days later.

 

I explain to him that he cannot play an army of the top of his head adding upgrades as he goes, he tried to dispute this in several ways saying his army was legal because his gretching didn't do a thing all game thus i could just count them as not being part of the game (this was his first excuse even before his corrected list that looks exactly like the one i sent him)

 

And then he even says and i quote "So what if i was making up the list during the game, if the total comes out legal"

And I tell point him to page 86 where it says CHOOSE YOUR FORCES! Before you do anything else.

 

And also give him the following example of WHY you can't make up a list during the game.

 

If i take a carnifex that has a ton of upgrades available. And I just say 'hey this is my carnifex' I cannot play in a game and have the carnifex moving as normal and then decide on which upgrades he has based on the situation that i'm in.

 

"Oh you shot me with a rocket launcher? Ap3?"

 

"MMMM lets see what protects me from Ap3? oh yeah Extended Carapace!, yeah my carnifex now saves on 2+"

 

And then I assault your S3 models and i decide that my carnifex will now have Toughness 7! Even though originally i meant those 20 points to go into something else in my army.

 

I really would like to be done with this argument, Alex was wrong and he knows it. His original list was mistaken and he's NOT allowed to form up a list during play which is wat he claims to have done.

 

and this is the lovely reply that I get after making my point about page 86 of the rulebook.

 

ok... here is how I am reading into the rules from GW.

 

At no point in page 86 does it specifiy that a player must have a filled out army list for the opponent to review. In fact the only reference to force roster is on page 92 and that is after the game being played.

 

Which means the following...

 

#1 if a player does not have a roster ready, one can consider them unready and not play them until they draft one.

 

#2 if a player does not have a roster ready, one can play them and review their roster afterwards as you are doing.

 

#3 if a game is played, then the matter is this:

 

A: Did the player use anything that would exceed the point total allowed. If the answer is no, then they had a valid army to support the result.

 

B: Does the fact that one provides a list after a fact constitute cheating as it could be Squad-B that had the Melta bombs on the list nd not Squad-C which had the opportunity to do it in game that ended up using it.

 

#4 Without proof of malice, suspecion is alone is not enough to overturn a game that both player agreed to play from start to finish.

 

 

Which means one would have to accept the full game played if a player can fulfill #3A. However, if they end up being over points, the result would be invalid regardless of result. Though, I probably should award the 2vs0 to the player who did get things right and played the full game for their faction.

 

and i quote again:

 

Certain suspicions and questions just need to be left alone for one reason or another. Some are just grasping at straws... Once you agreed to play a game, then questioning which squad actually had the wargear is moot. #1 the controlling player did not have the roster at the time the game was played. #2 the opposing player cannot confirm the truthfulness of the list after the fact. By agreeing to play, one takes on the burden of acceptance.

 

and one last time

 

Ronny,

 

You need to only answer what I need to know. All I needed to know is whether or not he used something not on a valid list.

 

Everything else is not relevent. You played the game, so you accept the fact he didn't have a roster. If you accepted the fact he didn't have a list and played, I cannot fault him for not having the roster. I am total agreeing that one cannot change their list mid-game. However, since he did not have a roster at the time of the game anything he provides is suspect. Wouldn't you agree? By all accounts, I should not accept any roster not available immediately by the time of the game. Hell, you could give me a copy of the list you said you played. I can still say you cannot prove to me that is the list you played that day without physical evidence or notery from that day.

 

Before this clarification, I would only be invaliding the game because your stance that he did not have a roster. This I cannot do because you played a game accepting that limitation. That would not be fair. What I can do is invalidate it if the models used were over the point limit of the list provided.

 

I hope you can understand my reasoning based on my past rational and current explaination of things.

 

My interpretation of everything you said is 'well you played the game you are screwed if he cheated'.

 

Does anyone else interpret it differently?

 

If i'm the ONLY person then im definetly over reacting and i will apologize. But I highly doubt that i'm the only one here seeing that.

[IronFortress]

You misunderstand my position... I'm not here to say who is more right than the other. It is a judgment call I simply do not want to make. You can read into his intent as much as you like. I am saying that I cannot say with the same conviction that you are claiming for malice. You only see I am not going along with your interpretation as a hostile judgment against you.

 

By the very nature of allowing an delayed roster, you expose yourself to needing to completely trust your fellow player. If you trust them, then everything makes sense. If you doubt them, then nothing is genuine. As I had given an example before, even with a written roster, one can still manage to cheat. If you cannot understand this, then nothing I say will make sense to you. If they did not cheat how can the prove otherwise when accused? If they did cheat, there needs to be evidence. Don't take it out on me when you cannot proof something to be true. If you want me to be the judge, then I need hard evidence.

 

Like I stated, it doesn't matter how he gave you the list if you didn't see a written one during the game. The bottomline is that the list in his mind cannot be verified at any point in time. All you have is speculation based on what you observed. Yes, what he did was suspicious. However, suspicion is not enough to call someone out in public. In any case, was it really necessary to involve the world to stand behind your position?

 

You want a cheat-proof guarantee? I don't even know where to begin. Unless you want the minutes of each game recorded and reviewable, I do not see how you can feel secure when you don't trust anyone. Maybe you shouldn't play with strangers?

 

Remember playing with a person who keeps on challenging the rules versus their interpretations of the rules? This is how I feel right now. I am following the situation as written and you are going by how you interpret it. I'm sorry, they are not proof of inpropriety. They are circumstantial at best. You can interpret it as cheating or cheating against you is allowed. However, if someone accused you of something, this is the standard used to weigh the evidence. Like it or not, you have the burden of proof in this case. Not the other way around. It is your word versus his frankly. To rules for one of you means I need to justify why I am doing it. You haven't given me anything that I can use to that extent yet.

[Grey Mage]

Got a copy of the internet conversation where you helped him fix his list?

[Akaiyou]

Got a copy of the internet conversation where you helped him fix his list?

 

No because our conversations happened mostly on the phone and through ttexting and my cell phone has a very low capacity for texts so i've had to delete allt he important ones where he confesses that 'hey i made it up as i went so what? ' and where he says there's NOTHING wrong with him proxying stuff without telling me.

 

I'm not going just 'off suspicion' he admitted all this stuff while we were texting and he kept asking me to point out where in the rules it said that he coudlnt do those things.

 

Here's one of our gmails conversations after he texted me about his new list and told me to go look at it in my email and i wont even copy and paste the text just so that nobody can say 'oh you probably edited it' i'll do it by print screen like with the army lists he sent.

 

++ Edited non-B&C compliant material. I ++

 

++ Edited non-B&C compliant material. I ++

 

This is why i keep insisting to charles that Alex changed his list mid game and why I have to point out that saying 'nobody changed their list mid game' is wrong, because he did. I was there and he admitted it in a text during our heated debate over this and i kept telling him that he cannot do that no matter what.

[IronFortress]

This is the first time I had seen this transcript. I have to say it is enough to rule against our Ork commander. The fact that proxies were not explained is his fault entirely. I still wouldn't call him a cheater yet with regards to changing the list. There is still not enough evidence for that.

 

However, this would be another reason why I would invalidate an army list. He proxied and expected his opponent to know what was actually deployed...

[Akaiyou]

This is the first time I had seen this transcript. I have to say it is enough to rule against our Ork commander. The fact that proxies were not explained is his fault entirely. I still wouldn't call him a cheater yet with regards to changing the list. There is still not enough evidence for that.

 

However, this would be another reason why I would invalidate an army list. He proxied and expected his opponent to know what was actually deployed...

 

If only i could show you all the crap he was texting me, you'd have a field day.

 

I'm telling u he's full of it. I'm not just making things up out of suspicion.

 

if u read in that whole argument i had with him he was still texting me and he said 'so what if i made it up as i go i was still under on points' confessing that he did infact edit his list mid way which was wat we were talking about through texts and he asked me to show him where it says that he can't do that. And i was replying to him on gmail on that matter.

 

The only sad part is that he didnt repeat himself in the gmail convo.

 

But like i said this is just about the most proof i can show in regards to this matter everything else is circumstancial including this i suppose.

[thade]

(sheepishly) all of this could have been averted had lists and WYSIWYG been required with no exceptions. Next time someone says "I forgot my list at home," they either forfeit or they simply sit down and write out their list pre-game.

 

Something you might do is this: instead of allowing people to disregard the Force Organization chart, you should grossly reduce the points limit of the games. Make them 750 points or even less. You could run Combat Patrol rules at 500ish points or less. 2000 points is a LOT for people who can't meet the chart requirements.

 

I also humbly recommend painted armies being required...the game is much more fun when things are painted. :jaw: But, one step at a time.

 

@the OP: If someone consciously cheats (or seems to knowingly be dishonest in order to further their aims to win) I usually won't play with them anymore. Frankly, the game is much more fun when people are honest and polite; you can always tell if someone is playing for the fun of the game or if someone is playing for the win. It's a different feel. One game feels fun, one game does not. If someone unknowingly cheats (accidentally fields too many points, uses a weapon incorrectly to their gross benefit, etc) I usually let it slide. It just makes the game more challenging for me, which is always a good time. I enjoy uphill battles much more than easy ones.

[OwlandMoonGuy]

As stated above, the B&C is not the forum to mitigate public debates over the outcome at any particular event. In the end, the event organizers are always the ultimate judge, jury & executioner of any rule call no matter what the circumstances.

 

So, I believe we’ve covered the significant points of this topic.

 

If there’s nothing else pertinent to the discussion we can leave you to work out the final outcome for your campaign & go on from there.

 

-OMG

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

So, let me see if I get this straight:

 

1. No requirement to actually have the list at hand when you meet for the game, and the game is still played if the opponent agrees.

2. If opponent agrees and the game is played, all bets are off. If you lose, you lost, no need to complain.

3. The ork player altered his list during the game(by his own admission), and then submitted 2 lists after the game, the first of which was "wrong", the second of which was altered around to be "right".

 

I'd tar and feather said ork player. And then run him out of town.

[Narthecium]

Altering your list BEFORE the game starts, if it's not required to immediately hand a player over, I see as semi-acceptable, so long as you allow the other player to do the same.

 

Altering your list DURING the game? Absolutely not. If the ork player did that to me, I'd say "Oh right, and I forgot..remember those two predators you already destroyed? I forgot and this list was wrong but they were supposed to be a land raider redeemer." and I'd plop one down on the table.

[Akaiyou]

So, let me see if I get this straight:

 

1. No requirement to actually have the list at hand when you meet for the game, and the game is still played if the opponent agrees.

2. If opponent agrees and the game is played, all bets are off. If you lose, you lost, no need to complain.

3. The ork player altered his list during the game(by his own admission), and then submitted 2 lists after the game, the first of which was "wrong", the second of which was altered around to be "right".

 

I'd tar and feather said ork player. And then run him out of town.

 

More or less and it was #2 that I had a great problem with.

 

Admittedly i've :cussed up in the campaign as well in a game versus tau where i used land units in a mobile force without realizing it.

The tau player pointed it out to me a WEEK after the game.

I contacted the CO a couple minutes later and let him know that I made a mistake and the game shouldn't count.

 

This is what I expected from the Ork player. Some degree of sportsmanship. Instead I got a bunch of 'it doesnt matter after the game is finished' attitude not only from him but from the CO as well which frustrated me. And at first the CO accepted the fact that the Ork player was over on points, until the Ork guy changed his story and then I started being asked for proof that i didn't have.

 

Either way i just don't think that not having a list before the game is an excuse for cheating. The rules say that you can show your list after the game and as pointed out that is how it happened he showed me his list after the game (not immediately after) and it simply didn't match what he played. We sat and argued about this very list for hours through texting if it really wasn't the list he meant to send, why didn't he bring it up sooner? Or right then and there when we were discussing it and i was 'correcting' it.

[Isiah]

My this topic has turned into something else...

 

Guys, you need to sort out your differences elsewhere please, there is a lot of mud-slinging going on here that we can do without, not to mention full army lists complete with ALL weapons and warger costs, and to top it off swearing too – an infringement easily warranting a warning.

 

OwlandMoonGuy made a perefctly reasonable request:

As stated above, the B&C is not the forum to mitigate public debates over the outcome at any particular event. In the end, the event organizers are always the ultimate judge, jury & executioner of any rule call no matter what the circumstances.

that I fully endorse.

 

If you want to discuss purely rules interpretation then that's fine, but, honestly I'm feeling a bit like I'm party to a private argument and seeing things I shouldn't really be seeing. Not only that – but it isn't really solving the rules issue at the heart of the matter.

 

For this reason I am temporarily closing this thread as I can't see a successful outcome that doesn't involve more of the same. Posts will be edited to fully reflect the rules of the B&C.

 

 

Cheers

I