Important Rules Question

[Fremen]

Wow! This guy is awesome!
I don`t ask for list as I beleive one can have only hollow victory by cheating.
I think he is not proud of himself and he knows that he did not win at all. But look, noone likes to say: Oh, You were right, I cheated. Don`t wait for this.

Hard to judge something without knowing the exact facts.

Just don`t play with him again.

[Wicky]

I still think that the rules for army lists is the key here and according to GW’s holy bible of the Space Marines Codex, page 127 “Using Army Lists,” you must decide on one BEFORE the battle and the first sentence in that entry confirms that the list must be put together and the last sentence says that (after doing this) “Then you are ready for battle.”

Now this is compulsory for the owning player to do and the burden of proof is on that person to have a list and no one else.
And there is no provision (obviously) to do any of this during or after the game as it must exist prior to the game.

It is the viewing of it that is a must after the game and only on agreement before it; but never the less it must exist in some inarguable form for an organised game to continue.

It also states in the BRB “A Note on Secrecy” page 92 it is the spirit of the game to make it clear what you are fielding.

So even though the agreement was to ‘play’, it was not done in the spirit of the game and was not within the rules either. This ‘agreed game’ should have been null and void unless the final outcome was agreed to also.

IronFortress, you state, “Nothing states how army lists are to be treated in a non-tournament game.”

I beg to differ, the rules give a generality for ALL games being played under the guise of Warhammer 40K on how lists are to be used as I have stated above.

It appears here that only one person was playing to the full rules of 40K here, the other was not and it was beyond the players permissions to check the compulsory lists before the game started.

So I ask you, logically if the players can’t legally verify what is on the lists before a game starts then a neutral party should – these are usually called ‘organizers.’

Now this all sounds like I am vilifying IronFortress unnecessarily, this is not my intention here but I firmly believe that he made a rod for his own back by being a neutral party, organizing the campaign and then using faulty logic to backup his lack of what he calls ‘babysitting’ – I would call it organizing actually. But I don’t envy the job of any organizer in these games!

Perhaps it would be better just to learn from the outlined problems and insist that all the core rules be followed in future – it just makes the game so much easier when the result matters.

Thanks.

[Akaiyou]

I don't quite understand the side the Campaign Organizer ( Hello, IronFortress Welcome to LO ) is trying to maintain.

There isn't a "burden of proof" for the accuser. This is not a criminal type case. This more closely resembles a civil case, in where the preponderance of evidence, is used to determine what's correct and or fair.

You have a player in a campaign, playing without a written list.
You have a list proved; which is inaccurate.

Then you have another list provided; with "corrections".
Here is where the major part of the problem. If it was a typo from 5 MegaNobs Instead of 4 MegaNobs, the points value would still have been 160pts.

There is no way the Ork player typo'd the 5 and the 4 AND the 160pts and the 200pts.
This is obviously a "fixed" list, NOT a typo correction.

I don't know either player, I don't know the Organizer. But impartially, the weight of information seems to very heavily lean toward the non-Ork player.

I understand the CO is not judging the games, nor supervising them in anyway. With the accusations alone, should invalidate the game for both players. A warning to both players, that if another inconsistency arises, they will be evicted from the campaign. With the evidence presented (thus far) you owe it to the members of your campaign to look into it farther than, "show me a video" Or have another clause, that specifies that any conflicting reporting of game results will result in warnings and/or disqualification of said game.

My sentiments exactly, i just can't see that list being a simple typo.

Specially since we went over his given list for 2 hours and i told him to check and recheck to see that he didnt have the upgrades i was pointing out and he had no answer for me then, but 2 days later all of a sudden a new list popped up.

But yeah you are one of the few that truly understands my point of view in this and for that im grateful.

[IronFortress]

Preponderance of 'circumstantial' evidence cannot and should not be used to provide a negative impact on a party which not been proven to have committed a wrong-doing. By invalidating a player's game and giving them a warning without proof of wrong doing is also not a correct course of action.

There are so many cases in life already where the mere accusation of impropriety is enough to cause irreparable harm to someone. Let's not all jump to the conclusion that if it looks like a rabbit and act like a rabbit, then it cannot be a hare.

If you think they are the same thing, then you need to do some research...


As for the two different lists, why couldn't anyone submit the wrong list in the first place if it wasn't a type? Without knowing any other details, it is not an unbelievable situation. Suspicious? Maybe... but not enough to convict. Yes, you spent hours discussing the list afterwards and the correct list finally came 2 days later. Let's say I believe that. How do I prove that? This is my point. This has nothing to do with what I believe. It is entirely about what I can prove.

No insult or accusation to anyone... However, who is to say that the accused does not have any ulterior motives in some cases? Yes, it is easy to say who would ever want to falsely accuse anyone. The same reason why someone would lie and cheat to get their way. But I am getting off topics here... My point here is that the fair and just thing to do is to only act on proof and evidence, not suspicion or possible motive.

It makes no difference if this were a criminal case or a civil case. You must still prove the defendant is at fault in order to receive a favorable judgment as the plaintiff. You must prove the defendant is guilty in order to impose a punishment as the prosecutor. To do so otherwise is an insult to justice.

How would you feel if you were accused and judged to be guilty without evidence? How can you defend yourself if people choose to believe the other side more? Now, what if you were really innocent and it was just a misunderstanding? What if your word is not good enough, because your accuser said things better? Would you want me to punish you without evidence? How is that fair? How is that just? How is this rational? How is this impartial?

By taking sides without proper evidence, you fail to be impartial.




IronFortress

[Heirodule]

Unfortunatly ive just spotted something that may put him under points. if you read his lists (both of them) hes actually paid for useless upgrades on his warboss. For example he has mega armour, giving you a 2+ save, powerclaw and Tl shoota, but he then has a powerclaw and hard armour, a 4+ save. obviously these upgrades will have no effect on the game, essentially making them useless.

Now theyre in his list, so they should be paid for whatever, but there is an argument that with the wargear actually used hes under points.

However the fact he is unaware how his own codex works seems suspect to me, how can he have a 2000pt list in his head if he dosnt know how things work with each other?

For the record i think the fairest thing to do is to replay this game, but award the guy points for a draw minimum no matter the outcome. This seems fairest to me because you then havnt totally punished him due to lack of proof, but he is being repremanded for having A) no list and B ) an inital incorrect list.

---------

have also just noticed hes miss pointed several upgrades, such as cybork bodies, again warboss, its 10 not 20. this now seems to me to be incredibly unlikly to be a simple typo. When he wrote this he would of had his codex with him and could of checked point values. He obviously hadnt, and id say this just goes to show he dosnt know his list mentally, he hasnt got a clue h0w the upgrades work, and he has less of a clue about the points. Surley you have to replay this game, simply for the errors present in his list, award him draw points if you must, but he simply doesnt know his list!

[IronFortress]

At least the campaign rules are getting better...

just have to spell everything out in the future and not underestimate human fallacies ....

[realitycheque]

Now this is why we insisted on people having their lists to hand - and a spare copy for their opponent. This amount of hassle over what would have been a simple thing to enforce is just ridiculous.