Important Rules Question

[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.

[Ravendove]

Er, no. Lol.

You write out an army list, show it to your opponent and if necessary explain any unclear models (conversions and so on). This army list, with upgrades and everything else, is fixed in stone for the entire game.

'Choosing forces' implies that you pick your entire army and it's composition. You can't just read between the lines. That's not to say you have to write out a full army list every time. I have a regular opponent and we don't bother, we just trust each other to bring legal 1,500pt armies. But changing upgrades and equipment mid-game is cheating.

[omegoku]

you are silly.

[joebloggs1987]

Sounds like a great way to ruin a game.

[Ravendove]

Silly question it may be, but those were two very unhelpful posts, guys.

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Ravendove

Silly question it may be, but those were two very unhelpful posts, guys.

Well said. Don't post replies that belittle and/or ridicule another member. Simple-as-that.

[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.

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.

[Xpyre35]

The "Campaign Organizer" is extremely suspect. My suggestion find another club to play in. He's wrong and it seems he's just trying to wiggle out of admitting it.

[Wicky]

If only I had more time to slam this ‘Charles’ a bit more thoroughly!

But basically look at any Codex, it will tell you all you need to know about ‘army lists.’
They are a precursor in any organized game and clearly he couldn’t organize a Boy Scout troop to the latrine.

Can have his address please?

[IronFortress]

Oh you can talk to me here....

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

I happen to be the Campaign Organizer...

Let me make it clear that there was no switching during the actual game. The issue happened after the 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...