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]

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...

[Wicky]

Ok, it,s rare to get the other side of the argument here and kudos to IronFortress for replying so quickly and calmly.

I understand what has happened a bit better now, no slamming needed.

[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.



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:



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]

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



So prove to me he cheated... don't tell me why you think he cheated... Maybe with enough people examining the case, we can crack this case


[edit]So far, I am convinced that the Orks invalidated their game by not stating what they had proxied entirely. However, I still would not call it cheating yet.

[Krovin-Rezh]

Army lists themselves don't prove anything, because normally we have to give the benefit of the doubt that you did in fact play with the list you are providing.

So now that it's after the fact with no true evidence of any misconduct which may or may not have happened (such as a video of the game), it's a simple matter of your word against the other player's.

As to whether the army list is required before the game, not even the codices require you to write your choices down. You simply pick units according to the rules mentioned. In this regard, Alex has not broken any rules. The misconduct lies in whether he used units, weapons, wargear, or special rules that were not included in his list during the game. Hence you need the video, or better yet a judge on site that can deal with the problem right away.

[ze_poodle]

Okay, correct me if I get this wrong.

You show up to a game with an Ork player. You have an army list ready, he doesn't but claims that he has the list in his head and sets up. You play a game, which you then lose, and you ask for the army list that he said he had in his head...when he mails it to you later, it's not the army you actually played against. You call shenanigans because you think he added some crap to his list while he was setting up that wasn't in the actual list he produced later. Is that right?

Okay. Firstly, the Ork player stinks of shenanigans. Blatant, poorly-disguised shenanigans. In all honesty though, you should have seen this coming if you agreed to play against a guy without an army list. Secondly, while it definitely looks like you got stooged, this is a game and it's not a huge deal if one guy fudges his list. I hate to say it, but it rarely makes a massive difference if he gets an extra meganob out of nowhere. All it proves is that he's the kind of douchebag who'll try it anyway just to be a douchebag and that you shouldn't be playing with him.

Thirdly, and this is to the campaign organiser: you should have made army lists a requirement. If you're hoping to manage a fair and equal campaign, even an informal one, hard-copy army lists are needed from all players. If he forgot his, it's not hard to give him a pencil and paper and fifteen minutes with the Ork codex to write it out beforehand anyway. Army lists go a long way towards dispelling any chance of shenanigans such as have clearly happened here.

[jy2]

Akaiyou,

This should be easy to prove. Assuming you took pictures of the battle, if your photos show 1 more meganob in the game than on the list, then you've just caught his fib. Again, that's if you took pictures of the battle. I believe that's the type of hard evidence the Organizer is looking for.

[winginson]

This is why I always either ask for a roster, give them some time to make a roster, or ask what has what upgrades at the start of the game. And if it is in a campaign I usually take photos too.

[Akaiyou]

Akaiyou,

This should be easy to prove. Assuming you took pictures of the battle, if your photos show 1 more meganob in the game than on the list, then you've just caught his fib. Again, that's if you took pictures of the battle. I believe that's the type of hard evidence the Organizer is looking for.

I did take pics of the battle i was making a battle report and I did look for a pic that shows where he had all his meganobz unfortunately from the angle the most you ever see is 3. Due to them having been embarked in a battlewagon and disembarking on it's side.

Then they got assaulted and had some killed off so you never see more than 3 in the pics. But he for a fact confessed while we argued about it through texting that day and then 2 days later he came back with his 'new' list and we debated the matter through texts and he kept insisting that it doesnt matter if he proxies anything he wants and that it doesnt matter if he makes his list up as he goes as long as he doesnt go over 2000 pts. Read it urself.

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.





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.

[Errors]

Wow...I'm not sure what I can really contribute on how to handle the outcome of the current situation, however I can make some strongly suggested opinions on what should happen to avoid situations like this in the near future.

Akaiyou, in the future you should probably not play anyone who does not provide an army list that they are currently playing against you. Easy enough to do, no one that I know can remember 2000+ points of an army list and get upgrades, numbers, war gear, special rules, etc...totally correct. Even if they were some sort of savant I would still require an army list to be provided. Also, as a side note, just reading through your chat logs you provided, I know it can be frustrating dealing with situations like this but holy molly if I ever caught anyone talking to me like that as I see you did I would instantly close the chat.

IronFortress, as an overseer of a campaign you are running, you are the final stop on the rules. I find is incredibly petty that I'm seeing rule interpretations on something as simple as just organizing a game. I would tack on the rule that army lists should be required before a game is played and have been seen by both parties. Sort of a confirmation thing. Anything off the beat path of submitting army lists should easily throw up red flags for you to investigate. (ie...running a army list purely from memory)

Look I'm sure both of you two are great people and just caught in the middle of dealing with this mess, but sometimes it's nice just to step away and take a breather for a second and try to put yourself in the other person's shoes. As I'm sure the both of you are clearly well aware of and well it's become very cliche, "It's a game, have fun."

Like I said nothing really to help the current situation and I do hope you manage to come to some sort of resolution.

[Xpyre35]

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.

[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.