Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The past few tournaments I have been at, it seems, I am the only person who brought clearly written out copies of my army list for my opponent. I know I have been cheated by mystery wargear suddenly appearing. What can TO's do to start getting people to bring lists? Bar people from playing? Mega bonus points to people who do bring lists? Discounts on tournament fees for bringing 5 lists?


Sorry to vent, it is just been frustrating me lately.

In tournaments I go to if you dont have a list that is clearly easy to read you just cant play in the tournament. I require a list in my tournaments that i host.

Yup, i always see it as a requirement in the info packs, but when people turn up without it nothing actually happens.

I would let them play, but dock points so that they can't win.

Take it up with the tournament organizer. If a legible army list is not a requirement it is probably a gak tournament.

Yeah, that would be a valid reason to ding the guy on Sportsmanship points. It would help to also write down the specific issue you have regarding the list so the TOs can have a 1-on-1 with the guy later to fix the problem.

On a related subject: What should be included on the list?
In the past I've been handed lists that were neat and clearly typed, but only had the most barebones of information.
ie: Troops x9; Sgt; Rhino. 245pts.
Troops x9; Sgt; Rhino. 245pts.
No statlines, no wargear, no real information.
Makes it worse when Troop #1 has flamer, Plasma Cannon and the Sgt is packing a combi-flamer and PW.
Troop #2 has meltagun, missile launcher and Sgt with combi-melta PF.
Both clock in at 245 pts, but are quite different to deal with. And it always seems the unit with the flamer is the one that suddenly pops out of the Rhino when needed most.

Personally I would also give that type of list a Sports ding for being an incomplete list.

I'd say wargear, numbers of models and upgrades, plus a total points value for the unit are the requirements.

While statlines and weapon stats may be useful, a lot of the time they can really clog up an army list. I've seen plenty of Army Builder lists printed where it actually takes quite a long time to figure out what a unit has, amongst all the needless lines of text telling me that this unit of Marines ALSO have ATSKNF.....

Assault Squad @ 165pts
sergeant, bolt pistol chainsword
bolt pistol and chainsword x3, meltagun x1
razorback lascannon and tl plasma gun

and such are good easy examples of how they should be written at the minimum.

People who cheats will cheat, no matter what you can do.

-Folks can bring double lists, one for the TO, and one for you.
-Folks can bring dupe models, one for the display, and one for the game.
-Folks can bring both mentioned above..

And even if the TO had gone through the trouble and checked everything for accuracies (I've been doing that for my private events for 3 years now), you can't prevent a person from cheating if he chooses to disclose limited or wrong information to the opponent.

The truth of the matter is, unless you are familiar with ALL the codex and have them with you. It is very difficult for you to know if someone is cheating if they really plan on cheating against you. And there are (very rarely) honest mistakes too.

I found it a lot easier just throw out the cheaters and ban them from any of my events.

On the other side of coin, as a tournament player, I don't actually pay attention to my opponent's lists. I think they take away from time should be spend talking with my opponent to better understand him and better enjoy our game. I think I only went through 1 opponent's list in over 80 tournament games I played because the person's movement was shifty. It turned out the fellow had alcohol withdraw and was unable to move game pieces without dropping them all over the place.

As a TO I check EVERY list amd require them 2 weeks before tournament. You then have the same list with you - if something isnt clear from the list I'll have brought it up beforehand, so the first sign of cheating would be if the list isnt clear - it would indicate it isnt the same list.

If someone turns up without a clear list, I'll check the copy I have and make sure it matches - if it does i can pencil in the additional information needed, or print off a copy for them. If it seems a genuine error (genuinely panicking because theyve forgotten to print off a copy that morning - and i can tell panic when i see it!) then no need to penalise - theyve tried to correct a genuine error. well, if they KEEP doing it maybe, but you get what I mean

If they clearly havent bothered I would dock points. If it is so they can cheat? They cant win, no matter what then.

dkellyj wrote:Yeah, that would be a valid reason to ding the guy on Sportsmanship points. It would help to also write down the specific issue you have regarding the list so the TOs can have a 1-on-1 with the guy later to fix the problem.

On a related subject: What should be included on the list?
In the past I've been handed lists that were neat and clearly typed, but only had the most barebones of information.
ie: Troops x9; Sgt; Rhino. 245pts.
Troops x9; Sgt; Rhino. 245pts.
No statlines, no wargear, no real information.
Makes it worse when Troop #1 has flamer, Plasma Cannon and the Sgt is packing a combi-flamer and PW.
Troop #2 has meltagun, missile launcher and Sgt with combi-melta PF.
Both clock in at 245 pts, but are quite different to deal with. And it always seems the unit with the flamer is the one that suddenly pops out of the Rhino when needed most.

Personally I would also give that type of list a Sports ding for being an incomplete list.

Well, unless the TO specifices the format, I dos ee people with minimalistic lists. I cans ee how inexperienced people would have an issue since weapon profiles, wargear effects and statlines are very useful for someone not familair with a codex.

Some will argue 'they should know it if they want to compete.'

Personally, I think there is no excuse for not providing an Armybuilder output level of info. No one should be trying to win because your opponent didn't know his models can't wound a wraithlord or didn't know Ghaz has a 2++.

Poorly run events don't enforce rules. Pure and simple. And people who want to break rules or exceptions know this. They show up and are still allowed to play. Many times because they will cry to the store owner about being a paying customer.

If the event says 'list' and they have no list, they no play! Same with any other requirements.

Below is a quick breakdown on how I do my lists. It shows each purchase just how you buy it out of the codex. I do a list in a spreadsheet and can double check my math as well as provide % of points breakdowns or half points for VPs.

I personally hate Army Builder or other list building programs for a large tournament. You really have to spend way too much time checking a list to make sure it is legal... I have seen more that a couple who have used it as an easy way to cheat.

HQ Daemon Prince 110
Wings 20
Mark of Khorne 10

Elite Possesed Marines - 5 @ 26 130
Aspiring Champion 10
Icon of Khorne 30

DedTrans Rhino 35
Daemonic Possession 20

Elite Dreadnought 90
Additional CCW 10
Extra Armor 15

Tironum wrote:Below is a quick breakdown on how I do my lists. It shows each purchase just how you buy it out of the codex. I do a list in a spreadsheet and can double check my math as well as provide % of points breakdowns or half points for VPs.

I personally hate Army Builder or other list building programs for a large tournament. You really have to spend way too much time checking a list to make sure it is legal... I have seen more that a couple who have used it as an easy way to cheat.

I have to check your list over to make sure you arenot cheating to make sure it is legal... I have to page through your codex now to verify points and check statlines and wargear.

I don't see how Armybuilder makes it EASIER to cheat because it has built-in validation and shows all the rules and stats so you never need to touch a codex. If someone is going to cheat with armybuilder, they will cheat just as easily with your short list.

Short list is harmful to inexperienced players and I don't like the attitude that they should eb at a disadvantage because they don't know the statline or wargear of a unit and asking to see the codex would be slow play or game impacting. If it was feasible, I would force every player to enter their lists into AB before the game so everyone has the same army output with the same info.

Cheaters will cheat, but I think providing under-documented lists is deceptive and an attempt to put opponents at a disadvantage even if it is 'legal'. You need to be very liberal with allowing your opponent to page through your codex if you are going to withold the army info on your list.

This is an interesting thread for me ... we've talked in NOVA 2012 prep about putting out a required army list template ... army builder often being very difficult for players and list-checkers to quickly assimilate and count up, and many people using a crazy variety of list formatting techniques.

MVBrandt wrote:This is an interesting thread for me ... we've talked in NOVA 2012 prep about putting out a required army list template ... army builder often being very difficult for players and list-checkers to quickly assimilate and count up, and many people using a crazy variety of list formatting techniques.

I would support this as then everyone is on the same page. Nothing sucks worse than handing your opponent a detailed list of your stats, wargear rules and weapon profiles and they give you a list with:

Troop: Tactical marines: 180 pts

I think it is useful for some people to see statlines and weapon profiles and wargear blurbs in armylists otherwise they would have no idea what they are facing if they are not familiar with the codex. If there was a good format, then everyone should follow it and have the same set of information.

I have seen Army Builder hacks or mimics that got away with the cheat for a few rounds more than once - that is where my hesitation is, not with the program itself. The checking of points in a codex needs to be used whether it is a simple list or AB. At least I do not have all the extra info to filter through to see what was bought and what is stats.

Give me a list with what you bought over 2+ pages of repetitive stats any day!

An army list template is the perfect solution. Each event can collect lists exactly how they like to see them. It was done for many events in the past and then it faded, gotta remember that ...

nkelsch wrote:
I don't see how Armybuilder makes it EASIER to cheat because it has built-in validation and shows all the rules and stats so you never need to touch a codex. If someone is going to cheat with armybuilder, they will cheat just as easily with your short list.

I agree with you philosophically nkelsch, and only wanted to comment on this one point: Cheating Army Builder is kind of like cheating a digital odometer in a car; it's harder to do, but if you can do it, it's very hard to detect. Since datafiles aren't protected, that is, free to modify using the built in editing tools in AB, it's possible to cut five points off each of your powerfists and just hope that your opponent didn't notice. Hell, in one of the older datafiles, there was an erroneous 5-10 point reduction in IG heavy weapon squads. Took me a while to notice it, and that was the only army I played at the time. Which is, I guess, my point. AB lists ARE kind of dangerous just due to being prone to trusting point values and stuff like that.

Technologically speaking, what AB should do is watermark or sign the datafiles when printing directly from AB as opposed to printing to PDF (to catch people who would edit the PDFs) and then also stamp the printout with a checksum of the datafile. There's still ways around both of those circumstances though, which goes back to "people will cheat if they try hard enough".

What I would recommend that a tournament do as far as validating lists goes is as follows:

1. Check in each player's list. Publicly announce as a requirement of the tournament that they be in ArmyBuilder's .rst format with version X.X of the datafiles available at ab40k.org. State that there will be limited computers set up to be able to build your list in that format at the tournament if required, but warn there could be potential wait times.

2. The TO should print out the required copies of each list, stamp each one with an "official" stamp, and then redistribute them to the owning player.

3. Let it be known to all players to treat an unstamped list as "suspect" and to require that their opponent get a list from the TO if they have lost one. Maybe impose a small penalty for losing a list to incentivize keeping a hold of them.

The problem with this approach is that it's compounded additional costs and effort required of the TO and staff. Even then, there's still ways I'm sure you could get around it.

I see it as a requirement a lot but I have rarely seen it enforced. I plan on making sure I get all my opponents army lists at Comikaze next weekend. I didn't do this at the BAO and Ard Boyz semi-finals and lived to regret it in both cases. Apparently I need to make the same mistake twice before I learn...

I think this is really an issue that the TOs as a community (I know there is no such real community) need to address and get on the same page about. I am sure they all agree you need to bring clearly written lists for every opponent but enforcement, and review of said lists needs to be more universally done imo.

daedalus wrote: AB lists ARE kind of dangerous just due to being prone to trusting point values and stuff like that.

No worse than a hand-written inventory on a piece of paper added up with a calculator.

Am I alone on feeling that the game is harder for people to play if they have an army list that doesn't list unit stats and wargear weapon profiles? I regularly hear people who say 'I haven't played a dark eldar army yet' and if they haven't they will have no idea what the stats are or what the wargear does. Unless you expect a person to play the game nose deep in a codex the whole time, providing unit profiles and weapon profiles answers about 95% of the questions really quickly.

When someones hands me a piece of paper with nothing but unit name and points they might as well have handed me a blank piece of paper. I am not going to check your points, I don't have time for that. If you have to cheat me, then what good is me discovering it and having to deal with it? The 'list' is supposed to help my opponent play against my army and keep the game moving. This is why I colorcode my units with the models and all the rules and stats are there. Just because I play a 4+ year old codex which everyone knows doesn't mean people don't appreciate it when they see a boomwagon or are unsure how far a KMB shoots.

Especially in this day and age where peopel are trying to play NON-WYSIWYG and are practically demanding equal rights for proxies... the argument is always 'you have my army list...' Well I feel like minimal lists sometimes are intentional to make your opponents ability to play the game harder and I dislike that.

I don't want to be having to say 'oh, you provided a crappy armylist? Here is my redacted minimalistic list for you so we are on the same page. If you stop the game to check my codex for rules I will call you a slow player.' This is what I feel happens with minimalistic lists without stats.

I fully support a standardized enforced list. I think when it is up to the player, you get unfair inequities in play which drastically harm and bully inexperienced players.

It may be that the appropriate list design / format is one with a simplistic and options-inclusive straight-forward "frontpage" followed by a more comprehensive army-builder style appendix. It just becomes a bit of a hassle at that point.

One way or another, standardized is far simpler for the event organizers, and for an opponent to rapidly assimilate the gist of a list ... but complicated standardization can rapidly delete a lot of the positives.

nkelsch wrote:

daedalus wrote: AB lists ARE kind of dangerous just due to being prone to trusting point values and stuff like that.

No worse than a hand-written inventory on a piece of paper added up with a calculator.

Am I alone on feeling that the game is harder for people to play if they have an army list that doesn't list unit stats and wargear weapon profiles? I regularly hear people who say 'I haven't played a dark eldar army yet' and if they haven't they will have no idea what the stats are or what the wargear does. Unless you expect a person to play the game nose deep in a codex the whole time, providing unit profiles and weapon profiles answers about 95% of the questions really quickly.

When someones hands me a piece of paper with nothing but unit name and points they might as well have handed me a blank piece of paper. I am not going to check your points, I don't have time for that. If you have to cheat me, then what good is me discovering it and having to deal with it? The 'list' is supposed to help my opponent play against my army and keep the game moving. This is why I colorcode my units with the models and all the rules and stats are there. Just because I play a 4+ year old codex which everyone knows doesn't mean people don't appreciate it when they see a boomwagon or are unsure how far a KMB shoots.

Especially in this day and age where peopel are trying to play NON-WYSIWYG and are practically demanding equal rights for proxies... the argument is always 'you have my army list...' Well I feel like minimal lists sometimes are intentional to make your opponents ability to play the game harder and I dislike that.

I don't want to be having to say 'oh, you provided a crappy armylist? Here is my redacted minimalistic list for you so we are on the same page. If you stop the game to check my codex for rules I will call you a slow player.' This is what I feel happens with minimalistic lists without stats.

I fully support a standardized enforced list. I think when it is up to the player, you get unfair inequities in play which drastically harm and bully inexperienced players.

IMO the part highlighted in red is the primary reason standard army lists are needed. If I am going to be playing against your Necron, Adeptus Mechanicus, counts Imperial Guard I am going to need an in depth army list supplied to me that is easy to read. I would even prefer in this case to have pictures of the units next to their entry in the army list. Bear in mind the title of this post is "Tournament requirements" in a friendly pick up game or a league game I couldn't care less what your Necrons count as for the night. In a competitive environment however the burden is on the counts as player to supply an easy to read, fully open, army list for me to reference.

@nkelsch:

I get that, and though I've gotten pretty good at knowing most of the 40k armies, there's a couple I seldom see, like Daemons and Necrons, that would give me some issues. I guess what I'm trying to say though is that "bad data is worse than no data". At least with points and unit names, the opponent doesn't have data there to be outright lying to you with. Given about a half hour, I could have space marines on my copy of Army Builder reporting that all units have kraken ammo standard, and that Terminators are troop choices. Sadly, It's really that easy.

At any rate though, it's kind of an irrational fear, because most people who would go through with that will find whatever way to cheat they can. You can create deterrents, but you'll never be able to cheat-proof the system. Even if you did cheat-proof lists, they'd probably just cheat in other ways. In the end, I do still agree with you that AB lists are the best "validation to hassle" ratio that exists right now.

Lots of good ideas and info here - for individual use.

What we tend to do is sit down with all the codex books and check everything as early as possible to cure genuine mistakes (yes, sometimes it really is just an honest mistake) and to avoid having a cheat go unnoticed. Any other pre-checking or first round checking should be fine however a TO wants to do it.

Asking a player or TO to use a 3rd party software package would be something you really should have 100% approval for.

I really like how Malifaux has the crew generator online and you can print out your list for free directly from the manufacturer.

Tironum wrote:Lots of good ideas and info here - for individual use.

What we tend to do is sit down with all the codex books and check everything as early as possible to cure genuine mistakes (yes, sometimes it really is just an honest mistake) and to avoid having a cheat go unnoticed. Any other pre-checking or first round checking should be fine however a TO wants to do it.

Asking a player or TO to use a 3rd party software package would be something you really should have 100% approval for.

I really like how Malifaux has the crew generator online and you can print out your list for free directly from the manufacturer.

QFT. If every game, be it 40k, WHFB, Warmahordes etc had a list generator online provided by the game developer it would make life so much easier. Seeing as how GW isn't too into supporting the competitive side of the hobby though I doubt that will gain much speed. I personally like the IPhone list aps for Warmahordes.

MVBrandt wrote:This is an interesting thread for me ... we've talked in NOVA 2012 prep about putting out a required army list template ... army builder often being very difficult for players and list-checkers to quickly assimilate and count up, and many people using a crazy variety of list formatting techniques.

As a tournament orginizer I require all lists at least 10 days out and then I enter them into my copy of army builder. Then I print out a copy for the player and one for each opponent all with my own watermark. We check the tables during game play to see if the army matches the list.

That's a good approach, depending on event size; managing over 500 attendees and 256 players in just a single GT, the costs alone in printing would be prohibitive for us.

Requiring lists early is definitely something I think we all as TO's should be doing, though - and with increasing strictness in the requirement sense; I know there's a % of players who desperately want to tweak their lists right up until the very last moment, but it creates a lot of in-event administrative hassle for us as organizers.

This discussion remind me a group discussion I had when I was still living in the red, red China.

A group or a committee can come up with all sort of rules and precautions to prevent an individual from taking advantage of the system, but any individual that had made a choice in taking advantage against the system will still do so regardless. If you are really worried about cheaters, then the TOs need to step and give more negative reinforcements. Folks who were found cheating should be disclosed to the local gaming community and reprimanded equally. Point deductions, public warnings and disqualifications are all ways can get through the message to cheaters or folks who weren't careful with their calculations. Surely these procedures may hurt the feelings against some sensitive males, but they will grow into good gamers that will make events better for all others.

Other ways to stop cheating in these day of technology is simply record your opponent's movement or lists/army on your cell phone then broadcast it over Facebook or game forums. That should turn the cheaters square really fast. Granted you may not have the instant satisfaction during your event (different TOs treat the situation differently), but you would've done the community a favor by pinning him against a stake.

As for my take on lists as a player...

I hate army lists. They take too long to look through and take away from time I rather spend playing with my opponent. I routinely do the following whether army lists are enforced or not. I would walk my opponent over to my army display and give him a quick break down of my FOC. I will emphasize any SC's special abilities and common tactics that I may or may not use against him. I will also tell him my potential scoring units as well as KP. And if my opponent is new, I might even tell him which of my units he really should watch out for before they take down most of his forces. If my opponent plays a mech list, I would tell him all my melta weapon/AP1 and if my opponent a infantry list, then all my blast/template weapons. Most of the time, my opponent enjoyed my briefing and give me a quick run through of his army. Of course, we still reminded each other during the game regarding special abilities, Melta, and what not, but that's all I need to know about my opponent's list in a game.

I guess what I've been saying is that table top gaming is a gentleman's sport. And I gave my opponent the same respect he would have given me by trusting what he had brought to the table is what he had put together under the tournament's rule. If my opponent had broken that trust, I would simply pack up my toys and leave my opponent (I did that in Vegas GT a few years ago) and save myself the juvenile insult a cheaters attempts to lay on me. If my opponent is not going to destroy that trust, why do I want to agonize us both with something as silly as an army list.

Army lists to me is like resume in interviews. We all need to bring one to an interview, but how many of us are actually hired because of them rather than personal impressions?

The tournaments I usually take part in provide a word document so you can follow their simple guidelines.

One of the reason they don't include stats is because if you're more involved in the hobby then you'll know these things, thus benefiting you as a player to be more involved.

The worst thing that happened to me was in the finals of a tourney, playing against Dark Eldar with my Necrons and told that his commander character doesn't suffer from instant death, which really wasn't true, it was KP and the dice rolls I had meant I would've won on the extra three KP's I would've got from mowing him and the last member of the squad he was with down but his cheating gave him the win by one KP.

Luckily we were talking about the end of the match when we were packing away before the awards were given out and one of the TO's overheard enough to rectify the mistake and I got the win.

For me, its just simply "why lie?"

I agree that list should be clearly written and list any non-standard equipment that the unit has. I have aome problems with requiring Army Builder for your listing. First I don't want to have to pay extra to enter a tourney, that is, I don't want to buy AB or be required to buy it to play. Second, AB datafiles can be altered (as has been pointed out before) so they are no better than a hand printed list.
One thing that might make lists a lilttle more secure is to require lists to be sent in X time before the tourney and have a small fee built into the tourney for the TO to make copies of the Army to be distributed to the opponent of each person at the start of each round. This way there is no "I forgot to make copies" or switching lists.

KGatch113 wrote:

The past few tournaments I have been at, it seems, I am the only person who brought clearly written out copies of my army list for my opponent. I know I have been cheated by mystery wargear suddenly appearing. What can TO's do to start getting people to bring lists? Bar people from playing? Mega bonus points to people who do bring lists? Discounts on tournament fees for bringing 5 lists?


Sorry to vent, it is just been frustrating me lately.

Question - why five lists, hmm?

I bring two copies. One for the organisers, one for myself - I always offer my opponent the list at the beginning of the game and willingly discuss everything with them. And my list includes all details - I identify units, I identify what has what magic items/wargear and in short there is less of the 'secret' element with me.

I only bring the two lists as only two are asked for. My list is on average three or four pages long as I detail unit types, points costs, names and special rules associated with them, set out as follows.

Fluffy Name
Unit Type - What it's bought (points) - Total points

Special Rules

And it's pretty costly getting this stuff printed off in large amounts. Are you seriously wanting me to bring fifteen to twenty sheets of paper because you honestly don't feel comfortable asking to look at my list?

adameast wrote:

One of the reason they don't include stats is because if you're more involved in the hobby then you'll know these things, thus benefiting you as a player to be more involved.

Totally disagree. And this is basically you putting a 'soft score' in because you are claiming remembering stats makes you a better player and should give you an in-game advantage. Why not just make everyone take a pub quiz?

Your opponent is justified in seeing your armies stats anytime he wants. If you have to let him page through your codex, then that is what you have to do. Since you are obligated to provide the info at request, it is EASIER to provide it on a summary sheet with your army list.

These types of attitudes are why there need to be standardized lists because people do manipulate it by providing minimal lists in order gain an advantage.