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.

It doesn't take long for cheaters to start ruining things. With GW spreading out so many sources of dataslates to so many things (books/DDL/white dwarf/ect) how are we supposed to reliably keep track of all the legitimate ones? It wouldn't be hard for those who have the desire and ability to copy their formulaic design and make forgeries with the bonuses they want. All you have to do is pick an army, some units in that army, and make a half believable dataslate for it. Here Ill do one now. Nurgles favored. Take a lord with the mark of nurgle, and 0-3 units of plague marines. All models in the formation gain +1 to their feel no pain rolls. And if GW keeps pumping these out, after the books have been printed, there is no real way to keep track of it all. This was my major problem with forgeworld, too many sources. How am I supposed to know if the guy I am playing is using the current rules for his contemptor dread, or the old, more favorable ones with better skyfire?

By spreading out all the info in so many places, they make it that much easier to get cheated. You cant just ask to see the original source anymore, some of these are printout only/tablet copies.

I cant just leave it up to the players to not cheat. I knew a guy for YEARS who was a super nice guy, always had fun. But he had the devils luck. Turns out we find he had been using altered dice the whole time. He apologized, and said he had a winning addiction, which had cost him his marriage in gambling losses too. But after that, basically nobody would even give him a game anymore.


GW cannot reasonably expect the community to police itself with this many sources for info, they have to put up a site with the collected works so you can at least have one centralized location to verify everything not in the books. Its only a matter of time before this problem picks up.

 Orock wrote:
...how are we supposed to reliably keep track of all the legitimate ones? .

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.

Back on topic... Most players are fairly honest it being the minority who would do such a thing.
That said, most gaming groups are fairly good at policing such things within their own ranks and events such as tourneys will have a TO or someone to verify armies/lists being used in the event.
I would say, if you feel something is not right or that the person your playing is capable of it, your likely better off finding a different opponent.

I seem to remember years ago, GW trying to get away from such stuff as it seemed you almost had to have a white dwarf subscription to keep up with all the extra rules and units tacked on afterwards. Now the pendulum has swung back in that direction.

I could make any reasonable sounding dataslate I wanted, leak it to bell of lost souls or any other site that buys into any rumors out there, then release it with a "leaked photo" to them. its actually scary how easy this rumor could go to accepted as fact.

How is answering a question with a direct quote from OP off topic? Pretty sure jokes aren't against forum rules. I guarantee if insaniak was not a mod you would not have called him out.

I mean, it does just come down to trust. I knew two Ork players in my group that claimed that Mega Nobz had a 5++ for years. I finally sat down and read their codex and showed them that they were wrong. Cheating or not, they didn't pull anything like that again, I still play with them because, after all, its still just a game that we play to have fun.

 Zande4 wrote:
How is answering a question with a direct quote from OP off topic? Pretty sure jokes aren't against forum rules. I guarantee if insaniak was not a mod you would not have called him out.

It also wasn't entirely a joke.

7th edition, combined with various comments from GW since its release, has shown fairly comprehensively that GW aren't particularly concerned with maintaining any particular coherency in the rules. They don't put any specifically 'official' stamp on anything any more, because we're not supposed to care what's 'official' or not. If you have issues with the rules, you're supposed to sort them out with your opponent. If you want to change the rules, well, that's all well and good, and an intended part of the game.

So if your opponent wants to pull out a dataslate that they've created themselves, we're supposed to just accept that and get on with the game.


It's just one of those things that shows how out of touch GW are with their player base.

1. You can check black library.

2. If you're really concerned and don't want to buy the dataslate,, there are other ways of getting them.

3. If someone uses a fake slate, they will eventually be caught. Then nobody will play with them and they'll be laughed out of the store. How is this remotely worth it?

Also, you can insist Codex only.

Given how the game is intended, in that case see if it's reasonable. GW overlooks a lot of things for no reason, so maybe the person with a "fake" dataslate isn't trying to cheat as much as add a particular flavor to their army. Case by case basis. If it's something fluffy and not OP, and you're playing a friendly game or perhaps part of a campaign, is it a big deal? If it's something ridiculous then refuse to play same as any other OP thing.

It would only take a few seconds to verify if a dataslate is real or not with any internet computer or smartphone. Most data slates are very well known and if someone pulls one out.

Fireraven wrote:
It would only take a few seconds to verify if a dataslate is real or not with any internet computer or smartphone. Most data slates are very well known and if someone pulls one out.

You would be able to verify that a dataslate with that name is currently available online. Verifying the contents of it without buying it, or verifying anything not currently available through the Black Library, would be considerably more involved.


And besides, are you really going to ask a potential opponent to wait while you jump online and 'verify' that the rules they have with them are 'legit'?

Talys wrote:
3. If someone uses a fake slate, they will eventually be caught. Then nobody will play with them and they'll be laughed out of the store.

"Wow, I had no idea this wasn't a real rule, I saw it on a blog and it looked really convincing. And you know, it's so hard to keep track of what is and isn't real these days."

Also, you can insist Codex only.

So, because you're paranoid about someone cheating you throw out lots of stuff that people expect to be able to use? Do you expect people to be happy to hear that you're not willing to play against the army they've invested tons of money in because you think they might be cheating?

 insaniak wrote:

Fireraven wrote:
It would only take a few seconds to verify if a dataslate is real or not with any internet computer or smartphone. Most data slates are very well known and if someone pulls one out.

You would be able to verify that a dataslate with that name is currently available online. Verifying the contents of it without buying it, or verifying anything not currently available through the Black Library, would be considerably more involved.


And besides, are you really going to ask a potential opponent to wait while you jump online and 'verify' that the rules they have with them are 'legit'?

Last time I checked it is required for you to show ( at most major Tournaments) and/or let the person playing against you a copy of your army list. And you must normally give a copy to the TO to verify at/or before entry. Also for you to provide sources for your army examples being DataSlates, what download able content you used from GW for them and such. Which is why there is normally the restriction of X (normally 2-3) sources. I know I always ask if they are using formations and what ones i normally look them up during my opponents deployment phase. Normally with my printed out versions inside of every codex that I carry with me when I play. ( Yes I carry a big roll-able suitcase with every Codex inside and the printed out things that go with each codex inside of their front cover.) I took this just for you. To show how I do it that DataSlate was Cut out of the WD and I wrote on the back where it came from to show Source. I will not cut out my Shield of Baal book to do it I will just carry the Rules portion with me in my suitcase.

Or, just photocopy it and put it in a binder.

I don't think anyone is questioning the Deathstorm type stuff. It's more the black library-only rules.

Talys wrote:
Or, just photocopy it and put it in a binder.

I don't think anyone is questioning the Deathstorm type stuff. It's more the black library-only rules.

I do it on a am I really going to see it basis after I look over the info, if it is good I will print it off write on the back where it came from. Like I said most things are well known about the infiltrating storm talons was the one I seen here ( on DAKKA) and did not pay attention to at the time but I quickly went and looked it up, then printed it out. I try and be on the up and up on the latest stuff. I do not get to play as much traveling as I used to for gaming trips. Now it mainly hauling rabbit's around and if I get to pick up a game or two while doing so then great.

Fireraven wrote:
Last time I checked it is required for you to show ( at most major Tournaments) and/or let the person playing against you a copy of your army list...

Which is fine for tournaments...

If you care about the person across from you cheating you, you aren't forging the narrative hard enough. I didn't call them an opponent because apparently GW doesn't think you have an opponent. You're just 2 people pushing models around, throwing dice and making pew pew noises. Don't keep score either, you aren't here for VP, you're here to forge a narrative. It's like 1st grade gym class all over again.

/sarcasm

 insaniak wrote:

Fireraven wrote:
Last time I checked it is required for you to show ( at most major Tournaments) and/or let the person playing against you a copy of your army list...

Which is fine for tournaments...

So when you play you never see the other players list or have a clue of what it does ? To me this would be equal to playing blind folded and asking what we rolled each time. I can hear my opponent now o-man horrible all 1's or 2's. Or hearing them go o-man look at my roll to hit,wound, armor saves, and invulnerable saves all 6's.

Fireraven wrote:
So when you play you never see the other players list or have a clue of what it does ? To me this would be equal to playing blind folded and asking what we rolled each time. i can hear my opponent now o-man horrible all 1's or 2's. Or hearing them go o-man look at my roll to hit,wound, armor saves, and invulnerable saves all 6's.

I suspect that you've missed the point of this thread somewhat.

The issue under discussion isn't just about your opponent showing you their rules. It's about how to tell if the rules your opponent is showing you came from GW or not.

Fireraven wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Fireraven wrote:
It would only take a few seconds to verify if a dataslate is real or not with any internet computer or smartphone. Most data slates are very well known and if someone pulls one out.

You would be able to verify that a dataslate with that name is currently available online. Verifying the contents of it without buying it, or verifying anything not currently available through the Black Library, would be considerably more involved.


And besides, are you really going to ask a potential opponent to wait while you jump online and 'verify' that the rules they have with them are 'legit'?

Last time I checked it is required for you to show ( at most major Tournaments) and/or let the person playing against you a copy of your army list. And you must normally give a copy to the TO to verify at/or before entry. Also for you to provide sources for your army examples being DataSlates, what download able content you used from GW for them and such. Which is why there is normally the restriction of X (normally 2-3) sources. I know I always ask if they are using formations and what ones i normally look them up during my opponents deployment phase. Normally with my printed out versions inside of every codex that I carry with me when I play. ( Yes I carry a big roll-able suitcase with every Codex inside and the printed out things that go with each codex inside of their front cover.) I took this just for you. To show how I do it that DataSlate was Cut out of the WD and I wrote on the back where it came from to show Source. I will not cut out my Shield of Baal book to do it I will just carry the Rules portion with me in my suitcase.

You cant carry the rules for every army and book. And if they show you a falsified sheet, and tell you they downloaded it from a pdf format on a file sharing site? I have people at my store that don't want to pay 50 bucks for day 1 dlc of their codex, and just downloaded copies of it (illegally). You will find there are MANY people in the same boat. Should we tell them we cant play them because they don't want to pay for 2 pages of rules in a 50 dollar book, and we cant be sure if they are trying to trick us or not?

Pretty much anyone could type up and print off rules for any game and foist them off on others. Heck, if you have the time and inclination along with the skill, you could create entire fake AD&D books and go role playing.

The point is not whether or not GW is the root of all evil out to screw you over. It is about players either being so worried about winning that they create fake rules or being so "into their own home brew fluff" that they want their cool stuff to be accepted as 'official" without GW placing their official stamp of approval on it.

This sort of behavior is made easier because of GW's poor management and policies of scattering their rules out piecemeal as they come up with it instead of consolidating it in one source. Persoanlly, I dont think this is intentionally done for such people to do it but simply a lack or forsight and planning.

Personlly, I would rather that each edition (no this is not saying any is better than the others although I'm sure some will use it as an excuse to get on their soapbox lol) they consolidate the rules for each army into a single source. If they come up with a neat new rule or unit they want to tack onto an army that has a current codex already out, I think they should shelf it and wait to add it in when that codex is redone. That would make new codecies have new stuff instead of just being reprints with faqs added in and would give us a single source for each armie's rules.

If your worried that an opponent is trying to cheat you by doing this, your playing with the wrong crowd and tourneys police themselves.

This is why I play codex vs codex, with maybe the odd fw approved unit.

And that's the problem, this game is a bloated pile of crap. Yes, you will in fact have to tell people "that's not the kind of game I want to play" on occasion. Gaming is an elective pastime not a moral obligation, I don't have to play anyone.



As to the op's question, it's incredibly valid. I rarely challenge new opponents to show me their codex, but I do have a habit of looking into things post game if something didn't seem right. Trust is important, and that's the problem, it's not that I don't trust people in terms of cheating or ill intent, I don't trust them to fully comprehend all the rules for their "army", or in 7th edition, "pile of crap". I don't trust myself half the time, I'm constantly checking and re-checking.

The game is too big for its own damn good, it's just too bloated and it's expanding every time gw's stock drops. That doesn't mean there isn't room for dlc and super heavies and formations and all sorts of silly crap, but that stuff used to be relegated to apoc, you know, free market 40k, that game the donkey-cave at your friendly local gaming store who owns 3 titans always wants you to play, even though you don't own any super heavies,

What helps build trust is mutual expectations being met, it's impossible to bring expectations in line without restrictions. The paradox is that gw has basically made everything and anything more or less legal but at the same time while also pushing the narrative crap and in reality the whole thing is a cynical escalation of arms quite literally, how long are you gonna play a knight until you add one to your list, how long are you going to put up with losing before you either develop a can't beat'm join'm mentality or simply quit. I'm lucky, I still have a few friends who play and are vets from many editions past. If they leave 40k I'm gone too, I can't abide armies with a handul of models, rediculously stupid formations (and I don't necessarily mean in terms of balance) and the old tried and true skyshield landing pad, I mean where else would you park your squadron of wyverns? It's easy to be cynical about the game and about the people that play it, I try not to judge other players, but that doesn't mean looking on at their game do I see something I really want to play.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Pretty much anyone could type up and print off rules for any game and foist them off on others. Heck, if you have the time and inclination along with the skill, you could create entire fake AD&D books and go role playing.

The point is not whether or not GW is the root of all evil out to screw you over. It is about players either being so worried about winning that they create fake rules or being so "into their own home brew fluff" that they want their cool stuff to be accepted as 'official" without GW placing their official stamp of approval on it.

This sort of behavior is made easier because of GW's poor management and policies of scattering their rules out piecemeal as they come up with it instead of consolidating it in one source. Persoanlly, I dont think this is intentionally done for such people to do it but simply a lack or forsight and planning.

Personlly, I would rather that each edition (no this is not saying any is better than the others although I'm sure some will use it as an excuse to get on their soapbox lol) they consolidate the rules for each army into a single source. If they come up with a neat new rule or unit they want to tack onto an army that has a current codex already out, I think they should shelf it and wait to add it in when that codex is redone. That would make new codecies have new stuff instead of just being reprints with faqs added in and would give us a single source for each armie's rules.

If your worried that an opponent is trying to cheat you by doing this, your playing with the wrong crowd and tourneys police themselves.

that is the point I was trying to make. Because of pure greed, gw put these dataslates/formations out there in many and varied places, in order to gouge the player for that much more money. and because they did, they opened it up to fraud. If everything that an army could use was in one book, no suppliments for 50 bucks with a measly 2 pages of actual game changing rules, not obscure white dwarf issues, not 15 bucks from black library downloads, we wouldn't have this problem.

But the formations are awesome and add A LOT to the game. Another question is they aren't free on the website.

 koooaei wrote:
But the formations are awesome and add A LOT to the game. Another question is they aren't free on the website.

I don't really understand what your trying to say. But because they aren't free, it makes it even harder to check refrences in a game.

that is nothing. If someone says he wants to play with a formation and the opponent agrees, then under 7th rules even if the formation was home brew it is still 100% legal. You can't even call him a cheater, because technicly 7th says you can do stuff like that.

Makumba wrote:
that is nothing. If someone says he wants to play with a formation and the opponent agrees, then under 7th rules even if the formation was home brew it is still 100% legal. You can't even call him a cheater, because technicly 7th says you can do stuff like that.

Yep pretty much that's why I always ask to see the army list and any sources. And it is required if your opponent asks for this you have to give it to them that is page 117 BRB under The Force Roster. " To keep things fair, You must always allow your opponent to read your force roster before a game if they wish to do so." That is a pretty clear rule.

This topic must only exist in that magic 'pickup game' arena where strangers show up with 'gotcha WAAC-lists' and are incapable of communication like actual humans.

I play with reasonable folks on the regular, so I guess I'm lucky that I'll never see anything like this...

 Gunzhard wrote:
This topic must only exist in that magic 'pickup game' arena where strangers show up with 'gotcha WAAC-lists' and are incapable of communication like actual humans.

I play with reasonable folks on the regular, so I guess I'm lucky that I'll never see anything like this...

So much this, im increasingly glad to be living in some apparent gaming out of touch bubble if this is really a problem from GW giving the players optional extras.

It is not a matter of greed, it is of incompetence. Not that GW isnt greedy of course.

The idea is not that this is actually a likelihood that we need to worry about . Not that the company doesnt deserve bashing, but there other reasons to do it without going out on a limb with such unlikely possibilities.

I dont like multiple sources but from an annoyance of it and having to track down erratia, not from any deep seated fear of my lifelong buddies who I would trust my life with trying to cheat me or from any fear that my local TO is so incompetent as to not check lists before a tourney.