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.

BrianDavion wrote:
Honestly, I'm not sure "apoclypse only" formations are (as GW sees it) really a thing anymore anyway in an era where people can take formations and super heavies in regular games. where quite frankly apoclypse as a seperate game seems to be dead. I could see geuinely honest mistakes like this happening.

An honest mistake is one thing. But this wasn't honest nor a mistake.

The whole "well you can take superheavies/wraithknight/whatever so you really didnt cheat" is such a lame excuse and an entirely different topic. Thats more of a rules/state of game debate.

Best way to handle that aspect is to be an adult and have a DISCUSSION with your opponent. Its that simple, and in this case should have been really easy considering they are "good friends" and all. But sneaking in illegal formations to get armywide bonuses is like I said earlier poor sportsmanship.

Want to try out new formations? Great discuss with your opponent.
Tired of superheavies? Great discuss with your opponent.
No decurion? Great discuss with your opponent.

Be upfront, honest and consistent.

It's definately uncool to not have mentionned anything, however being a Sister player myself I know how silly it is that we cannot play those formations in standard games.

All three of our formations are sub-optimal choices when it comes to unit selection (you can fit a much nastier army in 2500 by not using any formations) and the bonus they give are lackluster at best.

People might be unwilling to face against them since "apocalypse formation" sound scary but once you explain what they do, I don't think anyone will complain when you compare them to some standard game formations that are much better.

To put everyone in perspective:

Angelic Host requires:

Celestine and 20 Seraphims (points not wisely spent)

The benefits are:
Arrives Deep Strike turn 1
Shred on the turn they arrive
Re-roll invuln save, seraphims already have this base, so only affects Celestine

Nothing game breaking here. They gain shred for a turn, but deepstriking T3 3+ models within 12 inches to the enemy lines usually means they are all dead next turn.

Next time field the Repentia formation and tell your oponent you are playing with a handicap instead

I picked the top one as it looked the most fun!

Wouldnt worry me that often although if it became a habit I'd give you gak for it!

I take a lot in stride. I wouldn't be mad. I'd call you on it, though, and despite the casual smiling demeaner my comments and questions would be all aimed to gauge and judge your responces. I can shrug off anything but the most blatant and profane of intents so it's what I'd be trolling for in one form or another. Positive responces or even telling me ahead of time that you want something unusual would've yielded some more interesting results as I'm all for the Forge your own Narrative thing. I'm often willing to try out scenarios even if it's an uphill climb for me. In fact there's even ways to make it so that even though you will eventually lose it's still a victory. Allow me to explain. Let's say you wanted to play your Reaver Titan slaughtering my Orks and I don't have an Apocalyptic number with me at the moment. Using a rule from the Ork Supplement Missions that would allow me to take all infantry units that are removed as casualties and move them in ongoing reserves to be redeployed will turn into a 'how many Orks gotta dies before the Reaver does" kinda thing. Your Reaver still loses in the end but wow what a victory it will probably tally before dropping. Think about such thing and be more honest with your opponant about what you would like to bring to the table, you might end up with more fun when you communicate more.

Well I think some people overreact.

You played a game, the game was close, both people had fun. That's what happened. Did you use a rules set that gave you an advantage? sure.

The real question is about etiquette though. and it brings up the following questions in regards to bring apocalypse formations without telling the opponent.

Would you have posted this if you won the battle?
Have you ever done that before?
Will you do it again?
What have you learned from this experience?

Yeah dude, you cheated. While the game has evolved to a point where the line between Apocalypse and regular games is heavily blurred or non-existent, you still knowingly broke the rules.

Whether or not it's unprecedented is a non-issue. Dark Angels have some formations in their new book that don't require or include any Troops choices at all. If I played my Crimson Fists with 2 Sternguard squads, a Bike squad and an Assault squad it would be along the same lines. Would it still be cheating? You bet.

If you knew you did it illegally, then it was not very nice.

If you did not realise until after that it was Apoc only, then I would not actually mind. It was just a match.

Why would you even put together a list you knew wasn't legal and not say anything?

If you informed and asked before hand, no worries. If after the game you came up and said you played with apoc formations. I would be a bit miffed, as yeah, you knowingly cheated, and I would be weary of playing you again.

 Peregrine wrote:
I would probably label you TFG, refuse to play against you again, and warn your potential opponents that you cheat. There's no "kind of" about your cheating, you blatantly cheated and took an illegal army to give yourself an advantage. The fact that your opponent approved of it after the game was over is irrelevant, the honest thing to do would have been to ask in advance and accept that "no" is a reasonable answer.

Why? Apocalypse cones into play at the 2,000pts level and above so he didn't even cheat. He also didn't win and his opponent said he enjoyed the game so that means that they both had fun and enjoyed the game. Why would you go to such drastic measures over a perceived slight.

 koooaei wrote:

 Xenophon00 wrote:
He said that he was fine with that and was actually very fun to play with/against.

How can it be bad if it's fun. On the other hand, toy soldiers are serious business and you must be excommunicated.

Shame! Shame! Shame!

Yeah, I don't see this as a huge issue. People are acting like it's the worst thing to happen on a tabletop. If you both had fun and your opponent was not raging at you afterwards, then it seems to have gone okay.

If you were fielding illegal lists on a constant basis maliciously, then it would be a dick move. But I feel like that would quickly remove you from a local friendly gaming group and sort itself out.

Have to say, I agree with the sentiment that if you knew that this was an Apocalypse-Only formation, and you didn't communicate clearly with your opponent that this was going to be that kind of matchup, then you were not being as respectful as you could or perhaps should have been. Communication is key in playing enjoyable 40k. Had this happened to me, upon hearing of these crazy buffs, I'd ask to see the codex. I imagine that you'd then point out it was Apocalypse, and I'd request if I could receive some kind of bonus for going up against Apocalypse stuff with non-Apocalypse stuff, but would continue playing regardless.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Apocalypse cones into play at the 2,000pts level and above so he didn't even cheat.

No it doesn't. There is no point level where Apocalypse is automatic, you can play a 500,000 point game of normal 40k or a 500 point Apocalypse game. You are only playing Apocalypse if you and your opponent agree to play it. Using Apocalypse-only rules without agreeing to play Apocalypse is blatant cheating.

He also didn't win and his opponent said he enjoyed the game so that means that they both had fun and enjoyed the game.

That's nice, they still cheated.

Why would you go to such drastic measures over a perceived slight.

Because the OP is a shameless cheater and people like that should be removed from the community. If you deliberately bring an illegal army and keep it a secret (probably because you know your opponent won't let you do it if you ask permission first) then you've clearly demonstrated that the only thing that matters is whether or not you win. That's the textbook definition of WAAC behavior, and it ruins the game for everyone else.

Wait since when was 2000+ points not apocalypse? Sincerely asking here.

Apocalypse is and has always been a special game type that has to be specifically agreed to ahead of time, with a suggested starting points range of 3000+ per side.

You'r probably getting confused by the 6e rule that gave you a second force organisation chart for 'large games of 2000 points or more'.

Nice poll options there. "It doesn't matter because I play Necrons and my Decurion is cheating." Bitter much?

If you pulled this in a game with me, (first of all I ask for lists up-front at all times, but let's assume I forgot,) I'd demand to see your list in every subsequent game and I'd probably keep an eye on any game you were in that I was present for, to watch for similar shenanigans.

If you had asked up-front I probably would have allowed it, as Sisters are an historically underpowered and unsupported army. By not asking up-front you have basically earned TFG points in my book. This is incredibly uncool, dishonest, and undermines the friendly competition that should (in this player's opinion) characterize 40k.

If you somehow managed to pull this a second time? (Fool me twice, shame on me, yes.) I'd just refuse to play with you ever again. I consider myself a forgiving person in general and I allow my opponents to take great liberties at times because this is meant to be a fun and friendly game. However, that changes very quickly when it becomes clear that my opponent does not feel the same way.

I would've been fine with it, but then again, at my gaming store we're perfectly fine with people fielding these kinds of formations, makes the game more interesting for us, others will probably disagree though.

Your playing sisters so I'd be a lot more lenient for that alone, you currently don't have any access to formations and as long as I got a look PRIOR to the game I'd quite likely allow it, saying so after the game and admitting your error I'd let it go, but I'd be wary of any shenanigans next time I played you just in case you actively tried to cheat.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Apocalypse is and has always been a special game type that has to be specifically agreed to ahead of time, with a suggested starting points range of 3000+ per side.

You'r probably getting confused by the 6e rule that gave you a second force organisation chart for 'large games of 2000 points or more'.

Your probably right. My bad. Well in that case OP should have asked that game be an apocalypse game so he could use his formations.

Honestly I wouldn't hate you for life or demand you get banned from the community or anything like that. I'd be a bit wary next time I played you, and maybe on occasion make a joke about it at your expense, but that's probably about all the long terms events.

I'd be a bit annoyed, though winning and having fun would lessen that. If I'd lost I'd demand a rematch next time I saw you with a legal list, though.

While I'd prefer you'd discussed it with me beforehand, having the balls to tell me after rather then running off would decrease any ill feelings toward you. If you hadn't told me and I found out later from someone other than you I'd be pissed and wouldn't play you again, and probably warn others about you. I wouldn't push to get you banned though.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

Aha! Yes that would be the response I'd look for and then without mercy my friends and I would turn away and never agree to play with that person. His hunt to play games outside closed doors may continue somewhere else.

If there was an option for "massive disapproval and warning others, along with watching your games with others", I'd pick that. I might play with you again, but I'd be looking at your list before hand, and knowing EXACTLY what unit had what through markers or something similar.

Informing me before hand is fine, and I'd probably play you anyways, but this is like "miscounting" points, or on the fly upgrade changes (i.e. your list has say, a plasma gun, but once we get in game, you swap that to a grav gun after I kill say, a different source of grav), or loaded dice, or getting extra inches through shady measuring.

I think a lot of people would be okay with playing against things like that. Not telling until afterwards might make people wary about playing you, though.

You might want to consider writing a detailed army list, that explains all the formations and things you are using, and giving your opponent in the next game a copy. I personally try to use one whenever I can.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not suggesting this as a way to obfuscate future cheating ("I did tell you! It said right there on page 2, see?"). If you're using anything that isn't allowed in a "normal" game, you should call that out specifically and ask permission, and have an alternate list on hand that doesn't use it.

So... cheating is okay as long as no one really minds?

What kind of vacuum are we living in here? First it's okay to arbitrarily change the meaning of words to suit our tastes, then we willfully ignore rules that we can't beat with the illogical stick. Now suddenly cheating is A-Okay just as long as its fun?

Goddamn it dakka!

Should we string the OP up by the tiny toes and ostracize him? Probably not. No one really deserves that, especially when talking about a game with army dollies.

Should it be made clear to the OP that he cheated and that sort of behavior is wrong? Yes, unequivocally!

Whether you are cheating a little or a lot, you are still cheating. You destroy the gentleman's agreement and negate your own credibility when you cheat. If you keep cheating then you will garner yourself a reputation as a poor sport and as an undesirable opponent. Have fun getting a pick-up game after that. Have fun beating that reputation once you earn it. What is worse is that when your friends realize you take such liberties with strangers, they will wonder if you're duping them too. It's really easy to take advantage of a friendship in this way. You'd like to think that because you are friends, there is a level of trust there. Once your friends start to figure out that you take advantage of that trust, they will rescind that gift.

So you know what? Do as you will. The only person who will suffer the consequences is you.

What would you have done if the Necron player decided to punch your face in? Maybe THAT should be what you think about when you wonder if you should cheat or not.

 darkcloak wrote:
So... cheating is okay as long as no one really minds?

have an exalt

It's Sisters. You could have told me that they had a S10AP1 Apocalyptic Blast once a turn as a warlord power and I would have believed you.

 j31c3n wrote:

 darkcloak wrote:
So... cheating is okay as long as no one really minds?

have an exalt

If nobody minds, it's not really cheating. Kinda like if you borrow your neighbor's lawnmower and they're cool with it, even if you didn't ask, it's ok

Or, if you sleep with another woman and don't tell your girlfriend or wife, but they are okay with it, it's not really cheating

Okay, now I'm going to shut up in case my neighbor or wife reads Dakka.

Steelmage99 wrote:
You didn't follow the rules, and you didn't have the balls to ask your opponent if it was OK to field those Apocalypse formations before the game.

Not cool.

Sure, it might have made the game better and made it more entertaining for both parties - but you were dishonest about it and that taints the whole endeavour.

Says it all. Grow a pair.

 Talys wrote:
It's Sisters. You could have told me that they had a S10AP1 Apocalyptic Blast once a turn as a warlord power and I would have believed you.

 j31c3n wrote:

 darkcloak wrote:
So... cheating is okay as long as no one really minds?

have an exalt

If nobody minds, it's not really cheating. Kinda like if you borrow your neighbor's lawnmower and they're cool with it, even if you didn't ask, it's ok

Or, if you sleep with another woman and don't tell your girlfriend or wife, but they are okay with it, it's not really cheating

Okay, now I'm going to shut up in case my neighbor or wife reads Dakka.

Damn hey?

... Honey!

I think I know how we can get the neighbor to lend us her lawnmower...

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I'd have called you on it at the start of the game (even if I wouldn't have recognised the formation, I always ask to read the rules for formations if I'm playing against them for the first time), then depending on your reaction, played you anyway or told you to eff off.

As for your horrible poll?

I'd just tell your girlfriend you were cheating. I would not specify in what context. She can punish you far better than I would ever be allowed to.

I like that last part. Clever.