List oversight at GTs

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.

**CT GAMER**

Blackmoor wrote:
Everyone is making comments about Aaron's list at the Adepticon finals but the fact is that there is very little oversight of any lists at GTs.

With most people not using army builder anymore (and even then army builder has some issues) and with the amount of formations and how complicated lists are these days there are bound to be a lot of mistakes. Heck, most people do not even own the codexes that they are using for their armies.

First off, most GTs do not even require you to have a copy for each opponent you play against so there is no way to keep a list and check it after the tournaments to see if it is correct. Some lists are hastily scrawelled on a piece of paper a few moments before the tournament begins so there is no wonder that there are mistakes, and there is absolutely zero list checking.

Here is an example of the one list that I lost to at the LVO in January:

My phone battery died after this picture so I can't show you how really bad this list was. No points listed, just the number of models. He also had no transports listed so I asked him if his army is walking, and he informed me that the squads had rhinos, razorbacks and drop pods, but they were just not listed on his sheet.

Frontline Gaming does not even collect an army list for their events so even after the tournament there is no way to check to see if mistakes were made.

If someone wanted to, they can play with a different list each round, or be over a lot of points or have illegal lists, and no one would ever know.

How can we fix this? Is there a way people can upload there lists to a database prior to a tournament so they can be reviewed by the public? At the bare minimum you should have to turn in a list when you register for the event so if there is an issue later on there is a hard copy. Also tournaments should require players to bring a list for each of their opponents. That way you can check that what is on the table matches what is on the lists, and after the tournament you can check it for accuracy for points and legality.

Seems legit

**GreyDragoon**

Red Corsair wrote:
GreyDragoon wrote:
stopcallingmechief wrote:
GreyDragoon wrote:
Again guys, and it's not like I thought thjs was the "right" decision, but he was already list verified going into this tournament on the lone wolves. that is, by far, the imortant part of the list. Once you accept that as legal, the 1 pt issue is to me academic and if he goes without then so be it. That was fairly inconsequential.

At the end, Aaron did win this, and he won it with something he got pre approved. I'm one hundred precent ok with a 1 pt issue, we've all been guilty of that before. I don't agree with the answers but theh were metted out without problems. And havkng been a person that asked, I can say that it wasn't the problem at the time some of you think it was. Everyone there suspected if the rule went for him we could still knock him off depending.

I will freely admit we need better "list legality" solutions for ahead of game checking. Until that time, it rests on players, for better or worse. Please get over it, and suggest cogent solutions instead of pummeling people who gave it their all in a fun competition last week.

Anyway, on to more touneys in May. Can we move on/suggest a list of basic solutions?

Just wanted to quote the part where you said you dont care about one point over because "weve all been guilty of that before".

Thats flat out BS. I have never played any tourney much less a GT with an overpointed list. Speak for yourself nwxtime imo.

Lol OK, clearly it's only me who has accidentally screwed up my army on a spreadsheet, used an old number for a per model cost, or trusted army builder/battlescribe and realized after/during that I was off. I would say it happens more often then you'd think - but hey apparently it's just me.

I think he was referring in a tournament setting but I'll let him answer that to be sure. I have played in countless RTT's and several GT's and I have never had an illegal list in those events because I take the time and care to double, triple and quadruple check my lists as well as having my peers check when I can. Anecdotal I admit, but he isn't wrong when he is saying you shouldn't make broad assumption.

I was just having fun, no need for people to take it so seriously. That said, and this is just me personally, unless a list was severely broken I wouldn't have an issue with an opponent dropping a unit that has bought it over the limit - as long as that left the rest of the list legal after the fact. Life is too short.

Again, that's just me. And yes I am more than willing to admit that I have screwed up on a list years ago. I had been using a hand done spreadsheet and had a typo for the value of my Commander models. (put in 75 instead of 85) Offered to self report and drop a lose on the match, but my opponent offered to play as long as I could make the list legal, which I did by immediately dropping a squad putting me roughly 50 pts under the limit. List corrected (and now legal with the change) we played on and the list was played that way for the rest of the day. I have since personally run into two broken lists from the other side of the table and I have always been willing to apply the same standard to my opponents. If you play in enough GTs/Tourneys, it's just bound to happen that you'll run into something off in a list. Frankly since people rarely have the level of knowledge needed to properly point out models across all the codices, there's every chance you'd never even know you were playing against a broken list.

People aren't perfect, and it's a game of little army men. You can either get pissed off about every thing that your opponent does wrong or you can try and work with them. If you try to keep the salt content down you'll probably find you have a better experience at the end of the day.

**Red Corsair**

I wasn't trying to seem rude, I get your poking fun but just wanted to shed my personal experience. BTW I am not trying to advocate for players names or reps being trashed and I understand it isn't a big deal to you personally, but that doesn't mean in future events others would feel the same so having a rigid black and white system to me makes sense.

I don't think they should be ejected from the event, I think that any previous wins with the illegal list be reversed, allow the opponent to fix the list and continue. I think having them drop a model is a bizarre method as well. Basically your punishing them going forward rather then rectifying the games they messed up. Does that make more sense?

I also think this would protect the players and event from bad PR. Had Aaron received the treatment I am suggesting nobody would be questioning any of this and people would be celebrating a clean victory rather then discussing how soured the whole championships turned out, with many wondering why he didn't drop.

Having a preemptive policy would be great but it just isn't logistically enough with 200+ players. I would rather give a break to the TO's who have a daunting task already.

**Inquisitor_Malice**

Red Corsair wrote:
I don't think they should be ejected from the event, I think that any previous wins with the illegal list be reversed, allow the opponent to fix the list and continue. I think having them drop a model is a bizarre method as well. Basically your punishing them going forward rather then rectifying the games they messed up. Does that make more sense?

I also think this would protect the players and event from bad PR. Had Aaron received the treatment I am suggesting nobody would be questioning any of this and people would be celebrating a clean victory rather then discussing how soured the whole championships turned out, with many wondering why he didn't drop.

This is a great point because we would not be having this discussion at all had this method been followed. It would not even register on the radar but for a minor blip, which when applying the smell test passes the muster. The radar blip would be "Hey, he screwed up. Next."

**GreyDragoon**

I wouldn't have a problem with prior wins being removed as well. In this particular case it just wasn't part of the tournament's stated policy for finding an illegal model in a list. As long as it's in the tourney rules, I'm just fine with it as a policy.

Booting people though should 100% be reserved for truly bad sportsmanship. Physical/verbal abuse, outright lying to judges, etc. Pretty rare stuff but it does happen from time to time. It is a salty/beardy event full of nerdy folks with what I think could generously be called eclectic personalities. And every now and then they just don't work out at all on the table.

**RiTides**

I think the problem is the two issues here were being mixed a bit, so I looked into a bit more. One issue was the lone wolves, the other was being a point over. Here is the official policy regarding both things (full packet is here):

AdeptiCon 2016 40K Championship Packet wrote:
If illegal units or rules violations are found in a player's list, at a minimum, the models in violation will be removed from all subsequent play. Tournament points may be deducted and award eligibility may be forfeited. Please use the feedback form on the AdeptiCon 2016 website to ask any questions you or your club may have regarding rules issues or legal units in advance!

So, to break out the two issues:

1. Regarding the lone wolves, the player did exactly what they were supposed to do - submitted the question ahead of time and got clarification that they could bring the units as a part of their list.

2. Regarding the point over, the policy was followed - "the models in violation will be removed from all subsequent play."

I think there's a valid question to say "Should a further penalty have been applied?", which the policy leaves room for. But honestly, I brought up Tony Kopach earlier just to point out that this happens to the best of people (NOT to give Tony Kopach a hard time - honestly people should drop that ridiculous "3PO" nickname and call him "Beast" or something else reflecting how he absolutely dominated the 40K tournament scene for several years).

In the end, I think the policy is a good one, and it was followed. It's good to have flexibility because rules violations, by their very nature, are going to vary and need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But in this situation, I feel like people were conflating the two issues (not being happy the player's list was allowed, AND then discovering it was a point over). The way he made his list was approved, and in any other situation I feel like the accidental 1-point-over just should not be met with the "death penalty" tournament response.

**Red Corsair**

I guess what I have a major problem with is a champion being crowned when they couldn't fulfil the basics 101 of the game. Again, I don't know why reversing scores keeps being twisted into calls for "death penalties." Honestly it comes off as a scare tactic to prevent the discussion. I am sure it was an honest mistake and Aaron is a swell guy and great player, but by the virtue of admitting it was a mistake, one which happened in the majority of his games it makes no sense to crown a victor under those circumstances going forward.

As to this event, I can speak for myself and say it's done and in the books so lets move on. However that doesn't mean the policy, which I agree was spelt out and followed, shouldn't be further scrutinized and evolve.

**RiTides**

I probably should have just used the word "DQ" instead - certainly didn't intend it as a scare tactic (for reference, it is used in conjunction with NCAA rules violations when a program is prohibited from entering the post season that year).

I also totally agree that the policy should be looked at going forward given what occurred. I don't think saying a player Must be DQ'ed is a good idea... but it could be added to the current text as a possible outcome. It really depends on the offense, and since this is a "catch all" rule I think they need to have some flexibility in how to apply it.

**Red Corsair**

RiTides wrote:
I probably should have just used the word "DQ" instead - certainly didn't intend it as a scare tactic (for reference, it is used in conjunction with NCAA rules violations when a program is prohibited from entering the post season that year).

I also totally agree that the policy should be looked at going forward given what occurred. I don't think saying a player Must be DQ'ed is a good idea... but it could be added to the current text as a possible outcome. It really depends on the offense, and since this is a "catch all" rule I think they need to have some flexibility in how to apply it.

BTW sorry to say scare tactic, even my response was to dramatic. I knew what you meant but just wanted to point it out so the discussion could continue to be objective going forward

Is it really such a catch all rule? I am saying reverse all outcomes with the illegal roster. So it automatically tailors itself to the offense. If a player is caught after 7 games it is going to really affect that players score as it should since his mistake cost 6 other players. If it is caught after 1 game he now simply has a loss, IF he won mind you.

I feel like your concern for the player is admirable, but illogical in this instance. Not to sound like Spock but shouldn't the other players and event be protected first? Tell me how allowing a player to continue on to win the whole tournament under such circumstances won't impact and hurt an event and that players image? Again, just look at all the discussions right now, the number one topic out of adepticon is an illegal list winning the championships (at least the 40k side I should note, theres plenty more at adepticon).

**sfshilo**

OverwatchCNC wrote:
MVBrandt wrote:
Reece you are obviously as much of a colluding cheater as I am

I literally laughed out loud. Nice one.

My one and only suggestion for this would be for the top lists at the end of day one to be combed through for errors to insure those players moving on to day(s) 2/3 are playing lists that are above board. As a side, and really unrelated note, all those players playing for top spots should also be using dice that are provided for them by the GT. Just my $.02 I don't run events I just play in them so take it for what you will.

This, for me anyway, is why I avoid the ITC GTs as much as possible. You only worry about the "Top Players".

When I started playing this game again back in 5th I was LUCKY to go to a GT that did not have this mentality, they wanted every single participant on the same playing field so the games between the "bad" players and "good" players were on level standing and fun no matter what.

Not bashing necessarily, just perspective.

List building, and proper/level judgement at ALL levels of the tourney is how a good event turns into a fantastic one. Like it was mentioned, no need to be draconian, but asking everyone to submit a standard list type a week before is not unreasonable.

**OverwatchCNC**

Red Corsair wrote:
I guess what I have a major problem with is a champion being crowned when they couldn't fulfil the basics 101 of the game. Again, I don't know why reversing scores keeps being twisted into calls for "death penalties." Honestly it comes off as a scare tactic to prevent the discussion. I am sure it was an honest mistake and Aaron is a swell guy and great player, but by the virtue of admitting it was a mistake, one which happened in the majority of his games it makes no sense to crown a victor under those circumstances going forward.

As to this event, I can speak for myself and say it's done and in the books so lets move on. However that doesn't mean the policy, which I agree was spelt out and followed, shouldn't be further scrutinized and evolve.

Because one of those people has been consistently called out for less than above board behaviors at tournaments.

**mortetvie**

Red Corsair wrote:
RiTides wrote:
I probably should have just used the word "DQ" instead - certainly didn't intend it as a scare tactic (for reference, it is used in conjunction with NCAA rules violations when a program is prohibited from entering the post season that year).

I also totally agree that the policy should be looked at going forward given what occurred. I don't think saying a player Must be DQ'ed is a good idea... but it could be added to the current text as a possible outcome. It really depends on the offense, and since this is a "catch all" rule I think they need to have some flexibility in how to apply it.

BTW sorry to say scare tactic, even my response was to dramatic. I knew what you meant but just wanted to point it out so the discussion could continue to be objective going forward

Is it really such a catch all rule? I am saying reverse all outcomes with the illegal roster. So it automatically tailors itself to the offense. If a player is caught after 7 games it is going to really affect that players score as it should since his mistake cost 6 other players. If it is caught after 1 game he now simply has a loss, IF he won mind you.

I feel like your concern for the player is admirable, but illogical in this instance. Not to sound like Spock but shouldn't the other players and event be protected first? Tell me how allowing a player to continue on to win the whole tournament under such circumstances won't impact and hurt an event and that players image? Again, just look at all the discussions right now, the number one topic out of adepticon is an illegal list winning the championships (at least the 40k side I should note, theres plenty more at adepticon).

His statement is illogical? Based on what? Just because you disagree with something does not make it "illogical". Whether someone should have their game results reversed or not and whether they should be allowed to win an event if they had an illegal list is merely your opinion but you are talking as if that is how it should be according to some objective standard. I think that is partly my concern with the points you are raising. Furthermore, how did being 1 point over actually affect any other game or the outcome? What exactly did it "cost" the other 6 players?

Indeed, one thing consistently disregarded and left unaddressed (especially by you) is the issue of what (1) the correct penalty for any infraction is; and, (2) what the basis for that penalty is. Really, all you are doing is just saying "I think it should be this way" but you never provide any compelling reasons why. In the end, we are left with no authoritative basis for preferring one penalty over another.

I believe Ritides and me, if we are both saying the same thing, are merely pointing out that the position you are espousing seems too rigid to apply across the board for every infraction of being over points and there should be a sliding scale, or power of discretion for any TO handling the situation. Flexibility to handle situations as you see fit is important for a TO.

Really, any tournament should have consequences for certain conduct laid out in their format or primer somewhere-that then becomes a legitimate basis for what should be done for any particular infraction for that event. That is just one of the basics of good contract writing-to have all relevant terms defined. Absent such language, any penalty (or lack thereof) and the basis for such penalty is at the sole discretion of the TO and there really is no basis anyone has for disagreement other than their opinion-which holds zero weight, much like how an observer's opinion or anyone else's opinion in a courtroom holds zero weight once a judge is making his ruling.

**RiTides**

In the end, I just don't want there to have to be any hard lines made - in that net you'll catch some unfortunate players at the lower tiers who were just there to have fun and get instantly DQ'ed.

I can definitely see that the sporting thing may have been to just step aside, etc - just don't want people to overreact and institute tar and feathering or anything like that

(Note: That analogy was just for Red Corsair, I'm aware that folks who just want people to get their darn point values correct aren't the equivalent of Winston, Salem

. It's a legitimate question that you guys are asking, and I'd like to see it looked at more!)

Another thing TOs could institute is tiered penalties, where you would be ineligible for prize support as a result but could still play out the tourney without having to re-configure brackets based on something that honestly would not have changed any game results. This would avoid needlessly penalizing lower tier players (who aren't in the running for prize support), and greatly incentivize getting points correct for the upper tier.

**PyrhusOfEpirus**

nice to see the winner of the broadside bash running an accidently illegal list. How many more illegal lists did not get caught and thisone only caught since he won and it was released. At some point lower rated players who every tourney needs to help round out the field will stop showing up and getting cheated.

**DE Elder**

What was the problem with the list?

**RiTides**

Ah bummer - here's the source for that:
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/04/29/broadside-bash-2016-tournament-blog/

FrontlineGaming.org wrote:James Carmona’s Super Star with Cheese List.

Daemons Primary.
Black Legion CSM
Psyclopian Cabal
5 Sorcerers Lv3, Bike, Spell Familiar.

KDK
Herald on Jugger Khorne
Cultists
12 Flesh Hounds

Chaos Daemons
Prince of Nurgle Lv3. EG GG and the nurgle relic
Fateweaver
Nurglings
12 Pink Horrors

Update: After the event an intrepid internet goer realized James’ list was illegal. The Nurgle Prince is not allowed both a grimoire and a nurgle relic. Now although I don’t condone running illegal lists, and everyone should triple-check their lists before events, James did make an honest mistake and is beating himself up for such a silly mental error. He did the responsible thing and emailed the TO to see how he would rule, and will accept whichever decision the TO comes up with. I would like to add, that even without the Grimoire James has a nasty, unique list that runs 24 warp dice to swiss army knife his opponent’s and is also Chaos Space Marines primary. Whether you believe he deserves his tournament victory or not, I think he has proven that the Cabal formation is really strong, and gives a much needed boost to a faction that has been picking up the scraps of it’s three other powerhouse battle brother factions.

What do you guys think aboout the situation? Also, I am interested to hear about the Chaos Space Marine lists you are brewing up. Is it time to break out those dusty old Chaos Terminators?

As always thanks for following and visit the tactics corner for more great tournament strategy!

Posted on April 29, 2016 by Pablo Martinez in 40K, Battle Report, Tactics, Tournament report

I think this is something worth discussing, but since it's obviously a wider problem it'd be great if people didn't go after James like some did with Aaron (or Tony previously, etc). It's a systemic issue, pretty much inherent with the game itself due to the complexity of list building now... not sure of the solution unless Army Builder wants to drop their prices and up their game lol

And by solution I don't just mean penalties after the fact (since James is accepting whatever the TO decides here now that he discovered it) but is there any way to avoid this happening in the first place at such large events? Manual list checking just seems like it's going to have a ton of errors and be so labor intensive as to not be feasible after a certain number of participants.

**Pythius Primus**

James' situation is particularly tricky, since the list wasn't illegal at turn it. It's legal to have an Exalted Reward and a Helforged Artifact of Nurgle. It's only illegal if, at the start of the game, he swaps that Exalted Reward for the 0 result on the table, since the 0 results are also Helforged Artifacts. It's an easy mistake to make, but it's also one that no amount of list checking and cross checking could ever catch.

**skarsol**

I'm not sure how it's an easy mistake to make? Only 1 Helforged Artifact per model is a pretty basic rule. And it's been a rule for years. Just because they added more Artifacts (that state you can still only have one) doesn't make the rule any more difficult.

And has anyone ever rolled on the Exalted table, ever?

**Big Mac**

wow really, so soon after.. I guess if you ain't cheating you ain't trying. No real point to go to any of these GTs if you're trying to win as there will be honest mistakes and no penalties in place for when the lists are turned in and after the GTs.

Big GTs are like the Olympics for our game, so why shouldn't there be penalties for illegal lists found after the result, I mean the Olympic committee get the medals back years after(Marion Jones, Tyson Gay, Lance Armstrong etc..) when the doping result came back. The prize, trophy, and league pts should be stripped.

**RiTides**

Pythius Primus wrote:
James' situation is particularly tricky, since the list wasn't illegal at turn it. It's legal to have an Exalted Reward and a Helforged Artifact of Nurgle. It's only illegal if, at the start of the game, he swaps that Exalted Reward for the 0 result on the table, since the 0 results are also Helforged Artifacts. It's an easy mistake to make, but it's also one that no amount of list checking and cross checking could ever catch.

Wow... yeah, that's crazy! Honestly not sure what you can do about these things... other than play 30K

or reduce the number of formations / etc. The rules interactions are getting to the point where there are so many "gotchas"... Aaron's AdeptiCon mistake was similar (one codex with one character that has no bolt pistol, so you have to buy it to then upgrade it...).

I know people are going to say these things were obvious, and maybe they were in some ways - but there are just so many, that there's going to be people missing things at events... just not sure what to do about it since GW doesn't show any sign of making things simpler. Penalties after the fact are a bummer, since while necessary they're like when the NCAA "vacates" wins... everybody knows who won, it just doesn't count anymore because of a rules violation. It'd be much better to catch it beforehand and get a "true" winner, rather than just disqualifying or the like the actual winner.

**PanzerLeader**

skarsol wrote:
I'm not sure how it's an easy mistake to make? Only 1 Helforged Artifact per model is a pretty basic rule. And it's been a rule for years. Just because they added more Artifacts (that state you can still only have one) doesn't make the rule any more difficult.

And has anyone ever rolled on the Exalted table, ever?

Except Only 1 Helforged Artifact per model has not been a rule for years. Its been a rule only since Curse of the Wulfen came out. Before the new supplement with the explicit limit (provided because you can now buy demon artifacts like you do in other books), Helforged Artifacts could only be acquired through the Exalted Gift upgraded which points limited to one per model (it costs 30 and even the biggest demons have a cap of 50). To know the action to swap was illegal requires referencing a page in the Curse of the Wulfen supplement that doesn't actually contain the specific rules for Exalted Gifts or Grotti the Nurgling. It could be an honest mistake if he was unfamiliar with his army and I don't see why he shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.

**40kmaster1**

If you cheat at a event you should be DQed, it's pretty cut and dry. If you play with a army you should know it inside out.
Adepticon was one of the worst I've seen, illegal list (lone wolfs thing, being over points (blames battle scribe) you should know your own book. Oh and not doing -2 when charging tru cover. This person won the event, when in reality should have been DQed.
Now we have someone else cheating at a big event and again nothing is done about it.
If T.O.s keep allowing this sort of thing to happen then you'll see a huge drop in a attendce and more cheating.
"Top" players should know there stuff.

**skarsol**

PanzerLeader wrote:
skarsol wrote:
I'm not sure how it's an easy mistake to make? Only 1 Helforged Artifact per model is a pretty basic rule. And it's been a rule for years. Just because they added more Artifacts (that state you can still only have one) doesn't make the rule any more difficult.

And has anyone ever rolled on the Exalted table, ever?

Except Only 1 Helforged Artifact per model has not been a rule for years. Its been a rule only since Curse of the Wulfen came out. Before the new supplement with the explicit limit (provided because you can now buy demon artifacts like you do in other books), Helforged Artifacts could only be acquired through the Exalted Gift upgraded which points limited to one per model (it costs 30 and even the biggest demons have a cap of 50). To know the action to swap was illegal requires referencing a page in the Curse of the Wulfen supplement that doesn't actually contain the specific rules for Exalted Gifts or Grotti the Nurgling. It could be an honest mistake if he was unfamiliar with his army and I don't see why he shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.

The "but a model can’t have more than one Hellforged Artefact (of any type)." rule is literally 1 inch above Grotti the Nurgling's entry in the electronic version. I don't have the paper one here to check, but I doubt they moved it very far.

**spacelord321**

40kmaster1 wrote:
If you cheat at a event you should be DQed, it's pretty cut and dry. If you play with a army you should know it inside out.
Adepticon was one of the worst I've seen, illegal list (lone wolfs thing, being over points (blames battle scribe) you should know your own book. Oh and not doing -2 when charging tru cover. This person won the event, when in reality should have been DQed.
Now we have someone else cheating at a big event and again nothing is done about it.
If T.O.s keep allowing this sort of thing to happen then you'll see a huge drop in a attendce and more cheating.
"Top" players should know there stuff.

Agreed. These are grown men (and women?) who should be held responsible for their own actions.

Are you so hyper competative that you need to create an extremely min-maxed army that spans several codexs? Get it right. As someone posted much earlier in the thread, that 1 point matters, especially with formations. I've had to scrap entire list ideas due to the desired formations being 1 point over. That point didn't just invalidate the model or squad, it invalidated the entire army build. I can not name how many of my mental lists have met this end.

Once again, these are grown adults who should be held accountable for their mistakes, and should be mature enough to understand the consequences of being incorrect with their lists. These are not innocent mistakes. They are mistakes. The innocent stance is occupied by those who brought correct lists, whether by chance or because THEY made CERTAIN.

**Breng77**

skarsol wrote:
PanzerLeader wrote:
skarsol wrote:
I'm not sure how it's an easy mistake to make? Only 1 Helforged Artifact per model is a pretty basic rule. And it's been a rule for years. Just because they added more Artifacts (that state you can still only have one) doesn't make the rule any more difficult.

And has anyone ever rolled on the Exalted table, ever?

Except Only 1 Helforged Artifact per model has not been a rule for years. Its been a rule only since Curse of the Wulfen came out. Before the new supplement with the explicit limit (provided because you can now buy demon artifacts like you do in other books), Helforged Artifacts could only be acquired through the Exalted Gift upgraded which points limited to one per model (it costs 30 and even the biggest demons have a cap of 50). To know the action to swap was illegal requires referencing a page in the Curse of the Wulfen supplement that doesn't actually contain the specific rules for Exalted Gifts or Grotti the Nurgling. It could be an honest mistake if he was unfamiliar with his army and I don't see why he shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.

The "but a model can’t have more than one Hellforged Artefact (of any type)." rule is literally 1 inch above Grotti the Nurgling's entry in the electronic version. I don't have the paper one here to check, but I doubt they moved it very far.

It still makes his list legal, until after he rolls. Should the reviewer make sure to not to him that he is not allowed to swap his exalted reward, maybe. As for the 1 Hellforged Artifact rule. Plenty of people don't pay attention to what things are called. For years you could only have one Exalted reward, which was almost always exchanged for a grimior or Portal. People remember Exalted reward, and the 2 things they swap for not that those things are called hellforged artifacts.

It doesn't change the fact that he played it wrong, and technically cheated in his win. But it was not due to list oversight.

**Hulksmash**

Exactly. This isn't a list issue. This is a played a rule incorrectly issue. Let's not mix the two up.

**spacelord321**

Hulksmash wrote:
Exactly. This isn't a list issue. This is a played a rule incorrectly issue. Let's not mix the two up.

Ok, I acknowledge that and it does change the circumstances a bit. Still, while I believe that innocent until proven guilty is always a proper mindset to have, if every slight is assumed to be simply a mistake that fundamental rule breaks down.

I'm in no way advocating DQing anyone but the belligerent. But I feel that a discussion of remedying these sorts of occurences will be beneficial for T.O.s when they have to make these decisions in the future, as some of the methods of redress may be viewed as unfair as well.

I personally lean towards the idea that the responsibility lies COMPLETELY on the shoulders of the player. This allows us to assume that every mistake is just that: a mistake. We immediately take the advantage of cheating and playing stupid away from those who would do so. More importantly, we take away the air of suspicion out of our events. 40k is not serious bussiness. We should operate from the viewpoint that these are all honest mistakes, and the players across from us are honest people. This seems much more possible if we all feel the loophole of "just play dumb" were gone. That kind of trust can be restored if some kind of review system were in place to determine intent after the fact (which I DO NOT advocate), or we simply hold the player responsible for all mistakes.

As many said, it's a game with toy soldiers. Exactly why it should be easy to accept if you made a mistake and got knocked out of the running. It's no big deal. Next time get it right.

**RiTides**

I don't follow your reasoning here... you say "I'm in no way advocating DQ'ing anyone but the billigerent". But your later statements seem to be that you are advocating DQ'ing. Which is it or am I missing something? Just asking for the purposes of clarification / not following here...

**nkelsch**

40kmaster1 wrote:
If you cheat at a event you should be DQed, it's pretty cut and dry. If you play with a army you should know it inside out.
Adepticon was one of the worst I've seen, illegal list (lone wolfs thing, being over points (blames battle scribe) you should know your own book. Oh and not doing -2 when charging tru cover. This person won the event, when in reality should have been DQed.
Now we have someone else cheating at a big event and again nothing is done about it.
If T.O.s keep allowing this sort of thing to happen then you'll see a huge drop in a attendce and more cheating.
"Top" players should know there stuff.

Let's be clear... Cheating requires Malicious intent.

*The rules are often unclear and in a state of flux and heavily dependent on FAQs and rulings.
*Listbuilding is hardly universal in format and often has discrepancies and a lot of people blindly rely on listbuilding software, which again, has issues.
*Misremebering rules, or mistaking how rules interact with other unknown rules is often a thing.

None of these mistakes by default necessarily justify an accusation of cheating and often it isn't the players fault, or the player is partially to blame.

Let's save the calls of 'cheating' for documented malicious activities...

**spacelord321**

RiTides wrote:
I don't follow your reasoning here... you say "I'm in no way advocating DQ'ing anyone but the billigerent". But your later statements seem to be that you are advocating DQ'ing. Which is it or am I missing something? Just asking for the purposes of clarification / not following here...

You are correct. I mistyped or crossed my thoughts there. I meant EJECTION should be saved for the belligerent. The reprimands for these infractions should carry some kind of retro-active consequence, however. I honestly think that is a tough call to make though as a blanket "full points awarded" to the previous opponents can skew overall points in ways that also leave fellow tourney goes feeling cheated. DQing probably isn't the answer either for situations like this. More in this case, if I were the TO I would rule as such:

Round two, turn three it is brought to my attention. Player corrects list by removal of said item with no point/rule adjustment to compensate. Player forfeits all points so far accumulated in this round. Player forfeits all points for round 1. Player continues in tourney with modified list.

If you do make a mistake, better hope it gets caught early. If I'm not mistaken, in this case it was found after the fact? If so, you can't very well ask for prizes back, but ranking points can be rescinded.

Either way, the new FAQ is gonna cause havoc in the tourney scene with rules being misplayed. Should be interesting.