Red Corsair wrote:Captyn_Bob wrote:Huh. That's describing a different issue, but it looks like the ITC made the wrong call in that instance. Good on him for staying calm
lol
It's not the ITC, which was part of why his response kinda sucked. It was the
TO, the ITC simply puts forth a tournament packet for anyone to use and the
TO is responsible for judgement calls. The
TO should have notified him first and foremost before making the call public, but he definitely should not be smearing the ITC and dragging Reece into the mix. I think there is a argument in regards to the relic being
RAW, I also think his comp was fine but it is hard to argue that he should have been playing with obsec since even with the
CA leaked information you need a pure detachment in which case the
DG DP kills that. Arguing how much of an impact it had is irrelevant since he is speaking for himself and not his opponents and also because I know I alter my game play HEAVILY based on whether a unit has obsec or not. I think he played a list with a clear advantage based on the error, So despite it being unfortunate that the tourny finished on a sour note I actually think the
TO made the right call. Almost every big event for at least 2 years running has had either fast an loose play or errors in list building thats discovered about the winner and I think calls like this are important in order for there to be an expectation of fairness.
That was my list. The list was, and is, completely legal in all regards, and the long story short it is that I did not get the ITC points I fairly earned at a
GT after the event was already over by a
TO who was not actually a
TO at the event at all (and who didn't discuss the issue with me) because said person unfortunately misinterpreted (and presumably still does) how the codex back of the rules book work.
Since the
GT I regularly get messages on my Facebook blog from people who've heard about this and realized the
TO was wrong, because they want to know whether this issue has been addressed by the ITC or
GW. Unfortunately, it hasn't (I don't think
GW should have to clarify this since I think the rules are clear and obvious, but clearly I'm wrong since a bad call was made after the
GT, and there are presumably at least some other
TOs likewise misinterpreting the new codexes to this day).
For anyone who wants specifics on either what actually happened or the two questions on the list's legality...
Everything that happened at and after the GT:
1 - I made a legal list that had, among other things, a detachment comprised of index Chaos Daemons plus a Death Guard daemon prince (who had a
DG non-stratagem relic and a
DG warlord trait), but no
DG-specific detachment(s). Just in case there were any questions about it, and to avoid surprising anyone, on my army list I marked the troops in this detachment as ObSec and I marked my relic and warlord trait (despite this not being a requirement for the event) just in case anyone wanted to ask questions or discuss before the game. I made a hard copy of my list for each opponent in case they wanted it.
2 - Upon arriving at the event, and prior to the rounds starting, I walked over to the two
TOs (we'll call them
TO A and
TO B) and tried to hand them my list in case they were reviewing for everyone or had questions about mine in particular. They declined.
3 - Partway through the first of two days of the
GT,
TO A came over to me before my second or third round and said he was confused why my Daemons detachment had ObSec troops when it included a
DG daemon prince. I told him that Reece had clarified multiple times on the
FLG website and on the
FLG facebook page that there is an additional rule of ITC ObSec for daemons in which a Keyword Faction "Chaos" unit that was also a Keyword "Daemon" unit could be included in a Daemons detachment without brreaking obsec (I believe the head of
NOVA also remarked on the facebook page to the effect of, "We checked with
GW and confirmed that this was the correct intent."). I had multiple screenshots ready on my phone in case the question came up, and showed
TO A. He didn't seem to like it but agreed that my list was correct and that my troops were ObSec.
4 - After the rounds on the first day but before the rounds on the second day, I am contacted via Facebook by
TO A, who asked me about having a
DG relic and
DG warlord trait on the
DG prince when I didn't have a
DG detachment. I screenshot from the
DG codex and showed him the rules for relics and warlord traits and explained that both the warlord trait and the one "free" relic are based solely on who your warlord is.
TO A then said "ahh well the relic is fine then" but objected to the troops being ObSec due to the
DG DP in the detachment. I again showed him the screenshots of Reece /
FLG explaining that exactly what I did in my list was fully ObSec.
He then basically said he still didn't like it, and that there was some ITC Google Docs spreedsheet about factions and ObSec, and that because this niche situation wasn't somehow incorporated into the spreadsheet (how would you even do that?), he was ruling for the rest of the event that my troops weren't obsec. I told him I was pretty frustrated considering that I had proof that the ITC went out of its way multiple times to explicitly explain that was I was doing was ObSec, but nonetheless I complied since he was the
TO. He asked me whether the obsec had even mattered on day 1 considering I was steamrolling people (at the end of the
GT I had 94/95 battle points over the 5 rounds), and I admitted it didn't really matter much. Before each my two games on day 2 of the event, I informed each opponent of
TO A's ruling and that my troops wouldn't be ObSec during our games.
5 - The event concludes. Later online I post on my Facebook blog and in our regional group page and I thank the
TOs and all my opponents for a great event.
6 - The day after the event, I am contacted by
TO B, who tells me that he and the other
TO were contacted "by the ITC" because the ITC was worried that my list was illegal because of the
DG prince having a
DG relic and a
DG warlord trait. I explained to him that the pages for those rules are based purely on who your warlord is, and that
TO A had in fact agreed with me when
TO A asked me about during the event!
TO B confirms that what I was saying was also how
TO B had always understood this issue, but that "the ITC" disagreed because of the first sentence on a different page, at the very start of the back of the
DG codex. In the
DG codex this is the part that says "Scions of Mortarion" at the top, but all 8th Ed codexes have an identical setup and an introductory paragraph with a few almost identical sentences.
TO B tells me that the ITC thinks that the first sentence of that paragraph means that ALL codex back of the book rules can only be used when your army also has a detachment from that codex. I told him that 1) this interpretation only made sense if you completed ignored the remaining sentences in the opening paragraph, 2) that it also didn't make sense considering that the specific sub rules explicitly tell you in those their requirements (needing a
DG detachment vs needing a
DG warlord vs needing a
DG psyker), and that 3) no one applies this interpretation on all back-of-the-book for things rules for psychic powers or rules for mandatory warlord traits (which no one thought required a detachment to apply) - for example, no one argues that a list of nothing but 3 Knights + Magnus leaves Magnus stuck casting nothing but smite. I'm then told that it's out of his hands, and that I needed to email the ITC at the
FLG email address and that it was up to them, i.e. Reece and Frankie.
7 - I immediately write a frantic email to Reece and Frankie about the issue, at the email address
TO B gave to me.
8 - A day or two later, I suddenly see on a local Facebook group (which is admin'd by some of the same
TOs) a post from the
GT account, stating that the top list (mine) was disqualified due to being illegal. The post doesn't state why my list was supposedly illegal, and comments are disabled. Then some local people (not me) try to post in the local group that 1) no, it was legal and 2) in any case, if they had a different interpretation, they shouldn't apply it retroactively after the event, especially not when I was told during the list that it was correct and I abided by all rulings they made during the event. These critical posts are also quickly deleted.
9 - I make a post about the whole thing on my
FB blog. After a lot of discussion, Reece comes in and volunteers that despite what I was told, neither he nor anyone else at
FLG/ITC had anything to do with this decision, and that they hadn't had time yet to review my email, and that the decision to submit ITC points with my wins excluded was a purely local decision that was before ITC could look at the issue. At that point it comes out that the (incorrect) interpretation that my list was illegal in fact made behind the scenes by someone I never talked to, who we'll call
TO C. This person was not a
TO at the event but was a player competing, but
TO A and
TO B became uncomfortable after the event when some ITC
TOs elsewhere in the country saw my list and thought it might be illegal.
TO C had not played actively in 8th competitive play but was well-respected and so they asked him to make a decision, and because this entire discussion was a game of telephone to which I was never invited until after it was over and the Facebook post went up,
TO B then got bad information (which he passed on to me) that this was an official ITC decision and I needed to talk with them. Reece said on my
FB page that he didn't want to get in the middle of this, and
TO C (who again, never discussed this rules issue with me, and was not a
TO at the event) posted in the discussion that the whole thing was already said and done and that he was refusing to have any discussion about it whatsoever with me. Beyond not wanting to get in the middle of some random small-time
GT, I'm not surprised Reece didn't want to get involved, because as it turns out,
TO C is in fact a good friend of Reece's who also helps with some ITC mission formatting stuff, among other genuinely laudable contributions to the community.
10 - At this point I don't have any recourse about having my points stolen, other than to be highly disappointed with the poor judgement of
TO C (and the judgement of who knows who else he talked to, since he never talked with me) for making a retroactive rules call that I think is very, very, very clearly incorrect based on both
RAW and
RAI in the
DG codex and all 8th ed codexes (which have parallel rules). I later receive an apology from
TO A that I wasn't at least notified before the
GT post went up, and I also receive an apology from
TO B that he misunderstood and mis-relayed to me what was going on following the event. To this day I haven't gotten an apology for not being directly involved, or for the fact that this was retroactive and in contradiction to the
TO rulings I received at the
GT from people who were actually
TOs at the event (all of which I followed). I decided there was nothing else I could do about the situation, and soon afterwards got 3rd place at another local
GT with an almost identical list.
The actual rules in dispute:
Issue #1: Daemons detachment was listed as ObSec even though it had a DG daemon prince.
I already discussed this above, and I think most people here in this Dakka thread now realize this was legal. If anyone is still confused, go look at the ITC article on the
FLG website regarding ObSec and on the
FLG facebook post linking to that article. (I've seen some people get confused because they go to the
FLG article and conflate this issue with a different one discussed in the article, when Reece gives the example of a Black Legion detachment with Horrors not getting ObSec. Obviously this just means that horrors in a black legion detachment break ObSec for a black legion detachment, not that you automatically void obsec for a DAEMONS detachment that might contain some Black Legion/
CSM units, which would be ObSec so long as those
CSM units are also Daemons).
Issue #2: Making use of the rules for codex warlord traits / the codex "free" warlord-based relic / codex psychic powers / codex maelstrom objectives without your army containing a detachment from that same codex.
I think (and a lot of ITC players who've since talked with me privately about it also think) that it is extremely obvious and clear by both
RAW and
RAI that
GW set up the special in the back of each 8th ed codex into two categories: that that require a detachment from that codex in order for your units (or certain of your units) to make use of those rules, and all the other rules which have different requirements to use based on warlord choice / unit keyword. In every codex, the first category includes army bonuses (i.e. chapter tactics) and stratagems, and the second category includes psychic powers, warlord traits, the one free warlord-based relic, and the unique maelstrom objectives. In addition to breaking out these two categories in the introductory paragraph, each codex also tells you again explicitly in the sections for each of these rules which ones require a detachment to unlock and which ones require something else to unlock (either choice of warlord or having a keyword psyker unit with access to the codex discipline on the psyker's datasheet).
To me, this setup is very clear, easy, and obvious, and shouldn't really require much explanation. Unfortunately, as I found out after the
GT, it's not obvious to some people, and you actually have some
TOs / events currently interpreting these rules incorrectly (and inconsistently) by arguing that despite what it says in those sections and despite how the intro paragraph is written, you somehow still can't use things like a codex warlord trait unless your list has a certain type of detachment from that codex. To these people, it doesn't seem to matter that
GW could have written the codex almost any other way if that's how they wanted it to work, or that
GW seemed to write the codexes so that they went out of their to distinguish between what rules require a codex detachment and which are available based on keywords on the warlord or psykers.
After seeing this pop up a few times on the Competitive
40k FB page, and after seeing people on Facebook get confused trying to debate the issue in post after post without having the rules in front of them, a month or so ago I finally took the time to condense the issue into one single graphic for the next time this debate inevitably came up. I'm sad I even had to make this graphic because I think it almost over-complicates what should be an easy issue, but I guess that's
40k for you:
Hope that clears the air. Apologies for the long post, but I figured I should put everything up front in one place because if I left some relevant stuff out, I might get asked about it and then the ongoing explanation of the
GT or the underlying rules debate gets strung out over a bunch of different posts.
