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.

Audustum wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Your dismissive response doesn't change the fact that you made a nonsensical argument purely in order to whine about "ermagerd sooooop", and you damned well know it. If you have a 750 point army of four Leman Russ tanks and a single conscript squad, no one who actually knew a damn thing about 40k would argue that it's an infantry list.

Except, apparently, you, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

edit: freaking typos...

It's dismissive because you only ever pull a line or two and refuse to engage substance directly. You get what you give.

This is also what I mean about the chip on your shoulder. If you read enough of my posts, it's pretty apparent I LOVE soup and use it almost exclusively. Soup is good, soup is love. I want Come the Apocalypse allies back for maximum souping. I used to run Riptides and Imperial Knights in 7th.

So yeah, you've got huge blinders on and it's leading you to swing wildly at invisible enemies. Take a chill pill and enjoy the day!
And well, stay on topic.

Just to avoid misinterpreting your intent: why did you lie about the list? I assumed it was because you didn't like Guard for some reason, but I am willing to assume it was a mistake? Or you had some other motivation?

I would assume observation bias as if you read more guard list entries than anything else in the list, its guard, despite them being less than half the points. I know I don't check points when just reading someone's list.
I'm interested to see what the next tournament shows list wise as it looks like anti flyer firepower or captain smash is a must have.

There's a topic.

It is not your issues with other posters.

 WindstormSCR wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Does/can battlescribe set up an event type list service like conflict chamber does for Warmahordes?

I'm not familiar with the service, but I'm sure if such a web service were to be created and gain enough traction that the creator of the app would be able to do some form of integration

If you go to this site: https://conflictchamber.com/?tournaments you will see a list of events and the teams that participated. Also each team will have a list breakdown of models used. If you attend a big event a lot of times they'll tell you to submit your list via Conflict Chamber. i don't know the technical aspects but I do know that you can't submit a list that isn't validated.

If there was some sort of ranking for the most ridiculous arguments in Dakka's history that would have to make it on there.

On topic I'm happy this happened because it's a precedence that needs to be set, as others have said. It sucks for that specific player if it was unintentionally done(was it really though?) but there's no excuse at this high of a level of gameplay. Understanding the workings of your army's rules is a basic requirement.

The problem with the entire "TO's should check lists" debate is both sides are right in some way. On one hand it's not realistic for them to physically check such large events, on the other dealing with list cheesing in a tournament setting shouldn't happen. Hopefully GDubs list building app is the answer we need and will allow us a specific way to build lists within the rules and submit them for tournaments easily. Then the only burden would be to make sure the units fielded match the list submitted.

For the group that thinks the TOs should check everything it's not really realistic and from my experience, it's not only Warhammer that functions, but most large events for any sport/ activity.

2 examples I will give are
1. when I was younger I played competitive paintball. You did not do speed checks on everyone's gun in a tournament because it would be an extra day long just sitting around checking guns and nobody would want to attend. So you only got speed checks if a ref thought it was shooting too fast, another team complained or you made it to the finals.... Very similar to how these TOs are handling this issue.
2.I played college and pro hockey. Not every player or every team gets tested for banned substances. The reason why is because it takes too much time and costs too much money (keep in mind that the funds available to carry out testing at these levels are far greater than a Warhammer tournament). In fact, you only ever got tested if someone suspected you of cheating or your team made it to the playoffs. even when you made it to the playoffs only random players would be selected for the test. This is why on the news you hear pro athletes admitting to doing steroids decades after they have played.

IMO tournaments are doing a good job checking lists thoroughly Once they make the higher rounds. Id also suspect they will start to keep tabs on "problem players" and always check them before the tournaments start. Also if you really think its so easy to check 500 lists why don't you guys volunteer and help the community out.

I think they should just listener's the top 16...

Then you don't have the volume issue. And set the penalty for an illegal list as a DQ.

maybe if your found cheating or whatever you get dq'd from all tournaments for a year and lose you ITC ranking. Right now there really isn't any form of punishment beyond the immediate disqual.

Racerguy180 wrote:
maybe if your found cheating or whatever you get dq'd from all tournaments for a year and lose you ITC ranking. Right now there really isn't any form of punishment beyond the immediate disqual.

I think immediate DQ is a good punishment. if they are checking top rank lists (which they seem to be doing because players have been caught with mistakes several times before) then players will never even have a chance to win if they bring an incorrect list. I do think you start to make any repeat offender submit early and check their list or eventually ban them if its a continuing problem. But currently, with the rate of new books and FAQs it's very easy to accidentally pop the wrong piece of war gear on a guy or relic, so punishing too much for small mistakes seems a bit heavy-handed.

Yeah, people make mistakes...I think if it was up to me...an illegal list is a DQ, I'd try to get checks on every undefeated list after a day or two, auto check the top 24, to 16. Getting DQ'd is a strike, three times and you're out. That means you never play this tourney again. And I'd expect any other tourney to be eyes out for folks that got DQ'd anyplace else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, self reported illegal lists etc is a DQ, but no strike.

Saw this on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page:

So in light of what happened at Adepticon (Andrew Gonyo DQed himself after it was pointed out he was using a Blood Angels relic in a Flesh Tearers List) can we PLEASE get some official rule somewhere on how to deal correctly...

 Ghaz wrote:
Saw this on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page:

So in light of what happened at Adepticon (Andrew Gonyo DQed himself after it was pointed out he was using a Blood Angels relic in a Flesh Tearers List) can we PLEASE get some official rule somewhere on how to deal correctly...

Deal correctly with what?
There is nothing confusing about why the list was illegal.

What's the rest of the question, Ghaz? It seems to tail off without...

 Dysartes wrote:
What's the rest of the question, Ghaz? It seems to tail off without...

It's just someone who can't understand that most of what he's asking for is already covered in the rules. Anyway, here's the rest of the post:

... in matched-play with home chapters / hive fleets / dynastys etc. It's so confusing atm. Like do Red Scorpions FW chapter for example can they use the Blooad Angels book one day and the DA book another? what about a custom "The Indicisive Marines" chapter? has a non-cannon paint scheme... can they use any book at whim? what about other factions? FW has a Dynasty - Maynarkh that isn't covered in the new codex? can it just chose wich Dynasty's relics / stratagems / characters to use or is it stuck with generic Necron ones? We allways houserule it that yeah "just pick a book and stick to it +/- special characters found outside the book".

Anyway, the key point I wanted to note was it looked like the player disqualified himself after someone brought up that he had an illegal list.

Yeah, that looks like an incomplete sentence.

I dono man... at least the BA and DA books are fairly specific "no you can't use relics if you're a succesor except for this pokey stick" but other books are worse tho... like Codex: SM in the stratagems page says essentially "treat Crimson Fists as Imperial Fists in the example of the bolter drill stratategy. The Relics page has no mention about who can use what but some people argue succesors can't use relics because they have specific wording 'A White Scars unit', on the other hand on the chapter tactics page it says <Your chapter> can pick an apropriate tactic but some are specific as well Like again, "A White Scars unit may..." So i can pick the White Scars tactic but not use it? And in the WL traits it just says "is from the relevant chapter".... WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN? In codex admech for example you can pick your FW dogma if it's not listed BUT on the next page the stratagems don't handle this scenario... So i can be <The Red Zealots> PIck the mars dogma but can't activate "Wrath of Mars" because it's "A Mars unit" ?! Nwm the rat's nest of characters of chapters in FW, that just gives a headache on who can take what... Then there's Stuff like <Sept> or <Dynasty> ... The Meynarkh Dyansty in the FW index has an HQ with a 12" "can charge after advancing" Do they not get dynastic codes? Can they pick? Can i give Maynarch the "auto advance 6" through terrain and / or units"? Can i use the specific Stratagem... Relics? my brain...

As far as GT's checking lists in advanced, GW has annoucing they're releasing an OFFICIAL matched play army builder so as the intern they pawn it off to will make it originally.... at least if everyone uses that they'll be official mistakes =)) "GW said i could do it!"

It;s pretty straight forward and explained clearly in each book.
To take one of your examples...

Yes, you can have the Mars Dogma but not use Wrath of Mars if you're using <HerpDerpNotMars> As your Forgeworld. You're allowed to use the Dogma that most suits your faction, but because you've elected not to use <Mars> you're not able to use Mars Stratagems or Special Characters, because they're <YourDoods> not <Geedubs> Dudes.


The suggestion would be...

Just use the factions out the book.
Or Play Narrative.
Or play Open!

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
It;s pretty straight forward and explained clearly in each book.
To take one of your examples...

Yes, you can have the Mars Dogma but not use Wrath of Mars if you're using <HerpDerpNotMars> As your Forgeworld. You're allowed to use the Dogma that most suits your faction, but because you've elected not to use <Mars> you're not able to use Mars Stratagems or Special Characters, because they're <YourDoods> not <Geedubs> Dudes.


The suggestion would be...

Just use the factions out the book.
Or Play Narrative.
Or play Open!

Yes, it's basically the same in Codex Space Marines. You can replace <CHAPTER> with SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES and choose to use the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics since they're an Ultramarines successor. However that only replaces instances of <CHAPTER> with SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES, the ULTRAMARINES keyword does not change and the two are not interchangeable.

Ghaz wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
It;s pretty straight forward and explained clearly in each book.
To take one of your examples...

Yes, you can have the Mars Dogma but not use Wrath of Mars if you're using <HerpDerpNotMars> As your Forgeworld. You're allowed to use the Dogma that most suits your faction, but because you've elected not to use <Mars> you're not able to use Mars Stratagems or Special Characters, because they're <YourDoods> not <Geedubs> Dudes.


The suggestion would be...

Just use the factions out the book.
Or Play Narrative.
Or play Open!

Yes, it's basically the same in Codex Space Marines. You can replace <CHAPTER> with SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES and choose to use the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics since they're an Ultramarines successor. However that only replaces instances of <CHAPTER> with SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES, the ULTRAMARINES keyword does not change and the two are not interchangeable.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:It;s pretty straight forward and explained clearly in each book.
To take one of your examples...

Yes, you can have the Mars Dogma but not use Wrath of Mars if you're using <HerpDerpNotMars> As your Forgeworld. You're allowed to use the Dogma that most suits your faction, but because you've elected not to use <Mars> you're not able to use Mars Stratagems or Special Characters, because they're <YourDoods> not <Geedubs> Dudes.


The suggestion would be...

Just use the factions out the book.
Or Play Narrative.
Or play Open!

Yep , i aggree, it's _RELATIVELY_ cut and dry with <personal chaapter / legion / sept etc etc> (Tho the fact that "universal" paint scheme are sort of discouraged if you're trying to keep up with codexes / faqs and are on a budget is kinda .. a discussion for another time) But what about FW, who have special characters? Again, specifically what about Maynarkh's "Kutlakh the world Killer"? Or Red Scorpions Carab Culn? Or Astral Claws Lugft Huron? Those Ghost Razors would love some 3d6 charging....

Then you're playing <NotthebasicFaction> so you don't get <BasicFactions> goodies. You get NothebasicFaction's special character, it may use the army trait if it's a successor/fightsliketheother dudes, but it _Isn't_ the other dudes, so it doesn't get special stratagems, or special units.

A Guard Army that fights like Catachan's, But _Isn't_ Catachans, can't take Colonel Straken, because they're _NOT_ Catachan's. This same principle is consistent across the books. _Like_ does not equal _Same_.

It's the same until Forge World says otherwise. Replace <CHAPTER> with RED SCORPIONS and choose a Chapter Tactic. Your force can now take models such as Sevrin Loth, but again the RED SCORPIONS keyword is not interchangeable with the keyword of the chapter you chose for your Chapter Tactics.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
A Guard Army that fights like Catachan's, But _Isn't_ Catachans, can't take Colonel Straken, because they're _NOT_ Catachan's. This same principle is consistent across the books. _Like_ does not equal _Same_.

That seems like a bit of an donkey-cave way of doing things, though - there should be nothing wrong with saying to your opponent (and making it clear in your army lists) that "This is my Savlar Chem-Dog army, but for the purposes of keywords, all my IG will be using CATACHAN."

Given making your own Chapter/Regiment/whatever is often encouraged by GW, they shouldn't really be imposing such a mechanical disadvantage on people who do what they suggest.

However, in this AdeptiCon example, you don't get to cherry-pick the SC from one "faction", and a relic from a different one, and still expect the benefits from both - that's not on.

RE the problem with list checking, why doesn't the community do it. For example, before a tournament, people are divided into groups based on faction, and every person has to check just one other persons list. If a problem gets brought up, then the TO can have a look. This seems to be a soloution that should please everyone. TO's arent left with a mammoth pile of lists to check, and because it is divided into faction pools, then the checking is reasonably accurate.

Booger ork wrote:
RE the problem with list checking, why doesn't the community do it. For example, before a tournament, people are divided into groups based on faction, and every person has to check just one other persons list. If a problem gets brought up, then the TO can have a look. This seems to be a soloution that should please everyone. TO's arent left with a mammoth pile of lists to check, and because it is divided into faction pools, then the checking is reasonably accurate.

If players knew all the ins and outs and had perfect knowledge of their own faction 90+% of these mistakes would not happen in the first place.

 Ordana wrote:

Booger ork wrote:
RE the problem with list checking, why doesn't the community do it. For example, before a tournament, people are divided into groups based on faction, and every person has to check just one other persons list. If a problem gets brought up, then the TO can have a look. This seems to be a soloution that should please everyone. TO's arent left with a mammoth pile of lists to check, and because it is divided into faction pools, then the checking is reasonably accurate.

If players knew all the ins and outs and had perfect knowledge of their own faction 90+% of these mistakes would not happen in the first place.

As they always say, 2 is better than one though, and there is some suspicion that one or two of these "mistakes" are intentional.

 Dysartes wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
A Guard Army that fights like Catachan's, But _Isn't_ Catachans, can't take Colonel Straken, because they're _NOT_ Catachan's. This same principle is consistent across the books. _Like_ does not equal _Same_.

That seems like a bit of an donkey-cave way of doing things, though - there should be nothing wrong with saying to your opponent (and making it clear in your army lists) that "This is my Savlar Chem-Dog army, but for the purposes of keywords, all my IG will be using CATACHAN."

Given making your own Chapter/Regiment/whatever is often encouraged by GW, they shouldn't really be imposing such a mechanical disadvantage on people who do what they suggest.

However, in this AdeptiCon example, you don't get to cherry-pick the SC from one "faction", and a relic from a different one, and still expect the benefits from both - that's not on.

But that's totally not the issue here.

I already posted earlier in this very thread I don't care, and nor do the rules, what words you write at the top of your army list. "2,000 Points of Ultra Blood Flesh Tearer Angels."
Great. Good for you.

What matters is what keyword you use. If you're using the Catachan Keyword, Great! Good for you. If you're using the <Death Korps of Krieg> Keyword because you like them, but Catchan rules, and you're mysteriously taken Death Riders, and not Rough Riders, and also somehow getting +1ld from a nearby Officer and your Death Riders are +1 S, then we going to have an issue.

Booger ork wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Booger ork wrote:
RE the problem with list checking, why doesn't the community do it. For example, before a tournament, people are divided into groups based on faction, and every person has to check just one other persons list. If a problem gets brought up, then the TO can have a look. This seems to be a soloution that should please everyone. TO's arent left with a mammoth pile of lists to check, and because it is divided into faction pools, then the checking is reasonably accurate.

If players knew all the ins and outs and had perfect knowledge of their own faction 90+% of these mistakes would not happen in the first place.

As they always say, 2 is better than one though, and there is some suspicion that one or two of these "mistakes" are intentional.

It shouldnt factor in if the breaking of the rules is intentional or not, you need to be judging matters based on the 'crime', for similar action/result there needs to be similar punishment. It's not like we are judging loss of life where distinction between murder and gross negligence (workplace accident for example) is important.
This is a casual board game, similar breaking of rules should be punished similarly. You cant follow some some 'good guy' metrics, where basically outsiders get punished more harshly because they dont have regulars vouching for them to be a 'good guy', or even better that one guy who has a reputation of being uptight player or sore loser gets punished more more harshly just because he generally is not a 'nice guy'? Do we want to end up in situation where breaking of rules is generally accepted if you are otherwise 'nice'?

Bottom line, similar actions need to be punished similarly, no matter if it was intentional, and especially when the person being punished is recognized by regular tournament scene as 'good guy'.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the record let me add that these disqualifications for relatively minor offenses are too harsh punishments.

First of all these cases are very stigmatizing for the persons in question.
Secondly everyone must understand that if you really started digging through all the lists there would much more disqualifications.

All in all, these disqualifications are perfect example where lack of effective rules enforcement leads to these harsh 'showcase' punishments. These are mostly to keep up the illusion of existence of efficient enforcement of the rules.

Ghorgul wrote:

For the record let me add that these disqualifications for relatively minor offenses are too harsh punishments.

Not when it's the person's second or third offense. If this is the same guy from Atlanta, he had an illegal list then and claimed he "didn't know" that Primaris Psykers lack the <Regiment> keyword when he gave them the Relic of Lost Cadia.

First of all these cases are very stigmatizing for the persons in question.

Good.

Secondly everyone must understand that if you really started digging through all the lists there would much more disqualifications.

Good. Maybe it'll teach people to read their fething books and understand how to write an army list appropriately.

Legal list building seems pretty easy. I am more inclined to think this is an attempt to cheat rather than "woops I didn't know".

Tyel wrote:
Legal list building seems pretty easy. I am more inclined to think this is an attempt to cheat rather than "woops I didn't know".

He has done it twice now. It should be suspect no matter how much of a "good guy" he may be.