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.

Breng77 wrote:
Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.

I just spent 10 minutes looking for the Standard of Devastation on Battle Scribe under the Blood Angels entry. I didn't find it. How did you find it? Please let us know so it can be reported and fixed.

Chaos is the worst.

Reemule wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.

I just spent 10 minutes looking for the Standard of Devastation on Battle Scribe under the Blood Angels entry. I didn't find it. How did you find it? Please let us know so it can be reported and fixed.

1) Its Standard of Sacrafice
2) It doesn't show up until you plus on "No Force Org Slot" and add armoury of Baal.
3) The issue is that successor chapters don't have access to the whole armoury of Baal, only 1 item out of that list.

It sounds like to fix this you'll have to add a chapter tag to BA detachments, and then when you take Armoury of Baal you only get Archangel's Shard if you have any Chapter other than Blood Angels for that Detachment

roman2440 wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.

I just spent 10 minutes looking for the Standard of Devastation on Battle Scribe under the Blood Angels entry. I didn't find it. How did you find it? Please let us know so it can be reported and fixed.

1) Its Standard of Sacrafice
2) It doesn't show up until you plus on "No Force Org Slot" and add armoury of Baal.
3) The issue is that successor chapters don't have access to the whole armoury of Baal, only 1 item out of that list.

It sounds like to fix this you'll have to add a chapter tag to BA detachments, and then when you take Armoury of Baal you only get Archangel's Shard if you have any Chapter other than Blood Angels for that Detachment

Here is a picture of the list in question. It clearly says Standard of Devastation. (top list) But, who knows what he really meant? Its hard to say.

https://spikeybits.com/2018/03/40k-adepticon-championship-top-16-lists-revealed.html

To fix it, your most likely right, there would need to be those tags added. Either way, I don't see how this guy spent any effort in list building. And he should have.

Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.

What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.

Yeah and that was my point.

If your worried about list verification... Try to build it in the army builders. It is clear they are not 100%, but it is a good place to start. And it is clear that if this guy had done that, he might not have been DQ'ed.

After its gone through a army builder, maybe run it by the facebook group, or even just run the actual most problematic portions. Either way, this could have been avoided.

tneva82 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.

What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.

Was it not the same guy? I heard it was the same guy at Atlanta and this one.

Wayniac wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.

What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.

Was it not the same guy? I heard it was the same guy at Atlanta and this one.

You heard incorrectly. They both share the first name.

He had a list error at nova and Adepticon. It was a different person at WarZone.

Wayniac wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.

What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.

Was it not the same guy? I heard it was the same guy at Atlanta and this one.

Quoting from previous page.

Target wrote:

Hey - Andrew Gonyo here, just saw this thread. Nope, the Warzone Atlanta issue was a different Andrew (Andrew Whittaker)

So yeah at least it wasn't twice the same guy. Now that WOULD be much more suspicious but that was not case here.

GW rules being mess they are not even surprising they are played wrong all the time without even intentional cheating.

tneva82 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.

What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.

At the Nova Open he was caught using Creed's CP bonus without having him as his warlord.
This is not the first time he 'forgot' to read the rules for his army.

Reemule wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Sorry but you are wrong. I tried making a battle scribe list and you can include Seth and the banner, in Blood Angels there is no “chapter” option. So point of fact if he used battle scribe he easily could have made this error.

I just spent 10 minutes looking for the Standard of Devastation on Battle Scribe under the Blood Angels entry. I didn't find it. How did you find it? Please let us know so it can be reported and fixed.

As others have mentioned it is misnamed on his list. That said to unlock relics for Blood Angels you need to set a BA character to your warlord. Once you do you can choose the relic banner on an ancient, and unlike space marines there is no place to set your chapter in BA so it never restricts your relics. Now the codex should always be checked, my response was simply to he idea that had he used BS he would not have had an issue.

 Ordana wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.

What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.

At the Nova Open he was caught using Creed's CP bonus without having him as his warlord.
This is not the first time he 'forgot' to read the rules for his army.

Just an FYI, once that was pointed out to him he took a negative to his CP for the rest of the tournament.

 elphilo wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.

What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.

At the Nova Open he was caught using Creed's CP bonus without having him as his warlord.
This is not the first time he 'forgot' to read the rules for his army.

Just an FYI, once that was pointed out to him he took a negative to his CP for the rest of the tournament.

'The rest of the tournament' being 1 game since I believe it was discovered in the finals (not 100% sure).
Anyway the point was that this is not his first offense of missing rules.
And as I pointed out to him when he came by in the thread earlier, one would think getting caught out like that once would make someone take extra care to avoid it in the future.
Obviously it did not.

 elphilo wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah, his list said "Standard of Devastation" but that is IIRC a Dark Angels relic. SO it looks like this guy just is crap at writing down lists because he's A) Gotten the wrong name of a relic and B) Twice now not verified that something is allowed before adding it.

What's that twice? Hopefully you aren't refering to now falsified idea of same guy doing it in two tournaments when in fact it was two different guys.

At the Nova Open he was caught using Creed's CP bonus without having him as his warlord.
This is not the first time he 'forgot' to read the rules for his army.

Just an FYI, once that was pointed out to him he took a negative to his CP for the rest of the tournament.

Not that it even mattered.

A lot of people in these tournaments take ideas from one another. So you see someone you trust misplaying something, add it to your army, and boom - hosed.

You guys are expecting rules perfection. Until 40k has an app with all of this information in it, you're going to continue to see these errors.

GW needs to get with the digital age, badly.

 Marmatag wrote:
A lot of people in these tournaments take ideas from one another. So you see someone you trust misplaying something, add it to your army, and boom - hosed.

You guys are expecting rules perfection. Until 40k has an app with all of this information in it, you're going to continue to see these errors.

GW needs to get with the digital age, badly.

Or perhaps people who play in competitions/tournaments should do their utmost to ensure a legal list. I mean, you spend so much effort in playing you should ensure your list is 100% legal. Rolling out excuses such as "battlescribe in corrections" or "unclear rules" only wash in casual games. You have the tools at your disposal to check and verify your list - not doing so is mind boggling.

No one is expecting rules perfection - what we expect is a level of professionalism rather than abusing a hazy rule and blaming" xyx"when caught.

Especially after already getting caught red handed. Reading between the lines I’m thinking Adepticon wanted him to quit... poor Cappy.

Dakka does love a good lynching. Have you guys picked out a tree yet?

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Dakka does love a good lynching. Have you guys picked out a tree yet?

Yes, because calling out cheaters for cheating is lynching, and not at all a desire to see top-level competitive play actually be top-level competitive play. Even if it was a mistake (and kudos to the guy for trying to rectify it as he wrote earlier), it is pretty inexcusable that a top level player (Top 16) had a list-building error.

I said it before and I'll say it again - I can only hope that GW won't ever balance by these events, because they're clearly no different than casual games in my apartment, aside from the fact that there are arbitrarily assigned rankings and more players. Is 7 Flyrants a problem? Mathhammer says probably, and that's what you should balance by, not by these conventions.

Math hammer never tells the whole story, we are far better off using game results. The point is more it should never be just based off one players performance but instead consistent or numerous people using the same/similar builds around broken units. Put simply mat hammer alone doesn’t paint the full flyrant picture as it doesn’t take into account things like the ability to deepstrike, movement, interaction with psychic powers/stratagems/chapter traits, etc.

quentra wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Dakka does love a good lynching. Have you guys picked out a tree yet?

Yes, because calling out cheaters for cheating is lynching, and not at all a desire to see top-level competitive play actually be top-level competitive play. Even if it was a mistake (and kudos to the guy for trying to rectify it as he wrote earlier), it is pretty inexcusable that a top level player (Top 16) had a list-building error.

I said it before and I'll say it again - I can only hope that GW won't ever balance by these events, because they're clearly no different than casual games in my apartment, aside from the fact that there are arbitrarily assigned rankings and more players. Is 7 Flyrants a problem? Mathhammer says probably, and that's what you should balance by, not by these conventions.

No, it was a straight up lynching. People took the word of someone else that the same person did this twice and ran with it. We'll be waiting for when you screw up. We have the pitchforks ready. *stab stab*

He has fielded two illegal armies including NOVA.

quentra 753409 9901545 nullI wrote: said it before and I'll say it again - I can only hope that GW won't ever balance by these events, because they're clearly no different than casual games in my apartment, aside from the fact that there are arbitrarily assigned rankings and more players. Is 7 Flyrants a problem? Mathhammer says probably, and that's what you should balance by, not by these conventions.

Ahh the no true tournament argument. So what other points of data collection should they use to collect information on what players are running and what is the issue? They can't use tournaments because effectively they don't exist.

I would ask TO's to step up and start validating army lists, especially at the level of Adepticon.

This kind of thing should never happen.

 auticus wrote:
I would ask TO's to step up and start validating army lists, especially at the level of Adepticon.

This kind of thing should never happen.

This has already been discussed as close to impossible to do given the size of the event relative to the size of the staff.

Hopefully, the GW list building app will fix it. Any serious tournament game needs to have an official app for validating lists.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I would ask TO's to step up and start validating army lists, especially at the level of Adepticon.

This kind of thing should never happen.

This has already been discussed as close to impossible to do given the size of the event relative to the size of the staff.

To support this argument: I don't think anything like this has ever come out of a 40k Invitational, where attendance is kept down to people who are "invited" (obviously).

It will be possible when GW releases Battle Roster.