I think that's about it.WhiteKnight wrote:lists were first designed and published to prevent gamesmanship and totally unrepresentative armies taking the table and to promote some degree of trust between players. If a player's army differed from the published list, you were entitled to ask why the army's owner had come to that view and take him on his merits. After all, it was possible that the player had more information about a specific army than the list compiler, or had an equally valid but different interpretation of the sources.
Not sure where that leaves us! Maybe in competitions, we must live with lists as published until revisions are officially sanctionned...you enter the competitive FoG world, you play by the rules and lists! However, outside of that, anyone is at liberty to adapt lists ( and rules, too if you wish) as suits themselves and the people they game with?
I expect a tournament that allowed a non-canonical army no matter what the basis would not be counted for national/global tournament purposes on grounds of fairness and consistency, even if it seems procrustean. That makes it difficult to run a casual tournament that isn't canonical since it would tick off some of the prospective players and reduce participation.
The same strictures tend to spread to non-competitive games as well. I think the army lists are pretty good, but there are the debatable cases like this one and the armies that don't yet exist since they have not been listed - all the more reason for impatience regarding companion release dates.
