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.

Hey everyone, I'm posting on here on behalf of my friends at my FLGS. We have a player there who routinely cheats, and throws a tantrum when he loses, etc. The owner is considering banning him due to many blatant rule violations.

This past weekend he played a game where he cheated on literally everything, saying that all his sprue-crons (and base-crons) have 3+ invul saves (I know, phase shifters give that but not everything can use those), as well as rolling twice as many dice as he should be. But what we were questioning, apparently his Lord was able to take an invul against a psychic power that would have removed him from play completely. I believe it was "Jaws of the world wolf" or something along those lines.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, as half of the players that were there when I started have left because of this guy.

I'm afraid there's nothing we can do to help, as it seems he shows blatant disregard for anything even remotely resembling rules.

Since JotWW does not cause any wounds, no saves may be taken against it, but good luck trying to drive that home.

Best thing to do here is get the store owner to issue an ultimatum; either he gets his act together, stops being a whiny little man-child, and plays by the rules, or he gets tossed out on his arse.

The closest thing that could do that is the Gloom Prism on a Tomb Spider, but that's ridiculously short range and unlikely to have come into play.

JotWW doesn't allow saves of any kind as it doesn't inflict wounds of any kind. Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

Chrysis wrote:Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

I don't think that's correct.
JotWW removes from play. Everliving (What the Necron Lord has) bring you back after being removed from play as a casualty. There's only one model in the game that can come back from a remove from play ability (iirc) - and she ain't a Necron.

baritowned wrote:Hey everyone, I'm posting on here on behalf of my friends at my FLGS. We have a player there who routinely cheats, and throws a tantrum when he loses, etc.

Simple solution. Do not play him.

DeathReaper wrote:

baritowned wrote:Hey everyone, I'm posting on here on behalf of my friends at my FLGS. We have a player there who routinely cheats, and throws a tantrum when he loses, etc.

Simple solution. Do not play him.

I wish it were that easy, but we have a limited number of tables, and he will pretty much take one over completely until someone plays him

rigeld2 wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

I don't think that's correct.
JotWW removes from play. Everliving (What the Necron Lord has) bring you back after being removed from play as a casualty. There's only one model in the game that can come back from a remove from play ability (iirc) - and she ain't a Necron.

Actually, looks like you might be right. I was basing it on the inference that since she can come back from removes from play when her rules are specific to removed as a casualty the same applies to Necrons. But looking through the Necron FAQ they can't come back after being removed from play when turned into a Spawn, so it's not quite that cut and dried.

baritowned wrote:I wish it were that easy, but we have a limited number of tables, and he will pretty much take one over completely until someone plays him

It is that easy. No gaming is better than bad gaming, so if your only options are "no game" or "a game you will thoroughly hate playing" then the obvious choice is "no game." If you arrange a game with someone else and he won't let you use the last table in the store or something get the manager on to him for wasting the managers resources. You've already said the manager is running out of patience, so this shouldn't be too onerous.

baritowned wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

baritowned wrote:Hey everyone, I'm posting on here on behalf of my friends at my FLGS. We have a player there who routinely cheats, and throws a tantrum when he loses, etc.

Simple solution. Do not play him.

I wish it were that easy, but we have a limited number of tables, and he will pretty much take one over completely until someone plays him

The owner should simply make clear that this person does not own the store's tables. He can't take one until he has a game arranged with someone. And no one should play him until he agrees to follow the rules. If he agrees but then starts to cheat, immediately stop playing and pack up. Don't tolerate it.

Chrysis wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

I don't think that's correct.
JotWW removes from play. Everliving (What the Necron Lord has) bring you back after being removed from play as a casualty. There's only one model in the game that can come back from a remove from play ability (iirc) - and she ain't a Necron.

Actually, looks like you might be right. I was basing it on the inference that since she can come back from removes from play when her rules are specific to removed as a casualty the same applies to Necrons. But looking through the Necron FAQ they can't come back after being removed from play when turned into a Spawn, so it's not quite that cut and dried.

Yeah - it was bandied about a little bit in YMDC when the Sisters FAQ came out, but the FAQ answer is pretty specific to St. C so can't be used as a precedent.

Mannahnin wrote:

baritowned wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

baritowned wrote:Hey everyone, I'm posting on here on behalf of my friends at my FLGS. We have a player there who routinely cheats, and throws a tantrum when he loses, etc.

Simple solution. Do not play him.

I wish it were that easy, but we have a limited number of tables, and he will pretty much take one over completely until someone plays him

The owner should simply make clear that this person does not own the store's tables. He can't take one until he has a game arranged with someone. And no one should play him until he agrees to follow the rules. If he agrees but then starts to cheat, immediately stop playing and pack up. Don't tolerate it.

Exactly this, Refuse to play him. Then ask the owner why he is at a table he is not playing at when you and a friend have arranged a game.

Stand up for yourselves, and get the owner involved if needed, but politely ask him to move first, and if he wont, then get the owner involved.

Do not tolerate his BS.

Thanks for all the advice, guys. I went today, and since there were only three people there including him, I stayed for a few hours, and then left. I did speak to the owner though, apparently he overheard this guy saying he was planning on wrecking Wednesdays as well (which is our other warhammer night). Safe to say, he's getting kicked out next week when our mod comes back from out of town. I'll keep anyone interested updated on what happens next

rigeld2 wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

I don't think that's correct.
JotWW removes from play. Everliving (What the Necron Lord has) bring you back after being removed from play as a casualty. There's only one model in the game that can come back from a remove from play ability (iirc) - and she ain't a Necron.

Ever-Living rule says "Instead place a counter where the model was removed from play". The RP and EL rules say "removed from play", ""removed as a casualty" and returned to play" for both.

EL breaks any distinction between "removed from play", "removed from play as a casualty, and "removed as a casualty".

SW players used to say "Nothing can come back from JotWW". The Celestine FAQ shows that just isn't true and the EL rule says "removed from play" so they both work.

And OP, just don't play the guy.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

I don't think that's correct.
JotWW removes from play. Everliving (What the Necron Lord has) bring you back after being removed from play as a casualty. There's only one model in the game that can come back from a remove from play ability (iirc) - and she ain't a Necron.

Ever-Living rule says "Instead place a counter where the model was removed from play". The RP and EL rules say "removed from play", ""removed as a casualty" and returned to play" for both.

EL breaks any distinction between "removed from play", "removed from play as a casualty, and "removed as a casualty".

SW players used to say "Nothing can come back from JotWW". The Celestine FAQ shows that just isn't true and the EL rule says "removed from play" so they both work.

And OP, just don't play the guy.

Nice try. Next time do not pick and choose from the EL rule.

"Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play."

Is in direct relation and result of having been removed as a casualty,

"If a model with this special rule is REMOVED AS A CASUALTY, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit."

The lord gets his EL counter placed AFTER he was removed as a casualty and the counter is placed where he was removed from play.

I'm not 100% sure on the new necron rules, but that's not what he did, he took a 3+ invulnerable against JotWW

1000% he can't use the invu of a phase shifter against jotww.

As for EL, there are faqs that address one case and yet apply to any other similar case ie manticore uses eldar faq to fire as multiple barrage, dominion squads in an immolator use BA faq to use smoke launchers after scout move etc. Same with EL and St Celestine faq.

rigeld2 wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

I don't think that's correct.
JotWW removes from play. Everliving (What the Necron Lord has) bring you back after being removed from play as a casualty. There's only one model in the game that can come back from a remove from play ability (iirc) - and she ain't a Necron.

everliving actually does allow it, RP doesnt as the EL actually mentions removed from play where RP doesnt, but your point is still valid lol, he eveidently wasnt rolling for either, he was just cheating

Brother Ramses wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

I don't think that's correct.
JotWW removes from play. Everliving (What the Necron Lord has) bring you back after being removed from play as a casualty. There's only one model in the game that can come back from a remove from play ability (iirc) - and she ain't a Necron.

Ever-Living rule says "Instead place a counter where the model was removed from play". The RP and EL rules say "removed from play", ""removed as a casualty" and returned to play" for both.

EL breaks any distinction between "removed from play", "removed from play as a casualty, and "removed as a casualty".

SW players used to say "Nothing can come back from JotWW". The Celestine FAQ shows that just isn't true and the EL rule says "removed from play" so they both work.

And OP, just don't play the guy.

Nice try. Next time do not pick and choose from the EL rule.

"Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play."

Is in direct relation and result of having been removed as a casualty,

"If a model with this special rule is REMOVED AS A CASUALTY, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit."

The lord gets his EL counter placed AFTER he was removed as a casualty and the counter is placed where he was removed from play.

I agree with you that it says "removed as a casualty" then it refers to the SAME action as "removed from play". These phrase are used synonymously and destroy any distinction between "removed as a casualty" and "removed from play".

Disregarding the fluff, when a model is killed or otherwise removed from play, the BRB simply says they are "removed". The whole argument that there is actually a difference is based on Phil Kellys preferred description use of "remove from play" differing from other codex writers. People have interpreted that as Space Wolves have some new way of killing a model so that they are not counted as casualty - which is boggling in the first place. The word "casualty" is fluff and the BRB goes on to describe what casualty means. Not necessarily dead, but also maybe wounded, unconcious, missing in action or whatever.

Here Matt Ward uses both phrases to describe the same thing so clearly there is no difference.

copper.talos wrote:Same with EL and St Celestine faq.

St. Celestine's FAQ is very specific for only St. Celesting. It does not set a precedent. The other ones are not as specific - ie more general, which means they can be applied more generally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
I agree with you that it says "removed as a casualty" then it refers to the SAME action as "removed from play". These phrase are used synonymously and destroy any distinction between "removed as a casualty" and "removed from play".

It's not just space wolves that have a RFP ability, FYI.

And as far as the quoted - You place the counter when RFPaaC. There's no permission to place the counter if you're removed from play. The phrases are not synonymous.

You probably haven't read those faqs carefully.

Q. How are multiple shots from the Exarch’s Tempest Launcher resolved? (p34)
A. Resolve them as a multiple barrage.
As you can see this faq is specifically about an exarch's tempest launcher. Yet Manticores use it as a precedent.


Q: Can a Baal Predator use smoke launchers during its
Scout move? (p36)
A: Yes.
Same here. This is specifically about baal predators and yet a dominion riding in an immolator can use it as a precedent to use its smoke launchers. Same with any vehicle that scout moves and has smoke launchers.

So yes the SoB faq is about St Celestine, but since is a similar case with EL, it creates a precedent.

copper.talos wrote:You probably haven't read those faqs carefully.

Q. How are multiple shots from the Exarch’s Tempest Launcher resolved? (p34)
A. Resolve them as a multiple barrage.
As you can see this faq is specifically about an exarch's tempest launcher. Yet Manticores use it as a precedent.


Q: Can a Baal Predator use smoke launchers during its
Scout move? (p36)
A: Yes.
Same here. This is specifically about baal predators and yet a dominion riding in an immolator can use it as a precedent to use its smoke launchers. Same with any vehicle that scout moves and has smoke launchers.

So yes the SoB faq is about St Celestine, but since is a similar case with EL, it creates a precedent.

When Necrons get an ability called Miraculous Intervention, they can use it against RFP and RFPaaC.
edit: There's no RAW guidance for multiple Barrage shots from a single model. The Eldar FAQ gives guidance on a similar situation, so many people use that.
The Baal ruling is a vehicle using smoke launchers during a scout move. That's the same thing as another vehicle using smoke launchers during a scout move.

Miraculous Intervention and Everliving are not the same ability, and while some of the wording might be similar, as an ability they're extremely different. That's why you can take the rulings you posted and apply them elsewhere, but not take the SoB one.

But thanks for assuming I didn't read the FAQs or know what rulings you were talking about. I already did, and have addressed them in other threads you brought up. I actually understand the difference between precedent setting and not - you can look at the Venomthrope thread I started to see that.

So by your reasoning the manticore has been firing a tempest launcher all this time...

copper.talos wrote:So by your reasoning the manticore has been firing a tempest launcher all this time...

See my edit.

First of all there is no other GW ruling about how remove as a casualty abilities interract with remove from play abilities. So as you said you you need guidance, and can use the SoB faq as a precedent.

As far as how different those abilities, they are essentially exactly the same up to the point that matters - the placing of the counter.

copper.talos wrote:First of all there is no other GW ruling about how remove as a casualty abilities interract with remove from play abilities. So as you said you you need guidance, and ca use the SoB faq as a precedent.

As far as how different those abilities, they are essentially exactly the same up to the point that matters - the placing of the counter.

There were GW rulings (SW FAQ update removed the WBB references, specifically the one saying no WBB from JotWW). And you don't need a ruling - the ability is 100% playable without trying to conflate RFP and RFPaaC.
The multiple barrage from a single model was not. There were *zero* rules saying how to play it, meaning it was 100% useless.
RP/EL work just fine against RFPaaC. Get hit by Jaws? Not RFPaaC, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Are you also asserting that you can come back from a failed DoG?

Necrons had an FAQ come out. Nothing in it implies that EL/RP follow the same rules as MI.

There never was a ruling about WBB and JotWW. And anyway we are talking about EL not WBB...

edit: IG got a new faq too but no mention about the manticore. Same with any army with vehicles that has smoke launchers and can scout move...

copper.talos wrote:There never was a ruling about WBB and JotWW. And anyway we are talking about EL not WBB...

I'm pretty sure there was, but okay.

edit: IG got a new faq too but no mention about the manticore. Same with any army with vehicles that has smoke launchers and can scout move...

Right, so the Manticore either cannot ever fire (wat) or you use the guidance from the Eldar FAQ. It's not RAW, it probably is RAI.
The Scout/Smoke launcher thing is RAW. A vehicle can scout and fire smoke launchers. Although, the more you bring it up, I'd be okay with denying Dominions the ability to scout/smoke. And CSMs who have possessed that pick up Scout. RAI though, I think they'd work.

You have no basis for allowing RP/EL to work through RFP abilities. And by your argument, you're not just allowing EL - you're also allowing RP - since the counter placement method is the same.

The abilities work just fine so there's no reason to go looking for guidance in other FAQs. Since we know that RFP and RFPaaC are not the same thing, the former does not trigger RP/EL.

Sorry copper.talos, but rigeld2 is right: there was a FAQ ruling specifically mentioning JotWW and WBB.

I'm just going to look forward to an official FAQ on the Jaws/EL question, because it honestly is pretty broke against necron characters.

I disagree that it's that broke, but an FAQ would be welcome.

@wolfhead There never was a faq about WBB and JotWW. No faq ever adressed the remove from play and wbb issue. You are welcome to search of course. Same with EL and JotWW.
And again since now necrons have EL and RP which have completely different wordings with wbb, I don't find it relevant at all.

@rigeld2 Of course you could fire the manticore without the eldar faq. You could just roll scatter for each large blast. But there was indeed a need for guidance. So we use the eldar faq. And since there is a dispute about this from day 1 of the Necron codex, there sure is a need a guidance for EL & JotWW too. As is the case with manticore, one can use a similar faq as this purpose. And by the way, good luck trying to convince SoB players they can't use smoke launchers because the faq is about a baal predator