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.

http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2012/08/reserve-question/

If that's what it says in the rulebook, it sounds legit.

If you have to censor your title, you should probably just change it.

TheCaptain wrote:If you have to censor your title, you should probably just change it.

Im sorry that is just wow just the most ridiculous thing I have ever read, I mean come on because of a typo you get to roll for your opponents reserves?

valace2 wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:If you have to censor your title, you should probably just change it.

Im sorry that is just wow just the most ridiculous thing I have ever read, I mean come on because of a typo you get to roll for your opponents reserves?

Well... yeah. Don't blame your opponent for following the rules. It's GWs fault for not properly editing their rules.

For all we know, that could be how GW intended it to be.

It might be, because of things like death marks and stuff.

No no no no no no no no one in there right mind will play it like that unless your a power gamer and think itll give you an advantage and even then people who argue and say its right will end up arguing its wronmg when they see how much it messes there game up..

Overlord Zerrtin wrote:No no no no no no no no one in there right mind will play it like that unless your a power gamer and think itll give you an advantage and even then people who argue and say its right will end up arguing its wronmg when they see how much it messes there game up..

But that's what it says in the rulebook. GW may have very well intended to have it played this way. It's not power-gaming if you follow the rulebook. It's like saying that I'd be power-gaming for shooting in the shooting phase.

Clearly the should have said 'your turn'.

Clearly...because what actually happens if your reserves turn up in your opponents turn? There are currently no rules determining how to place them in a turn that is not your own..

Lukus83 wrote:Clearly...because what actually happens if your reserves turn up in your opponents turn? There are currently no rules determining how to place them in a turn that is not your own..

Would not be the first time that GW's rules have run themselves into a dead-end.

arguing that this is right is absolutely ridiculous it makes absolutely 0 sense you may play it if thats what you wanna do but i know for sure no one where i play is ever gonna play it like that so enjoy your messed up games!

Overlord Zerrtin wrote:arguing that this is right is absolutely ridiculous it makes absolutely 0 sense you may play it if thats what you wanna do but i know for sure no one where i play is ever gonna play it like that so enjoy your messed up games!

It's certainly not ridiculous. The rulebook supports it. What supports your claim?

I would agree that such a rule would be poorly thought out, and has a high possibility of being in error, but we can't say for sure until it is FAQ'd otherwise. Until then, play the game the way it's written.

I could similarly argue that you'd be power-gaming by choosing to ignore a rule because it would be in your benefit.

the rule book might not even have a typo maybe gw thought that the people who play there game had SOME common sense
rolling for your opponents reserves and have them walk on and immeadietly get shot to pieces with out even a chance to fire is incredibly stupid
plus through all the editions youve always rolled for your own reserves ALLWAYS

Overlord Zerrtin wrote:the rule book might not even have a typo maybe gw thought that the people who play there game had SOME common sense

Common sense implies following the rule as it is written. There is nothing that says otherwise, so you follow what it says in the rulebook.

By your logic, I could consider any part of the rulebook that I don't like to be a typo (does that mean I can call the entire rulebook a typo?).

rolling for your opponents reserves and have them walk on and immeadietly get shot to pieces with out even a chance to fire is incredibly stupid
plus through all the editions youve always rolled for your own reserves ALLWAYS

Inductive reasoning is not reasoning. 6th edition is full of many paradigm shifts. This may be intentionally be made as one of them.

Fafnir wrote:

Overlord Zerrtin wrote:arguing that this is right is absolutely ridiculous it makes absolutely 0 sense you may play it if thats what you wanna do but i know for sure no one where i play is ever gonna play it like that so enjoy your messed up games!

It's certainly not ridiculous. The rulebook supports it. What supports your claim?

I would agree that such a rule would be poorly thought out, and has a high possibility of being in error, but we can't say for sure until it is FAQ'd otherwise. Until then, play the game the way it's written.

I could similarly argue that you'd be power-gaming by choosing to ignore a rule because it would be in your benefit.

Would you honestly run it that way? I mean honestly... come on yer not like that right. If a rule said, "poke yourself in the eye with a sharp pencil" would you actually do it?

That is stupid. I don't blame GW - they expect people to not do that sort of thing.

valace2 wrote:
Would you honestly run it that way? I mean honestly... come on yer not like that right.

Absolutely I would run it that way. Similarly, I will shoot in the shooting phase, move in the movement phase, and assault in the assault phase, just as the rules properly outline.

If a rule said, "poke yourself in the eye with a sharp pencil" would you actually do it?

I would wonder why I was playing such a sadistic game in the first place.

yea, this is obviously not how your supposed to play it.

There are no rules for moving your units onto the board during your opponents turn. So, if you follow this interpretation, the game breaks.

Thus, don't do this.

Fafnir wrote:

Overlord Zerrtin wrote:the rule book might not even have a typo maybe gw thought that the people who play there game had SOME common sense

Common sense implies following the rule as it is written. There is nothing that says otherwise, so you follow what it says in the rulebook.

By your logic, I could consider any part of the rulebook that I don't like to be a typo (does that mean I can call the entire rulebook a typo?).

rolling for your opponents reserves and have them walk on and immeadietly get shot to pieces with out even a chance to fire is incredibly stupid
plus through all the editions youve always rolled for your own reserves ALLWAYS

Inductive reasoning is not reasoning. 6th edition is full of many paradigm shifts. This may be intentionally be made as one of them.

In the book it doesnt say you roll for just your reserves but it also doesnt say you roll for your opponents so your just infering what it meant also so you saying i have no point means you also do not

Fafnir wrote:

valace2 wrote:
Would you honestly run it that way? I mean honestly... come on yer not like that right.

Absolutely I would run it that way. Similarly, I will shoot in the shooting phase, move in the movement phase, and assault in the assault phase, just as the rules properly outline.

RAW this is only allowable if your opponent disagrees. If he doesn't want to play it like that, you are breaking the rules.

Overlord Zerrtin wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Overlord Zerrtin wrote:the rule book might not even have a typo maybe gw thought that the people who play there game had SOME common sense

Common sense implies following the rule as it is written. There is nothing that says otherwise, so you follow what it says in the rulebook.

By your logic, I could consider any part of the rulebook that I don't like to be a typo (does that mean I can call the entire rulebook a typo?).

rolling for your opponents reserves and have them walk on and immeadietly get shot to pieces with out even a chance to fire is incredibly stupid
plus through all the editions youve always rolled for your own reserves ALLWAYS

Inductive reasoning is not reasoning. 6th edition is full of many paradigm shifts. This may be intentionally be made as one of them.

In the book it doesnt say you roll for just your reserves but it also doesnt say you roll for your opponents so your just infering what it meant also so you saying i have no point means you also do not

It says roll a D6 for each unit held in reserves. Basic reading comprehension dictates that you roll for each unit in reserve. A unit in reserve is in reserve, regardless of who it belongs to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Testify wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

valace2 wrote:
Would you honestly run it that way? I mean honestly... come on yer not like that right.

Absolutely I would run it that way. Similarly, I will shoot in the shooting phase, move in the movement phase, and assault in the assault phase, just as the rules properly outline.

RAW this is only allowable if your opponent disagrees. If he doesn't want to play it like that, you are breaking the rules.

And similarly, if I want to play with my favourite model being S10, T10, W10, with a 36" movement range, and my opponent doesn't want to play like that, then he'd be breaking the rules.

I seriously wasn't expecting anyone to agree with this insanity, it is my hope that he is being argumentative for arguments sake an just to rile people up for having a problem with this insanity in the first place.

Horst wrote:yea, this is obviously not how your supposed to play it.

There are no rules for moving your units onto the board during your opponents turn. So, if you follow this interpretation, the game breaks.

Thus, don't do this.

Are you sure? Because it says quite clearly in the rules how units arrive from reserves, and does a good job of not specifying whether it is the active player's turn or not. In fact, RAW, typo or not, it makes perfect sense.

Really, to play it any other way, at least until there is an Errata on the matter, would be cherrypicking the rules.

The fact that it's never mentioned ONCE in all of GWs promotional videos, articles and interviews about the new edition tells me this is as idiotic as it sounds.

Of course, consider the idiotic source. The truth does hurt.

Fafnir wrote:
And similarly, if I want to play with my favourite model being S10, T10, W10, with a 36" movement range, and my opponent doesn't want to play like that, then he'd be breaking the rules.

Yes, you would.
I'm still right - you are not being RAW in your interpretation of this rule. You are injecting your own common sense.

Testify wrote:

Fafnir wrote:
And similarly, if I want to play with my favourite model being S10, T10, W10, with a 36" movement range, and my opponent doesn't want to play like that, then he'd be breaking the rules.

Yes, you would.
I'm still right - you are not being RAW in your interpretation of this rule. You are injecting your own common sense.

Then explain the RAW.

Fafnir wrote:
Really, to play it any other way, at least until there is an Errata on the matter, would be cherrypicking the rules.

No it wouldn't. Everyone interprets the rule in different ways - yours is objectively no better than anyone else's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fafnir wrote:
Then explain the RAW.

RAW is you roll for your own units at the start of your own turn.

Fafnir wrote:

Horst wrote:yea, this is obviously not how your supposed to play it.

There are no rules for moving your units onto the board during your opponents turn. So, if you follow this interpretation, the game breaks.

Thus, don't do this.

Are you sure? Because it says quite clearly in the rules how units arrive from reserves, and does a good job of not specifying whether it is the active player's turn or not. In fact, RAW, typo or not, it makes perfect sense.

Really, to play it any other way, at least until there is an Errata on the matter, would be cherrypicking the rules.

Your location explains a lot sir, I am glad that you don't game near me because I can say with absolute certainty that playing against you would be an exercise in frustration.

IF it was supposed to be played like this stupid nonsense then there ABSOLUTELY would have had a secion or two about it to explain and there isnt so you wouldnt