I've spent 45 minutes on various search engines and digging through books trying to figure out an answer to this question, to no avail. So if it's already been answered somewhere, my apologies for bringing it up again.

I'll keep the example simple, although I can think of progressively more complicated situations that are similar.

Opponent has an outflanking unit coming onto the board and rolls for his left side. Unfortunately that entire side has a wall of my troops standing shoulder to shoulder all the way across that edge, leaving him no place to deploy his outflankers, nor to move them past my troops since there is no way to fit his bases between the gaps between my bases.

What happens?

Do they come in on the other side? What if that side is blocked too? Do they go back into reserves? Are they destroyed? Does the very fabric of space-time rip asunder, ending the universe?

Destroyed.

While the outflanking units would be destroyed, I really doubt the situation would ever come up.

First, to cover 48" (4ft table edge) with less than 1" gap between each figure would require 25 models spaced just under 1" apart, and would be hard to maintain since any casualties would instantly open up holes.

Second, given the deployment types in the rulebook (spearhead, pitched battle, dawn of war), it's going to take several turns just to get regular infantry into position to cover an entire table edge. That's several turns that those infantry units probably aren't really contributing to the battle.

Third (and finally) if someone actually did manage to block the table edges, scouts and infiltrators DON'T have to try and outflank. They could just enter the table edge like regular reserve forces do.

While I agree that the situation is HIGHLY unlikely, the third point is somewhat wrong.
If you have chosen and declared that a given unit is going to outflank (which you do during deployment), your own board-edge is no longer available to that unit.

Well, what happened was this:

We handed each other army lists but neither of us was familiar with the opponents codex so we both shrugged and handed it back.

I won the roll to deploy/go first. I play Guard, set up my tanks, the rest of my army (a LOT of infantry) all have Light Infantry so will be infiltrating (but not outflanking) after his deployment.

His deployment, he places nothing, informs me he's running some sort of bike-heavy Space Marine list where virtually everything is outflanking, with the exception of a drop pod full of troops.

At which point we got to discussing what would happen if I then put my infiltrators shoulder to shoulder along the short table edges. Which I had more than enough infantry to do. Neither of us knew. We dug through the book for a few minutes, no answer. Really, it didnt really matter, it being a casual game I wouldnt have blocked the sides anyway since that wouldnt make for much fun. We were just curious what would happen if I had done that.

But between my non-outflanking infiltrators and the fact that I had my turn 1 and turn 2 to shuffle even non-infiltrating units around to block access, it wouldve been easily doable and pretty much an auto-win.

It could also come up with a heavily outflanking army bringing lots of squads in from a table edge but not moving away from it. So during opponents turn anything he outflanks that comes in behind them dies.

You get the idea. I admit it's not something you'll see often but I'm still suprised it isnt addressed in the core book.

If it did happen, I'd say use the failed deep strike table instead. If you roll opponent deploys, your opponent deploys the squad along any table edge where there is room to deploy (even the long sides).

Destroyed.

I believe there is a rule on page 92 that deals with circumventing rules that prevent a unit from moving onto the table.

G

Destroyed

Green Blow Fly wrote:I believe there is a rule on page 92 that deals with circumventing rules that prevent a unit from moving onto the table.

G

Erhm....could you elaborate a bit?

I believe that rule is in reguard to things like Turbo engines for Blood Angels and Rage.Rules that could result in a non-move. For the turn coming in from reserves you are not allowed to use them.
That rule is BRB pg.94

Ssyrie wrote:While the outflanking units would be destroyed, I really doubt the situation would ever come up.

First, to cover 48" (4ft table edge) with less than 1" gap between each figure would require 25 models spaced just under 1" apart, and would be hard to maintain since any casualties would instantly open up holes.

Second, given the deployment types in the rulebook (spearhead, pitched battle, dawn of war), it's going to take several turns just to get regular infantry into position to cover an entire table edge. That's several turns that those infantry units probably aren't really contributing to the battle.

Third (and finally) if someone actually did manage to block the table edges, scouts and infiltrators DON'T have to try and outflank. They could just enter the table edge like regular reserve forces do.

First, you don't need < 1" gaps; 2" coherency is more than adequate (as your enemy can't move a model w/in 1" of your models, and the 2" gap blocks that nicely).

Second, it's easier than you might think, particularly on spearhead deployments (or, as previously noted, with sufficient infiltrators/outflankers of your own). Deploy along the 24" side edge; turn 1, drive a transport forward 12" & unload a squad, while advancing some models up from the 24" line; turn 2, drive the transport further along, and spread the disembarked squad out. Pitched battle takes 1 turn longer, but that's still a blocked board edge on turn 3.

(Also as noted above, your third point is incorrect.)

Hmm. There is no rule on this in the book. You do however deploy from a board edge. It is not however like depolying from a vehicle. To deploy from a vehicle you exit the vehicle first and then move. It is also not deepstriking.

I think they best way to do this is to say the unit is not able to deploy and is held in reserve. If the unit never comes out then they are lost like a unit that was never able to deploy from a Monolith.

Destroyed. They must come on, and cannot do so. The rule on page 94 doesnt matter as it's not the Reserve unit's own rule that is stopping it (which is what pg 94 addresses).

These folks have got it, its the same idea if you're trying to deploy any unit and are unable to place the models (disembarking from a transport with exits blocked, etc.

1) They declared outflank, they must now outflank, this is their only deployment. You (outside of homebrewed rules) cannot just use the deepstrike mishap table, as they aren't deepstriking.

2) They have to come on but their deployment is blocked and impossible on the side.

3) The models are destroyed as they cannot be placed without coming into contact with enemy models or moving through enemy models..

Think of it as a group of models skulking into the side of the battlefield where several units are lined up and waiting for them.

After looking at the rules targetawg is 100% correct. The rules for Outflanking mean you have to come in on the table side you roll and if that means the side that is blocked then you are destroyed. Only a 1/3 chance of this though.

True, although in some cases (guard with infiltrators etc) you can easily block both sides.

My saim hann army has no problem blocking both sides on turn 1 in pitched battle or dawn of war, turn 2 in spearhead.

Bike squads are on flying bases (read, very large) and are 10 strong. Turboboost 24 inches plus deployments is pretty much the whole board edge. Just add in my transports having start engines (giving a 36 inch possible move) and I can block the whole darn thing.

I wouldn't do it of course, unless it was a tourney.

In that case, go scuttle yourselves to death genestealers/khan bike armies.

It is worth noting that tank shocks can still occur.

If the dedicated transport tanks roll in and push enough dudes out of the way, it's possible to get *some* units onto the field. Still not a great counter tactic.

I talked w/ the owner of a Local Gaming Store who was able to run his ork bikes, of which he had many, to the opponents deployment edge. Placing them sideways and under 1" apart he stopped the guys reserves and wiped him out shortly thereafter. That's from the horse's mouth, I didn't see it myself, so take it for what it's worth.

sourclams wrote:It is worth noting that tank shocks can still occur.

If the dedicated transport tanks roll in and push enough dudes out of the way, it's possible to get *some* units onto the field. Still not a great counter tactic.

Definitley noteworthy! I hadn't considered this possibility.

Although, not a lot of armies field outflanking vehicles, so as you said its quite limited. Still, not a bad idea.

targetawg wrote:

sourclams wrote:It is worth noting that tank shocks can still occur.

If the dedicated transport tanks roll in and push enough dudes out of the way, it's possible to get *some* units onto the field. Still not a great counter tactic.

Definitley noteworthy! I hadn't considered this possibility.

Although, not a lot of armies field outflanking vehicles, so as you said its quite limited. Still, not a bad idea.

Doesn't necessarily work. Opponent tried it on me a week or so back. He still lost his foot slogging squad and lost the vehicle the next turn to Death or GLory when it tried to tank shock away from the edge. Key is that you only have to move the unit being tankshocked the minimum necessary to get out of the way. And then only if the vehicle occupies the space that the unit was in, right? Soooooo if he tanks shocks through, I'm still lined up on the edge as I don't have to move. If he stays on the board edge, I've moved out of the way, but now he blocks the edge. And Reserves have to come on before regular moves, so he'll still be blocking the edge next turn when more outflankers try to come in.

don_mondo wrote:

targetawg wrote:

sourclams wrote:It is worth noting that tank shocks can still occur.

If the dedicated transport tanks roll in and push enough dudes out of the way, it's possible to get *some* units onto the field. Still not a great counter tactic.

Definitley noteworthy! I hadn't considered this possibility.

Although, not a lot of armies field outflanking vehicles, so as you said its quite limited. Still, not a bad idea.

Doesn't necessarily work. Opponent tried it on me a week or so back. He still lost his foot slogging squad and lost the vehicle the next turn to Death or GLory when it tried to tank shock away from the edge. Key is that you only have to move the unit being tankshocked the minimum necessary to get out of the way. And then only if the vehicle occupies the space that the unit was in, right? Soooooo if he tanks shocks through, I'm still lined up on the edge as I don't have to move. If he stays on the board edge, I've moved out of the way, but now he blocks the edge. And Reserves have to come on before regular moves, so he'll still be blocking the edge next turn when more outflankers try to come in.

A lot will depend on the size of the following foot-squad; the vehicle needs to stop 1.9" from the board edge (such that the blocking models cannot be moved between it & the board edge), which will give the foot squad room for 2 rows of 25mm bases, across the width of the vehicle. It's not great, but it's better than nothing.

according to the GW "ask your questions guy" they are held until they are able to enter play.

Good to know, you just have to make sure the rest of your models are not wiped out before you can remove enough of the enemy to allow your reserves to enter.

The issue simply isn't covered in the rules. There are many rules that might apply, but it is not clear which ones take precedence, or what happens when you can't follow all of them.

You must bring them on when they are available. No other option is allowed, there is no rule that says they get destroyed if they can't fit. So if they can't come on, are they destroyed? Or are the enemy models moved out of the way enough to get on the board? Or, since the rules clearly state you "must bring them on as soon as they are available", can you now use the long table edge instead.

There is a rule that states if a movement rule may disallow coming on the table (Rage, BA Engines, etc) you ignore that rule. So does that mean if one table edge is blocked, you ignore the Outlflank rule? Do you ignore it totally, or only if you roll the blocked side?

It makes just as much sense to say they can't be stopped, as to say they get destroyed.
I am looking forward to a FAQ/errata on the situation.

Until then, it seems the best/fairest option is for them to stay off the table until they can come on. It is still a disadvantage, without being a game-breaker.

Ssyrie wrote:While the outflanking units would be destroyed, I really doubt the situation would ever come up.

First, to cover 48" (4ft table edge) with less than 1" gap between each figure would require 25 models spaced just under 1" apart, and would be hard to maintain since any casualties would instantly open up holes.

Second, given the deployment types in the rulebook (spearhead, pitched battle, dawn of war), it's going to take several turns just to get regular infantry into position to cover an entire table edge. That's several turns that those infantry units probably aren't really contributing to the battle.

Third (and finally) if someone actually did manage to block the table edges, scouts and infiltrators DON'T have to try and outflank. They could just enter the table edge like regular reserve forces do.

Slightly off on point 1. The blocking models only need to be 2" apart, as trying to go between them would bring you within 1", thereby blocking you. You'd want to be 1.5" from each board edge, so your down to 45" that you have to cover, and each small base is just under an inch. Call it an inch for ease of math, 1 inch each side of each model, so 3 inches per model, 45 inches, 15 models, call it 16 to cover the ~16th of an inch the bases are smaller. In theory you could do that with one unit, provided it's one of the races that can have a model count in a unit of 15+. Practically speaking it's not going to happen, as it would take a couple of turns to spread out that far, and you really couldn't afford casualties during the process.

coredump wrote:

There is a rule that states if a movement rule may disallow coming on the table (Rage, BA Engines, etc) you ignore that rule. So does that mean if one table edge is blocked, you ignore the Outlflank rule? Do you ignore it totally, or only if you roll the blocked side?

It makes just as much sense to say they can't be stopped, as to say they get destroyed.
I am looking forward to a FAQ/errata on the situation.

Not quite correct, it actually says that if the unit in Reserve has a special rule forcing it to move in a specific direction or that could stop it from moving, the rule is ignored. This is not a unit specific rule, this is a main rulebook rule (cannot move within 1", etc) that is preventing the unit from moving on. So the Arriving From Reserves on page 94 doesn't quite apply.

Ssyrie wrote:While the outflanking units would be destroyed, I really doubt the situation would ever come up.

First, to cover 48" (4ft table edge) with less than 1" gap between each figure would require 25 models spaced just under 1" apart, and would be hard to maintain since any casualties would instantly open up holes.

Second, given the deployment types in the rulebook (spearhead, pitched battle, dawn of war), it's going to take several turns just to get regular infantry into position to cover an entire table edge. That's several turns that those infantry units probably aren't really contributing to the battle.

Third (and finally) if someone actually did manage to block the table edges, scouts and infiltrators DON'T have to try and outflank. They could just enter the table edge like regular reserve forces do.

You're missing two key points.

Re your first, yep, takes a number of models and holes could potentially be blown in the line. So deploy them with some redundancy, double line, etc. Not hard to do.

Re your second, Infiltration! They start in position, blocking the table edge. Works best (the whole tactic pretty much only works) in Spearhead deployment. In addition, it provides nice clean lanes of fire for those units lined along the board edge from turn one, using their long ranged weaponry to contribute to the battle.

Re you third. Those Infiltrators mentioined above don't go out until after your opponent has declared Outflank, at which point they do indeed have to try and outflank. So no, they can't enter normally.

Don has it right there, the rules are for specific unit rules. Not these circumstances.

Of course any vehicle, skimmer, jetbike, or jump pack unit easily circumvents this tactic. As stated as well, any casualties to the line of guys opens up gaps.

What about the rule on page 92 that says you ignore other rules that keep units from entering the field of battle when held in reserve? An example is a BA rhino with OCE that rolls a 1 when coming in.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:What about the rule on page 92 that says you ignore other rules that keep units from entering the field of battle when held in reserve? An example is a BA rhino with OCE that rolls a 1 when coming in.

G

Page 94 says to ignore special rules of the unit which could stop it from moving. So, no bonus move for the BA's when arriving from off of the board because of the chance for mishap. But it doesn't say to ignore all rules which stop it from entering.

I don't buy into the destroyed thing.

I get that they have to move on as part of an outflank move and they legally can't but it's a big leap to say they are destroyed simply because the rule isn't covered properly.

Personally I think there's nothing that makes "they get destroyed" any more accurate than "they stay in reserves" or "they leap over their enemies' heads".

This is dumb and here is why. Apart from gaming the system you accomplish nothing but a fight over rules. This does nothing but attempts to circumvent rules that were clearly designed to allow a unit outflank.

The tactic is unsound and is wasteful at best. You essentially tie up hundreds of points of forces to prevent a handful of "infiltrators" from entering the board in turn 2 or later. While sacrificing those same points in an effort toward the victory conditions. In the real military you would be a tactical idiot.

In real life, the effect you are looking for is called a flank screen or flank guard. The purpose of which is to gain and maintain contact with the enemy on the flank (screen) or prevent the enemy form making contact with the main body (guard).

Marcus Iago Geruasius wrote:This is dumb and here is why. Apart from gaming the system you accomplish nothing but a fight over rules. This does nothing but attempts to circumvent rules that were clearly designed to allow a unit outflank.

The tactic is unsound and is wasteful at best. You essentially tie up hundreds of points of forces to prevent a handful of "infiltrators" from entering the board in turn 2 or later. While sacrificing those same points in an effort toward the victory conditions. In the real military you would be a tactical idiot.

In real life, the effect you are looking for is called a flank screen or flank guard. The purpose of which is to gain and maintain contact with the enemy on the flank (screen) or prevent the enemy form making contact with the main body (guard).

Well when orks start to overrun Kansas, I’ll start to worry about "real life" tactics.

They are destroyed.

The rule on page 94 doesn’t apply because it is very specific. It is very clear, it identifies that the unit in reserve must have the rule stopping it or directing its movement such as RAGE. The word "it" is referring to the unit in reserve wishing to enter the game. That 1 sentence on page 94 doesn’t make any mention of an ENEMY unit having an ability that would stop the reserve unit. An enemy special rule or power would still be in play. Like a rule that stated "an enemy unit cannot deploy within 12" OR cannot move within 12" on the turn they arrive from reserve".

Rules are part of the game...we must all play and live within the rules as written. If a player wants to create a force that he thinks has a BIG advantage utilizing a special rule and makes his force 1 dimensional to such an extreme as to forego other tactics in an attempt to bum rush his opponent on turn 2. Then I have just as much right to deploy ALL my infiltrators along the whole edge of the table to counter his tactic and to remove 33% of his possible entry points...since it is a dice roll that determines the side.

If he rolls the side I have blocked...they cannot enter and are destroyed. I can argue that "they got lost".

Now here is where it can get creative...depending on how I feel that day depends on if I want to work with my opponent on a solution. Spirit of the games stuff...GT "sportsmanship" stuff. OR if he can be quick thinking enough to pull a rabbit out of his hat like a vehicle that can TANK SHOCK it's way on as was stated earlier.

That is just the way things are and as Herm Edwards would say "that is why we play the game".

My $0.02
Happy New Year Everyone
Brass

You essentially tie up hundreds of points of forces to prevent a handful of "infiltrators" from entering the board in turn 2 or later.

There are armies where the entire army Outflanks.

And there are also armies that can lock out a board edge with less than 200 pts worth of guys.

So the fact that the unit is in reserve and has the special rule Outflank does not come under the effect of the rule on page 94? Sorry if I come across as being thick headed, just would like to make sure. I will read the rules this morning for self clarification.

G

Im also abit curious, what rule do you find that actually supports them beeing destroyed?

Okay I read the rule on page 94 and can see a case being made that since the outflanking unit does have a special rule which in this instance is preventing them from moving onto the board edge it could apply. They do have to move in a specific direction as well since you roll to see which table edge they enter upon.

G

Again it is an attempt to circumvent the rules, and should be treated as such. it isn't like the there is a 4' x 6' flat asteroid floating around in space... there is ground on every side of the boards edge.

The same as saying a unit is destroyed if they cannot come in the turn they are rolled for in reserves... There is no rule in place to support that.

G

Kallbrand wrote:Im also abit curious, what rule do you find that actually supports them beeing destroyed?

Page 108 my friends. Under the subject heading VICTORY POINTS subsection "Units destroyed".

"Units Falling back or off the battlefield count as DESTROYED."

Another example would be to read the Deep Strike section...although I agree this is not specific to the debate The precedent is being set a second time here when a unit that cannot enter the game or table is considered very BAD for the owning player. Under the MISHAP table a roll of a 5-6.

"If the unit is unlucky enough to roll this result in turn 5 or later and then the game ends while it is still in reserve, it sadly counts as destroyed."

The bottom line here is this...if the unit cannot enter play at the end of the game it is counted as destroyed. It has always been this way. You can hang around another hour to pretend that your playing through 5-6 turns...but sooner or later they are destroyed as long as the blocking line is in order. If the opponent can breach it in some way then all bets are off.

The argument at the table would revolve around the timing of when they become destroyed. Some would argue that it happens immediately, I personally would allow the player to keep his guys off table until he found a way to breach the blockade. But if all he had left were Outflanking troops and BOTH sides were blocked...I win per the rules for WIPE OUT!

Again...there are things in the rules that can circumvent this tactic. For example a unit outflanking on Jetbikes since they can move OVER models.

Blocking table edges IS a valid tactic.

Brass

Marcus Iago Geruasius wrote:Again it is an attempt to circumvent the rules, and should be treated as such. it isn't like the there is a 4' x 6' flat asteroid floating around in space... there is ground on every side of the boards edge.

In 40K the world is FLAT and in order to be a GOOD general you need to come to that realization. If you want to make a house rule that says it isn't, then that is perfectly acceptable. But to bring into any debate on these forums that "in real life" this or that would OR wouldn't happen. You'll be putting yourself through a lot of misery using logic.

Go to GW's website and open the 1st Errata/FAQ PDF on the rules. Read the last FAQ on page 1 that mentions the formation of the 40k world and who should know this.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&start=2

Brass

The counts as destroyed rule only comes about after the last turn is finished.

G

Brasscorpion wrote:Page 108 my friends. Under the subject heading VICTORY POINTS subsection "Units destroyed".

"Units Falling back or off the battlefield count as DESTROYED."

Another example would be to read the Deep Strike section...although I agree this is not specific to the debate The precedent is being set a second time here when a unit that cannot enter the game or table is considered very BAD for the owning player. Under the MISHAP table a roll of a 5-6.

"If the unit is unlucky enough to roll this result in turn 5 or later and then the game ends while it is still in reserve, it sadly counts as destroyed."

The bottom line here is this...if the unit cannot enter play at the end of the game it is counted as destroyed. It has always been this way. You can hang around another hour to pretend that your playing through 5-6 turns...but sooner or later they are destroyed as long as the blocking line is in order. If the opponent can breach it in some way then all bets are off.

The argument at the table would revolve around the timing of when they become destroyed. Some would argue that it happens immediately, I personally would allow the player to keep his guys off table until he found a way to breach the blockade. But if all he had left were Outflanking troops and BOTH sides were blocked...I win per the rules for WIPE OUT!

Again...there are things in the rules that can circumvent this tactic. For example a unit outflanking on Jetbikes since they can move OVER models.

Blocking table edges IS a valid tactic.

Brass

That's all well and good if you keep it blocked till the end of the battle, but it in no way supports the theory other people are putting forward which suggests the unit is destroyed instantaneously and cannot come onto the table in future turns.

Green Blow Fly wrote:What about the rule on page 92 that says you ignore other rules that keep units from entering the field of battle when held in reserve? An example is a BA rhino with OCE that rolls a 1 when coming in.

G

You mean the one we've been discussing in the posts right above yours? The one that says that if a unit has a special rule that would prevent it from coming on, that rule is ignored. Notice that it only applies to the unit's own special rules, nothing else. Doesn't affect main rules like not being able to move within 1" of the enemy as that is not a unit special rule. So, as previously stated, nope, that rule has no effect on the question at hand.

Let's look at the other options that have been put forward.

1. Stay in Reserve. Nope, nothing in the rule says that units unable to outflank may be held or returned to reserve. There are a couple of instances where this can occur. Dark Eldar Warp Portal and Necron Monolith/Necron Warrior special Reserve rule come to mind. Check 'em out. Both have explicit statements allowing the units unable to come onto the table to be stacked or held in reserve. To repeat myself, no such statement exists in the outflank rules.

2. Mishap chart. Pure and simple, they're no deepstriking, so the chart has no effect.

3. Destroyed. No rules stating that the unit is destroyed, but this is the only option that has any sort of rules precedence, ie the unable to disembark from a destroyed vehicle within 1" of enemy models.
In addition, historical precedence (Space Puppy Scouts/ Operate Behind Enemy Lines). Way back when, GW said that if a SW Scout unit was unable to enter play due to a picket fence along the back edge, the scouts were destroyed. Fluff: Caught by rear area security, unable to reach the batlle, whatever.

I think you have missed my point as Outflank is a special rule for the unit held in reserve. If it were me I would go second and deploy these units in a normal fashion if I saw some guard player lining up all his units along the table edge.

G

I do see what you're saying but it's not the outflank rule that is preventing them from coming on, it is the main rules (ie cannot move within 1" of the enemy model). Same as if you had units in regular Reserve, and I managed to line up along your long edge. It's not the Reserve rule that is preventing you from coming on, it's the main rules.

And you wouldn't see them lined up along the edge (against me, at least) until AFTER you had declared outflank, since most of the units I use for it do so by Infiltrate.
For what it's worth, I do regularly warn opponents (even at GTs) about the possible consequences..........

I don't believe this is a RAW argument, because I don't believe there is a specific rules argument one way or the other for what happens. I will say this, if any rule comes up during a friendly game that me and my opponent cannot decide the outcome of, we usually come to an amiable conclusion.
Having said that I believe the way this should be played is that the unit that is outflanking should be held off until a time at which they can be brought on. Again that is not a RAW argument as I feel there is none and this topic should be moved to the 40k Proposed rules forum.

Daggermaw wrote:I don't believe this is a RAW argument, because I don't believe there is a specific rules argument one way or the other for what happens. I will say this, if any rule comes up during a friendly game that me and my opponent cannot decide the outcome of, we usually come to an amiable conclusion.
Having said that I believe the way this should be played is that the unit that is outflanking should be held off until a time at which they can be brought on. Again that is not a RAW argument as I feel there is none and this topic should be moved to the 40k Proposed rules forum.

Spot on Daggermaw.

Remember that the 1st and most important rule to 40k is to have a fun and friendly game. This interpretation is in the spirit of that rule.

As always, you and your opponent can agree to play it in any fashion you desire. Heck, you can change rules you don't like if you want to. However, IMO, the unit being destroyed is the answer that comes closest to following given rules. Also, it was the answer for the US GTs this past year. And it wasn't an off-the-cuff answer, it was debated and decided on prior to the first US GT, along with Star Engine Ramming (no) and several other issues taht we thought needed to be covered.

Hey, this is such a cool tactic. you could get mass of units that can infiltrate and then use them to not only block the two flanks but also block the opponent own table side! Wow you would be the coolest 4x6 general in all the lands!
We would rename you army "The lords of pwngage" and they would rule!

Munchkins!

They cannot move onto the table as much because they have Outflank in regards to not being able to move 1" onto the table away from enemy units. They would not be in that situation except for the special rule so I give it preference. There are no rules currently that adequately handle this type of situation. I posted here not too long ago about using tank shock to force an enemy unit to move in such a way as they could not maintain the proper separating distance from enemy units and the conclusion was the same. I would also be careful about using non official rulings from previous editions of the game. You don't see people here using rules from 2nd editions to make a point.

G

Centurian99 wrote:Destroyed.

yes if there is absolutely no place for them to go, I find it hard to believe that your opp. had an entire 4 foot board edge filled to the last inch with models. It woud take at least a 4k point hoard army to maybe do that, maybe.

Ive never seen that even in 40000 point Apoc games

Except that 16 models with 25 mm bases is enough.
You can block both edges with 4 units of guard light infantry. That's 280 points.

Are we still discussing this?

Hee.

As always, you and your opponent can agree to play it in any fashion you desire. Heck, you can change rules you don't like if you want to. However, IMO, the unit being destroyed is the answer that comes closest to following given rules. Also, it was the answer for the US GTs this past year. And it wasn't an off-the-cuff answer, it was debated and decided on prior to the first US GT, along with Star Engine Ramming (no) and several other issues taht we thought needed to be covered.

I could see where one might like to think that's the answer, because it would be a pretty cool trick to pull on someone. But the fact is the rules support neither decision. There are few instances in the rules where a unit is outright destroyed without even rolling a dice and this isn't one of them.
As far as the GT's and any other tournaments are concerned and whatever rules they play, those are not RAW, they are an interpretation of rules that need clarifying. Much as some times the Supreme Court rules on constitutional issues that are RAW vs RAI. But here in this forum which is strictly RAW, this question cannot be answered, and again I say this should be moved to 40k proposed rules.

Don Mondo: I am intrigued that you admit there is no clear answer. Yet you are willing to accept old SW rules as a precedence, but toss out the web way portal and Monolith as poor precedence.


What we have are rules that run against each other.

The models *must* be brought on
The models *can't* come within 1"

One of those rules must be broken; they can't both be used.
As The Don points out, there is nothing in the rules that supports
1)keeping them in reserve, or
2using the mishap table.
But there is also nothing in the rules that supports
3) declaring them dead (before the end of the game), or
4)allow them to come in on a different table edge, or
5) allow them to 'skip over' the blocking units


There is precedence for keeping them in reserve, but it has specific language to cover that.
The precedence for destroying units coming out of transports, however, *also* has specific wording stating that.


The rules say we must do two things, that can't *both* be done. I see no reason to assume that one side gets destroyed. I see nothing in the rules that implies that over any other option.

Note, when you pivot a vehicle (not just a tank), it moves enemy infantry out of the way, without tank shocking. Perhaps Outflanking units can move enemy units out of the way. There is precedence in the rules for that.

Yep, no clear rules, absoutuely. So what has GW said in similar circumstances, ie the SW Scouts (which also had no clear answer in the rules)? Is that not a good enough reason to accept it, since it's the most similar circumstance of all those mentioned?
Anyways, I realize I'm not going to change people's minds, and mine isn't going to be changed. We've all laid out our POV so the OP has knowledge of the different viewpoints. And some are starting to take it a little personally, soooo.............. Moving on.

Very good to see us working togehter for consensus on a tough topic.

G

So the concensus is that the very fabric of gaming space-time rips asunder and the Necrons rejoice?

I'd like to note again that when it came up (admittedly not during a tournament) we discussed what would happen briefly and I just decided to bunker up via infiltrate in the middle, so we could actually play a fun game.

And some are starting to take it a little personally, soooo.............. Moving on.

At the risk of sounding overly sensitive.... If my post sounded like I was taking things personally, I apologize for not being more clear.

I was not taking any of this personally.

I can see only two ways to play this.

Nice way.
They can't come in this turn and are held in reserve.

Mean way.
They are destroyed.

Ok find the way to play it.

Ok find the way to play it.

Okay, it's so suppose it's a tournament.

How is it handled?

Tournament organizers really cant solve a perfectly valid (and in the ocassional game VERY important) rules question with "find a way to play it".

I think a lot of TOs would say wait until they can come in rather than simply declare the unit destroyed. The reason being they want players to enjoy their games and return.

G

Destroyed.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I think a lot of TOs would say wait until they can come in rather than simply declare the unit destroyed. The reason being they want players to enjoy their games and return.

G

Well, the US GT 2008 answer was Destroyed. The Games Day 2009 RTT answer will likely be Destroyed. In fact, I haven't been to a tourney that didn't say Destroyed.................

There are no rules specifying that it is destroyed. So you can either:

1) Go by the answer provided by GW support: "wait and try again another turn"

2) Appeal to an event organizer. I've seen only "wait till another turn" rulings at tournaments thus far.

3) Come to an agreement with yor opponent either by discussion or rolling dice.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I think you have missed my point as Outflank is a special rule for the unit held in reserve. If it were me I would go second and deploy these units in a normal fashion if I saw some guard player lining up all his units along the table edge.

G

The problem is that it is not a special rule by the outflanking unit that is preventing them from moving. What prevents them from moving is a main rule book rule that states the moving unit may not come with 1" of an enemy model.

Pg 94 states that if the moving unit has a special rule that will prevent it from moving onto the board, you ignore that rule. It never mentions an exemption from any other thing that would prevent them from coming onto the board, such as enemy models or impassable terrain.

Semantics dear boy.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Semantics dear boy.

Which is the equivalent to saying that he is reading words and interpreting what they mean.

We are all using semantics the moment we start to say what the rulebook says...or even the moment we begin to type a post on the forum.

I understand that. People are on other side of the fence on this one as far as the phrasing goes.

G

This happened to me yesterday. I was stunned that it worked.

I had a Ravenwing bike squad held in reserve. My Ork opponent took two 7 boy bike squads and spaced them apart refusing my right flank or the 3-4 result for outflanking. He did this on turn 2 and left them there for 2 turns. I rolled for reserves on turn 2, got them, rolled a 4. I specifically recalled this discussion. I put them back in reserves after my opponent agreed. Turn 3, I had the exact same result, got reserves and rolled 4. His turn 4 he moved both squads away and did stuff with them. I rolled gain and got them and had my choice of flanks. I took the abbandoned one.

****Note He used 2 200+ pt bike squads to do this. My squad was 285 pts. Our mission was Capture and Control/Spearhead. Easily blocked flank for him.

Simply saying destroyed is a bit harsh, but I understand the merits. Maybe a FAQ can solve.

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:
Simply saying destroyed is a bit harsh, but I understand the merits. Maybe a FAQ can solve.

No Need for an FAQ. Rules are as Clear as day. If you see your opponent doing this, all you have to do is kill enough models to have a gap at one end of more than 1" from the corners so to speak, so the unit can move on safely.

Gwar! wrote:

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:
Simply saying destroyed is a bit harsh, but I understand the merits. Maybe a FAQ can solve.

No Need for an FAQ. Rules are as Clear as day. If you see your opponent doing this, all you have to do is kill enough models to have a gap at one end of more than 1" from the corners so to speak, so the unit can move on safely.

Read again.

Reserves come on at beginning of turn. I had no opportunity to shoot them. Keep in mind we were playing a Spearhead deloyment mission.

We need a FAQ for rules clarity. Many doubt this tactic can happen and work. Well, I'm telling you it did and was done quite easily.

Green Blow Fly wrote:What about the rule on page 92 that says you ignore other rules that keep units from entering the field of battle when held in reserve? An example is a BA rhino with OCE that rolls a 1 when coming in.

G

don_mondo wrote:Not quite correct, it actually says that if the unit in Reserve has a special rule forcing it to move in a specific direction or that could stop it from moving, the rule is ignored. This is not a unit specific rule, this is a main rulebook rule (cannot move within 1", etc) that is preventing the unit from moving on. So the Arriving From Reserves on page 94 doesn't quite apply.

Reading the thread is hard I hear.

don_mondo wrote:Yep, no clear rules, absoutuely. So what has GW said in similar circumstances, ie the SW Scouts (which also had no clear answer in the rules)? Is that not a good enough reason to accept it, since it's the most similar circumstance of all those mentioned?

Not given GW's track record of changing or completely reversing (for no apparent reason) previous rulings on the exact same issue, let alone a merely similar one, like the SW WG battle leader now being allowed heavy weapons, whereas previously the answer was a resounding NO.

Wow, you called someone a "munchkin", Marcus Iago Geruasius...

You aren't from around here, are you?

I realize this is an old thread but had another question...

What if the unit...say it is a Land Raider is Outflanking (Khan and assuming termies bought it as a dedicated transport) but instead of being prevented from coming on the board can only come on say 4 inches. Assume the opponent unit was 5 inches from the board edge instead of right on it.

So some portion of the vehicle is hanging off the edge. Is that legal?

anjinson wrote:I realize this is an old thread but had another question...

What if the unit...say it is a Land Raider is Outflanking (Khan and assuming termies bought it as a dedicated transport) but instead of being prevented from coming on the board can only come on say 4 inches. Assume the opponent unit was 5 inches from the board edge instead of right on it.

So some portion of the vehicle is hanging off the edge. Is that legal?

There are no rules to cover it either way.

usernamesareannoying wrote:according to the GW "ask your questions guy" they are held until they are able to enter play.

I'm going to go with this SINCE GW SAID IT.

Mattlov wrote:

usernamesareannoying wrote:according to the GW "ask your questions guy" they are held until they are able to enter play.

I'm going to go with this SINCE GW SAID IT.

OMG WELLZ I ASKED DEMZ AND DEY SAIDZ DEY WOZ DESTWOYEZ!

GW "Ask your questions guy" is either some random Joe Soap in Nottingham or John Spenser, who doesn't know the rules and is also a box packer.

Doesn't matter. Still employed by GW to answer and provide rulings for these questions, so has more authority than anyone I know making their argument in this thread.

Mattlov wrote:Doesn't matter. Still employed by GW to answer and provide rulings for these questions, so has more authority than anyone I know making their argument in this thread.

No, he is not. He does it in his own spare time. His answers are no more official than Yakfaces. In Fact, Yakfaces rulings have a lot more work put into them. In fact, yakface has written half the GW FAQs. I think you should listen to him over some Box Packer.

Keep it simple - Destroyed.

This balances risk of destruction against the reward of being able to be in a great position.

Gwar! wrote:

Mattlov wrote:Doesn't matter. Still employed by GW to answer and provide rulings for these questions, so has more authority than anyone I know making their argument in this thread.

No, he is not. He does it in his own spare time. His answers are no more official than Yakfaces. In Fact, Yakfaces rulings have a lot more work put into them. In fact, yakface has written half the GW FAQs. I think you should listen to him over some Box Packer.

I do not see a response from Yakface.

I know his credentials, but he has decided not to join this thread. Likewise, no one has linked to this answer either, so Yakface has no point to this discussion AT THIS TIME.

GW makes the game. I don't care who answers the phone, they are getting paid by GW to make rulings on GW games. I don't care what else he/she/it might do. They make the game. They are above even Yakface unless Yak is a paid employee of GW.

I'll take their ruling over even his.

Also, how much time they put into it is unknown. Maybe they pick up the emergency red phone that goes straight to Jervis. I hope not, but maybe they do. There could be effort put into it. Dismissing it until proven otherwise is foolhardy.

Mattlov wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Mattlov wrote:Doesn't matter. Still employed by GW to answer and provide rulings for these questions, so has more authority than anyone I know making their argument in this thread.

No, he is not. He does it in his own spare time. His answers are no more official than Yakfaces. In Fact, Yakfaces rulings have a lot more work put into them. In fact, yakface has written half the GW FAQs. I think you should listen to him over some Box Packer.

I do not see a response from Yakface.

I know his credentials, but he has decided not to join this thread. Likewise, no one has linked to this answer either, so Yakface has no point to this discussion AT THIS TIME.

GW makes the game. I don't care who answers the phone, they are getting paid by GW to make rulings on GW games. I don't care what else he/she/it might do. They make the game. They are above even Yakface unless Yak is a paid employee of GW.

I'll take their ruling over even his.

Also, how much time they put into it is unknown. Maybe they pick up the emergency red phone that goes straight to Jervis. I hope not, but maybe they do. There could be effort put into it. Dismissing it until proven otherwise is foolhardy.

I am a paid employee of GW, I say John Spenser is Wrong.

Care to disprove me?

As I have said before, there are NO RULES to cover this situation, it is up to the players to decide how to deal with it.

Well, I would ask somehow that you prove you are an employee, since I have never heard anything to that effect (and my ninjas aren't watching you. YET.).

I do not need to disprove you. All that has been proven is I can surmise you are BOTH wrong, since you should be saying the same thing as "company men."

Therefore, I decree outflanking units may chhose NOT to move in the movement phase, are not permitted to fire in the shooting pahse, but may ASSAULT onto the board, allowing them to appear.

*Sarcasm Engine at Level 8.86*

The difference being, of course, that John Spenser gives an official response on behalf of the company, whereas Gwar does not.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The difference being, of course, that John Spenser gives an official response on behalf of the company, whereas Gwar does not.

No, he doesn't. John Spencer did not write the codexes or the FAQ's, he is by his own admission, nothing more but a bog standard GW employee who answers questions in his spare time.

Is he not officially answering questions posed directly to GW?

Then whether he does it in his spare time or not, he's still giving official answers.

You have no official standing with GW to answer questions.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Is he not officially answering questions posed directly to GW?

Then whether he does it in his spare time or not, he's still giving official answers.

You have no official standing with GW to answer questions.

You misunderstand. he is NOT giving official answers. He is giving his answer, which is not endorsed by GW. The only Official Answers are the Errata. Even the FAQ's are not official, just proposed house rules.

The difference is, if I submit a question to GW.com, John Spenser gives the answer.

Ergo, he's the official answerer.

Unlike you.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The difference is, if I submit a question to GW.com, John Spenser gives the answer.

Ergo, he's the official answerer.

Unlike you.

What kind of Banana Logic is that? He just answers questions in his own spare time. They are no more official than the INAT FAQ, or any of GW's FAQ's (which as I already told you, define themselves as unofficial).

So, ergo, he is not official.

Gwar! wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The difference is, if I submit a question to GW.com, John Spenser gives the answer.

Ergo, he's the official answerer.

Unlike you.

What kind of Banana Logic is that? He just answers questions in his own spare time. They are no more official than the INAT FAQ, or any of GW's FAQ's (which as I already told you, define themselves as unofficial).

So, ergo, he is not official.

I think at this point we need to realize that JohnHwangDD is stumbling along the notorious "Rules Boyz answers are official" path, smile politely, and be on our way.

They are officiallly unofficial since John is the official sole answer person at the end of the official answer submission system that GW put in place.

His rulings are not recognized as official as in binding in the way errata are, but he is the official answer person for GW currently. He has said he has access to the design studio for answers.

His answers are one small step below official FAQ answers. They are a massive step above anyone not part of the design studio. That's my opinion.

Kaaihn wrote:They are officiallly unofficial since John is the official sole answer person at the end of the official answer submission system that GW put in place.

His rulings are not recognized as official as in binding in the way errata are, but he is the official answer person for GW currently. He has said he has access to the design studio for answers. His answers are one small step below official FAQ answers. They are a massive step above anyone not part of the design studio.

That's my opinion.

So we can all agree Yakface, having written most of the GW FAQ's, holds more weight than Joe Soap at GW?

I was under the impression that Yak compiles the questions and brings them to the Design Team's attention? He said as much in a thread somewhere, IIRC.

John Spencer IS the person GW appointed as their answer guy, for e-mailed submissions. Nothing the Little Troll says will change that.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:John Spencer IS the person GW appointed as their answer guy, for e-mailed submissions. Nothing the Little Troll says will change that.

Sure GW might have "appointed" him, but then they muddied the waters by forgetting one simple little thing. I have yet to see a statement from GW, that gives the official stamp of approval for the answers. One line at their website to the effect: " the answers given are official and endorsed by the Studio and as such will be incorporated in the next relevant Errata/FAQ update", would end all the debate. But its pretty obvious they are not going to do that.

As for the original question? KISS- principle is the best: Destroyed.

Gwar, you are not only wrong, you are lying. You have even been corrected before, but you continue to lie about this.

To anyone else that gives a damn.

John Spencer is paid by GW to answer rules questions. That is specifically one of his job responsibilities. While it is not his only responsibility, it is not something he does in his 'spare time'. Since many people have gotten almost instant responses, he must be devoting a decent amount of time to this aspect of his job.
Further, to avoid the "Rule boyz" problems of the past, John is the *only* person tasked with answering the rules questions for both the USA and (recently) Canada. And they have implemented an internal wiki system for tracking the questions and answers; to help with consistency.

Further, he is not a "box packer"; while it has absolutely no relevance to his position to answer rules questions; John has stated he has not packed a box in several years. For whatever reason, Gwar treats this as an insult, or at least a method to insinuate that John is of 'no consequence'.

Finally, Yak did not write any of the GW FAQs. He, along with others, had some input on what questions should be answered, and their opinions of what the answers should be. But it was GW that made the decisions and determined the 'correct' answers. Sometimes directly contradicting what Yak would have answered.


Now, it is up to each person/group to determine if they are going to abide by John's rulings or not. But to continually try and smear him is just childish.

coredump wrote:Words

And this makes him official because....

Because the GW website says to refer rules questions to him?

GW Customer Service page:

Please note: Rules questions and gaming related problems can only be answered via email please contact us at askyourquestion@games-workshop.com and we will respond within 3 business days.

Since John is the person appointed at the other end of that e-mail, he IS the "Official" rules guy until further notice.

No, he is not. He gives his opinion. Unless the Authors respond themselves, they cannot be taken as RaW nor RaI.

As for the Wiki thing, that is a load of crap. If he had a wiki, he could make it publicly viewable. Any IT grad student could do it in a week, Hell, even I have set up a Public Read private Write Wiki. There are millions of Free Wiki softwares to use. He doesn't do it because he doesn't have a wiki.

LOL...so GW makes him the rules answer guy, but since the authors (who he has access to) don't deign to answer directly, then they aren't "official" enough for you? lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

anjinson wrote:

What if the unit...say it is a Land Raider is Outflanking (Khan and assuming termies bought it as a dedicated transport) but instead of being prevented from coming on the board can only come on say 4 inches. Assume the opponent unit was 5 inches from the board edge instead of right on it.

So some portion of the vehicle is hanging off the edge. Is that legal?

A Land Raider can easily get onto the table by Tank Shocking through the line of enemies, then yo uget out and assault their pretty little line and it all goes to hell.

But no, you cannot have a portion of a vehicle hanging off-table.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:But no, you cannot have a portion of a vehicle hanging off-table.

Sure you can! The INAT FAQ (Which is no more official than Joe Bloggs or whatever his name is) says you can!

Are we really back on this merry-go-round spinning around Mr. Spencer? Seriously?

Even if it does destroy the units it would take a serious dill weed to use that tactic. Basically, anyone that uses that kind of tactic is just a little scared bitch that won't face someone's army.

KaloranSLC wrote:Are we really back on this merry-go-round spinning around Mr. Spencer? Seriously?

Unfortunately yes, since GW can´t get its act together. The way they are treating Errata/FAQs is deeply mystifying.

Gwar! wrote:

coredump wrote:Words

And this makes him official because....

If you pay a bit of attention, you will find no where in my post do I say his answers are, or are not, official.

What I was doing was putting the lie to the crap you keep spewing. Which, I see, you do not defend, but instead try to redirect to a different topic. Classic Gwar-speak.

No, he is not. He gives his opinion. Unless the Authors respond themselves, they cannot be taken as RaW nor RaI.

You do realize that the 'author' is not the person that writes the errata/FAQ, right?
You also realize, I hope, that the 'author' is not relevant to what is, or is not, official. GW makes that determination, not the author, not you. Regardless of who's names are on the book, the IP belongs to GW, and the company gets to decide what changes can and cannot be made, and they decide who can make them. If Robin makes some statement about how the IG work, it is not 'official', but if some 6 year old says it, and GW says it is official, then it is official.

So, basically, while it is nice that you will accept the "authors" word as law, it isn't "official" unless GW says it is official.


As for John, some folks believe that by picking him to be the *single* source of rules for North America, that is GW's way of making him 'official'. You may feel differently. Personally, I would be happier if there was a public record of his responses. GW tends to shy away from making things 'official', they just folks to play however they want and have fun. The DA FAQ makes that pretty clear. Hell, even the FAQs are not "official", yet just about everyone, and just about every tourney; treats them as official.

As for the Wiki thing, that is a load of crap. If he had a wiki, he could make it publicly viewable. Any IT grad student could do it in a week, Hell, even I have set up a Public Read private Write Wiki. There are millions of Free Wiki softwares to use. He doesn't do it because he doesn't have a wiki.

Really, cool. Where is this wiki you started, I would be interested in looking at it.
Do you get the amount of traffic that GW does? Do you think that may matter? Did you have to *stop* using a wiki you were happy with to start using a different one? Does it have all the functions that a company may want for an internal wiki, used for many different tasks?
I have built a few different websites.... that does not mean I have a clue about what it takes to keep something huge going.

When this came up originally, Legoburner had quite a good response. I will not quote it all, suffice to say it shows your statement to be as foolish as it sounds. But his final bit was

It took 2 months to get Dakka's wiki up and running from an off the shelf package, our traffic is an order of magnitude less than the main GW site, and I am definitely an expert in the area having managed websites that handle well over a million DB hits per hour. 'Simply' is one hell of an understatement.

Look, you don't want to follow the rulings that John puts out, cool. Don't. Play the game that you enjoy, and that your friends enjoy.
But stop lying and making things up.

It really is simple. If GW cannot handle it, they are doing something wrong. Untill the Wiki Becomes Public, I will have to call Bull**** on it. Sorry.

As for lego taking 2 Months:
That is 1 guy doing it in his spare time (I assume). GW would get it properly done. Oh but wait, it doesn't sell Space Marines. I suppose we will never see it.

Nurgleboy makes an excellent point. GW officially sends you to askyourquestion@games-workshop.com for rules questions.

The person typing the responses behind that address is irrelevant; it is the official place to ask your questions. It could be John typing the updates to the FAQ's for all you know, with input from the design studio. The only difference between that and email would be availability.

-Errata are published text corrections from an official source on 40K rules.
-FAQ's are published guidance from an official source on 40K rules.
-Answers from askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are direct responses from an official source on 40K rules.

I take back what I said earlier about FAQ's having slightly more weight. John's answers carry as much weight as the FAQ's. They are simply available in a different format.

Kaaihn wrote:John's answers carry as much weight as the FAQ's.

So you agree they hold Zero Weight then? As the FAQ's admit themselves, they are not official.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:John's answers carry as much weight as the FAQ's.

So you agree they hold Zero Weight then? As the FAQ's admit themselves, they are not official.

As official as FAQ answers, and the same amount of weight. How much weight you give to them is of course up to you.

They give the same caveat to soft material as they do to every rule in the book actually, which is to say that none of it is binding. Use it or not, as long as you and your opponent come to agreement.

The 'unofficial' nonsense that people tout is just sad though. Unofficial would be if people were emailing John directly for answers and he was giving them out in his spare time, with no official recognition or mandate to do so. Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com is absolutely officially recognized as a source of rules answers; GW sends you there themselves on their website. John has a mandate as a job function to handle these questions, with input from the design studio as needed to insure accuracy.

Wow this is getting pretty out of hand.

As John is a representative of GW and has been appointed to that position by someone within the company, his answers are GW's answers, and the closest thing we will get to 'Official' until GW releases Codex: John Spencer's Answers.

Back on topic:
The rules don't specifically cover this situation. I must say I am inclined to think they would be destroyed, however, nothing in the rules specifically says so. People are making inferences from different rules (disembarking from transports, deep striking, etc) but there is no actual statement.

On the other hand, If someone pulled this on me I would have another 2 hours of time to do stuff that I enjoy more! Haha, well done, you won the game, whilst eliminating both mine and your enjoyment.

Gwar! wrote: Untill the Wiki Becomes Public, I will have to call Bull**** on it. Sorry.

Why stop there? Demand that he publish his personal diary online to prove that he actually exists.

And heck, why not insist that the designers publish all of their design notes, or else you'll consider all the codexes unofficial?



The fact that a reference exists in no way makes it compulsory to make it publicly accessible... particularly if the expense of doing so outweighs the perceived value of it being public.

GW already have a mammoth, resource-heavy, dreadfully slow website. I can certainly believe that making the wiki public would simply be too much of a drain on their resources. I can also well believe, going by their track record for web design, that they simply don't have the know-how to do it in any sort of efficient way.