You see your opponent has a drop pod/deep striking army. He has first turn. You put your army in reserves. He then infiltrates along your table edge.

As the game goes on, you lose some units, but you finally tank shock onto the table...if you have vehicles. If not, you've just been tabled.

What sportsmanship score would you give on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being good....

I love the story behind this one! The image of the smug mofo who pulled it off is even better:



I'm afraid the story is old hat, but I'd probably give the guy a 1 for sportsmanship. Then again, your fault for doing an all-infiltrating gimmick.

Well, tactics are a weapon too

Can't complain because you got served.

So why a 1. Not to argue, just interested...

A tactic is a tactic.....

You leave yourself open, you sure as hell better expect your opponent to try to take advantage of it. It's not bad sportsmanship if it's making the obvious move.

I'd base the score on his actual sportsmanship rather than a brilliant display of tactics. It's not poor sport to see a challenge and counter it with ease. If you wanted a proper game then you wouldn't make that mistake against an army with a high amount of infiltrators

In fact it's probably a good idea to try to build a list with at least a way around something like this if it happens. Doesn't need to be a huge amount of the list, simply enough to punch a hole through for the others.

If that WS player had a Landspeeder or two he wouldn't have automatically lost and would probably have been able to clear space for the rest of his army. He would have equally have been in trouble if it was an objective game and the opponent placed theirs up on the third floor of a building for example, placing it over 3" away from any of his bikes making it impossible for him to capture it.

No more of a gimmick than all reserves. I'd say full points, all other things equal.

wow, apparently many of you do not know what it means to be a good sportsman, and what it means to have sportsmanship.

here:

–noun
1.
the character, practice, or skill of a sportsman.
2.
sportsmanlike conduct, as fairness, courtesy, being a cheerful loser, etc.

as many of you are pointing out; his practice or skill is not in question! And there is already a scoring system for this and its called best general. But, defiantly his fairness and courtesy.

What does it mean to be fair and courteous? Well, fair is NOT only playing by the rules, but allowing your opponent to have a chance even if you can take it away, imagine a duel (fencing) between swordsmen, and one swordsman dropped his sword. Yes, the other guy could just go for the win and be well within his right, or out of fairness he could also allow him to pick it up so the duel could continue out of fairness. And courtesy, to be courteous is similar to being fair, but it shows respect to your opponent and respect for the game not just the achievement of winning.

So, no, it is not sporty. Yes it is a win by the rules. But if there is a sportsmanship score, I would score it low. Don't get me wrong. Its not an automatic 1, as you take everything into consideration. As in his conduct, if he said sorry he had to win like that and shook my hand and was genuine, then I would still score him low but defiantly not a 1. On the other hand, if all he wanted was a win, and was a complete jerk, yeah a 1 for sure.

However, the player who put everything into reserves was not being very sporting himself - he was denying the drop pod army a turn of shooting/etc.

The reason he put everything in reserves was to ensure that his force survived the initial round intact, and could then come onto the table wherever he wanted in order to deal with the threats which had appeared.

Not a hugely sporting move in of itself, and well countered by the tactics of the drop pod player.

SilverMK2 wrote:However, the player who put everything into reserves was not being very sporting himself - he was denying the drop pod army a turn of shooting/etc.

The reason he put everything in reserves was to ensure that his force survived the initial round intact, and could then come onto the table wherever he wanted in order to deal with the threats which had appeared.

Not a hugely sporting move in of itself, and well countered by the tactics of the drop pod player.

no, those are 2 entirely different scenarios.

1. The game with the all reserve army will be an ENTIRE game. With turns and everything, and both players enjoying themselves. With all reserves, you only lose 1 turn not 5 or more turns.

2. The Daemon army IS an all reserve army by default. It is fun and allows for a different game than the average "everyone lines up and shoots".

The scenario presented by the OP is one that ends the game on turn 1 with NO interaction at all by the opponent. This is not being courteous or respectful to the game or your opponent. Who like you (not you, the plural you) payed good money, tons of hours, and probably a long drive to enjoy a tournament or just a good game.

Again, all reserve armies still play the WHOLE game. This is entirely different. And all reserve armies are FAR from being unfair, they are just as competitive as any other list.

There was interaction between the players, he chose to leave everything off the board and simply lost because of that. Your swordsman example, is pretty good, but this is more akin to dueling someone then putting your sword away and saying "you can't hit me now".

Please do not rush into places assuming a person's understanding of certain concepts as there is always a posibility that you yourself may misunderstand, I find it slightly offensive. If I lost against this I wouldn't mark it low as it is actually a really smart play and I'd simply learn from the experience and move on. Then I'd score based on his conduct. If I would lose to such a tactic it would be my own fault and be spiteful for me to simply vote low because of it, that would make me a bad sportsman and deserving of the low score.

Holding back on tactics like this is to show true disrespect to the opponent as you consider them hardly worth the effort. It's not about WAAC, but respectfully putting up a challenge to the opponent so that they at least have a chance to learn. They might have thought of that tactic as imposible and thought it would never come up, now that it has they will improve and possibly teach them that they weren't as prepared as they thought. Plus they might start to think about more interesting tactics themselves.

1 or lower, it removes the game element of the game.

Therefore, the player would have no conduct during the game. No conduct=Bad conduct.

THis isnt a "tactic", as it breaks the game - the game ends as you cannot resolve it within the rules, or you houserule it.

So, if *before* the game you were told that reserves unable to enter are destroyed - fine. Its STILL a dick move, but at least there was fair warning.

However in MY tournament, or any where I know the TO, I try to get them to rule differently: you can assault ono the board if the board edge is blocked, or, if outflanking you turn up on the opposite edge. That way BOTH players get a game, and hopefully the "wonderful" person that tried to block the edge will see how poor a "tactic" it really is.

Given that this "tactic"* effectively tries to deny a game between two people, I would drop their score low - it is the equivalent of finding a low wall betwen you and the opposing army and shouting obsceneities and hoping they can't work out a way to get to you....


*it isnt an *actual* tactic, as it requires that a houserule is played your way - any other way and either the game stops (no houserule) or you get assaulted. It isnt an actual tactic...

Units can't move through other units. Units in reserves by the end of the game count as destroyed. It is actually covered by the rules, outflanking like this isn't.

Skimmers and such move over them thus they would come on ignoring the kroot and easily shoot them up. It's good when it works, but not the hardest thing in the world to beat. It simply defeats the unprepared.

I'll agree though that it is nowhere near as fun as a game actually would be.

But, every army has access to either a skimmer or some sort of outflanking, simply including one of those completed destroys this tactic. I'm not saying you should expect it as it should be a rare thing, but getting caught up by it is simply your own fault. Even keeping a single unit out of reserves defeats it. So just remember if you see a bunch of Infiltrators, or not as it would have been better to deploy a decoy unit or two as you'll have slight control over where the opponent Deep Strikes everthing in this case, never leave everything in reserves as it's just like walking those Kroot up out in the open to fight a Dakka Pred or even a LR

guy is a douch. I would give him a max of 1 and if possible a 0. Sportsmanship is primarily letting your opponent have fun. Do you really think they kid who has the white scars is having fun?

Doesnt matter the tactic. Sportmanship is about having fun not winning. Finding loop holes isnt exactly good for the game.

Ursa wrote:guy is a douch. I would give him a max of 1 and if possible a 0. Sportsmanship is primarily letting your opponent have fun. Do you really think they kid who has the white scars is having fun?

Doesnt matter the tactic. Sportmanship is about having fun not winning. Finding loop holes isnt exactly good for the game.

And vice versa, does an opponent who has to face a nonexistent army for one or two turns have fun?

As others have said, no one forced the WS player to keep his army in reserve, especially when in this case he wasn't facing the likes of a drop pod army or CD army.

His tactics didn't particularily enhance the game for the Tau player, and he got served for it. IMO if 1 is bad and 10 is good, then I'd rate the game at 5 as neutral.

Andrew

Wouldn't affect his sportsmanship score any more than using heavy weapons to target vehicles, using assault troops to assault, etc etc. It's a valid tactic IMO.

And I'm the reverse from noseratu, I point out to TOs that the one time GW has said anything about this (way back when, SW Scouts OBEL), they said the unit was destroyed if unable to enter the rear table edge due toa 'picket fence'.

Lol that guys face is funny...

EagleArk.

I'm confused at what people think sportsmanship is. Sportsmanship is playing by the rules and acting in a courteous manner. Simply enough.

Now the White Scars player placed his army in all reserves. Why? So he wouldn't be shot before he could move and so he would know that whenever his units came on the board, he would be able to move and shoot first.

How does that hold any less sportsmanship than the tactic to deny him the ability to place his reserves? By the same token, if I was playing against IG with a foot slogging army and they blasted 3/4 of my army away with artillery on the first round, could I give the other person a low sportsmanship because he denied my ability to play the game through his tactics and strategy? Of course not. People would just say I made a stupid decision to play how I did...

The White Scars had the same chance to play as anyone else. He had the chance to play and gave it up by taking a risky all reserve approach. That's his own fault. If I have the ability to win, I'll take it if it's not cheating. Doesn't mean I'm unsportsman. Just that I take advantage of situations given to me. Had this been a friendly game, we would have laughed and just replayed. But this is a tournament. It's not unsportsman at all if he wasn't a prick about it.

And to the OP, a drop pod army doesn't have to worry about this. You can still get units on the board. The White Scars player just made bad decisions. You can't penalize opponents for someone else's stupidity.

n0t_u wrote:Units can't move through other units. Units in reserves by the end of the game count as destroyed. It is actually covered by the rules, outflanking like this isn't.

Except it iS NOT covered by the rules - the rules *require* that you move on immediately, the modfels in the way prevent you doing so. The game stops until you find a resolution - you never ever *reach* the end of the game to destroy the reserves.

It requires a houserule to continue, and I loathe the "theyre destroyed" idea - it makes a mockery of tha game, and IS bad sportsmanship (esserntially putting the judge in a horrible position - kill the game for one player, or have a mess as you have assaults half on the table as I suggested) as it requires you to bank on a houserule to go your way inm order to prevent someone actually playing the game (remember the game deosnt start till after deployment, see step 5 )

Don - I know we have our differences on this, I just dont consider this tactic to be valid, as it is the only tactic that (can) force an end to the game without a shot being fired.

As to those saying the WS player was doing something equal - entirely the opposite. At most they were stopping 1 turn, and taking the risk that reserves will turn up in dribs and drabs. As opposed to not even gettign a game? Not even close to being equal.

Why would there be poor sportsmanship...the player that reserved everything was an idiot.

This is an open list environment game, where everything is known, if they can't see that this would be a possibility and the TO rules that inability to enter is death...then I'm sorry, but you can't score poor sportsman for something that is obviously the move to make.

Guys, play to win; it's a freaking tourny.
What's next, I'm not gonna shoot my railgun at the Land Raider full of Termies heading towards my Fire Warrior gunline because he can score me down.

feth that. feth soft scores...there's no other way to describe it IMO.
Note: if the soft score were on the side and do not determine the top dog winner, that's acceptable IMO. But feth them anyway.

If you want to play with self-imposed rules and etiquitte fine, but don't expect others to act the same way...why handicap yourself for nothing...?

San ctjud - that is only true IF they houserule this *before* the game. During the game it is NOT known that they will houserule this way.

I hate soft scores deciding anything other than "best sportsman" or "you cant win as you're an idiot" anyway - soft scores (painting, sportsmanship, anything else) should be entirely removed from deciding who wins. (but can be used to prevent someone from winning if they are an idiot repeatedly)

Brother SRM wrote:I love the story behind this one! The image of the smug mofo who pulled it off is even better:



I'm afraid the story is old hat, but I'd probably give the guy a 1 for sportsmanship. Then again, your fault for doing an all-infiltrating gimmick.

I'd give them maximum sportsmaship and comp. If they are playing kroot they deserve to win.

Real men play absolutely unwinnable armies and laugh as they do it!

nosferatu1001 wrote:San ctjud - that is only true IF they houserule this *before* the game. During the game it is NOT known that they will houserule this way.

I hate soft scores deciding anything other than "best sportsman" or "you cant win as you're an idiot" anyway - soft scores (painting, sportsmanship, anything else) should be entirely removed from deciding who wins. (but can be used to prevent someone from winning if they are an idiot repeatedly)

That's why for the GW US GTs we always settled this one and several others weeks in advance. Course, I don't know if the judges for that event did so or not.

So,
From what I am reading the two commanders looked out over the battlefield and concluded a few things.

Commander A saw an enemy who could shoot him up on turn one and chose to delay his advance into the fight in order to save troops.

Commander B saw that C.A. delayed his troop employment and moved to block his entry onto the battlefield.

C.A. saw that he can't get onto the battlefield, and by the rulebook- lost the chance to gain objectives.

What I see is C.A. tried to outsmart C.B. and got his *** handed to him. Seems to me C.A. should have been able to foresee this possible outcome, or should I say downside, to his tactical employment and done something about it. Failing to plan and then blaming the enemy is a standard defensive tactic dating back to Cain.

It would be like a boxer wearing glasses into the ring and saying, "You wouldn't hit a guy with glasses, would you?" and then getting knocked out...AND THEN blaming the other boxer that he hit a guy with glasses...and that's not fair.

Amazing feedback in this thread, and I have to absolutely disagree with pretty much of all it.

Having this happen to you can be prevented through the use of a single model. ANY model. ANY MODEL in ALL OF 40K can prevent this from happening to you by making the kroot have to infiltrate 12-18" away. Its like the 4-move checkmate in chess. Any novice can prevent it from happening, and if it does happen to you, you deserve to have lost.

...and again, that is predicated on a Houserule making this a valid "win button" in the first place.

It has never been a general rule for 40k, despite a number of editions where it has been possible.

Dashofpepper wrote:
Having this happen to you can be prevented through the use of a single model. ANY model. ANY MODEL in ALL OF 40K can prevent this from happening to you by making the kroot have to infiltrate 12-18" away. Its like the 4-move checkmate in chess. Any novice can prevent it from happening, and if it does happen to you, you deserve to have lost.

Or with the inclusion of a single unit of scout bikes, in this case.

Would you score sports low if the Tau player allowed the WS on the table before blowing them to crap? My Opinion..... The Tau player probably knew that the bikes would be a difficult kill for his troops.

One should ALWAYS ensure that their reserves has some way of getting on table. Bad Sports to the WS player for not considering all his options and a 6-8 for the kroot for out thinking his opponant.

Full sports. Both players. Barring other extenuating circumstances.

How does the saying go...

"Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

Well, good scores for both sides because it is just a game and this is just one of many ways to win.

Also, I want to add, I agree with the idea of "you deserve to lose if this was your entire strategy". I agree that winning isn't everything and having a good game is important but if you tried that with me, I would have tabled you as well.

It's "just one of many ways to win..." with a smile on their faces (at least one of them anyway).

But it only leaves more time for Drinks and Snack food... !!!

Unless he actually treated his opponent poorly on a personal level, I'd give him a 10.

All of the people saying they'd give a 1 is part of what makes the sportsmanship scoring at tournaments so frustrating for actually competitive players.

There is 0 justification in a game where winning matters for you to hold back just to let your opponent have a chance at winning. In this case, the guy who kept his entire army in reserve did so in an attempt to win the game. He thought it would give him an advantage, and it did not (though this must be 4ed or a no-outflanking mission or something). It obviously did not. Why in the world is it justified to tell the winning player "don't do this winning tactic, it won't be fun for me" justified? There's nothing unsporting about trying to win, and there's nothing unsporting about taking your opponents poor tactics and using them against him.

Full points. No dishonor in being crafty.

Last weekend I was doing a 500 pt combat patrol with my SM vs SM. My force was 3 units of scouts with a small assault squad. His was an assault squad, dev squad & a tac squad in rhino. Victory conditions indicated you needed to get half your units off the board (2 for each of us) for a major victory, 1 for a minor victory. We played twice, reversing roles. First game he got one unit off, minor victory for him. Second game, I was able to deploy two scout units in the back corner edge of the table on his side, which could then use their scout move to move off the table, thus winning the game before turn one. Even though my opponent was an experienced player, he'd just never played or encountered scouts before, so had no concept of the infiltrate or scout move rules. Realizing this, I offered to let him re-deploy his troops, he declined. I then did not take my scout move so he'd have one chance to shoot me up before I won the game (he went first). He did 1 or 2 casualties with shooting, & I walked off the board during my first movement phase... game over.

The way I look at it, my offer to allow him to re-deploy his troops (it was just a friendly game after all), was good sportsmanship... not taking advantage of a massive lack of my opponent's understanding of the rules. On his part, NOT re-deploying his troops was equally good sportsmanship... living with your mistakes. My leaving the scouts on the table to be shot at the first turn... was just stupid. I'd earned that advantage legally, I should be allowed to take advantage of it without being either down-scored by my opponent (which of course he didn't to), or punishing myself for being sneaky (which I did do by leaving the scouts on the table when they should have walked off)... because if he'd have actually killed those units, what would have been left of my army would have been toast.

So we walked away talking about what we'd each learned about the game and our armies that day, and discussing the next time we'd be able to get together and take another whack at it. All good. I'd say you learned a valuable lesson about force deployment that day... you should give him a 10 just for teaching it to you.

Now if he was an insufferable prat about it.... that's another story.

To the people who compare this to a swordfighting duel, it doesn't compare. Duels were a deeply personal, honor-driven (or insult driven) affair, very ceremonial and traditionalized.

Yet even with that, if a duel was fought and one managed to disarm their opponent, it would come down to the decision of "is this to the death?". If it is to the death, and someone disarmed their opponent, guess what . . . they killed them. And WH40K is always "to the death", unless its a friendly game.

My vote is 10/10 for sportsmanship and 11/10 for tactics.

It's all a matter of context.

Is it a friendly game? Then let's gor for some flluffy laughs.

Is it a tournament, where I payed a fee and there's a prize? I'll use every rule I can in my favour and I'll expect you to do the same.

The OP assumes everyone chipmunks. You base a sports score based on their behavior not how they beat you and how bad.

He gets as many points as he pleases, that face is awesome.

Dashofpepper wrote:Its like the 4-move checkmate in chess. Any novice can prevent it from happening, and if it does happen to you, you deserve to have lost.

That would be "Fool's Mate," and it's called that for a reason.

IIRC, the two players immediately played a second game "for fun," for what that's worth.

I'd award full sportsmanship to both.

"Therefore, one who is skilled in warfare principles subdues the enemy without doing battle, takes the enemy's walled city without attacking, and overthrows the enemy quickly, without protracted warfare."

SUN-TZU: THE PRINCIPLES OF WARFARE
"THE ART OF WAR"
Chapter Three: Planning Attacks

If he was nice id give him a 10

Using tactics to win (even though they are lame) in a tourney setting is fine. Friendly game maybe not, but judging someone down when your supposed to do anything to win sucks

If both agreed to a second "friendly" game for fun, top points for both. its like " ok you beat me fair, how about one for laughs?"

Alls fair in Love and war!

@OP: Sometimes gambling with all-Reserves works, sometimes not. If you're any kind of man at all, you suck it up for making a huge strategic mistake and give your opponent him full points for tabling you.

I would not only give them full score, but I'd proceed to give him or her a high-five for their awesomeness at defeating my tomfoolery.

For me it would be about how he treated me, not how he beat me. 10/10 for him and a facepalm for me.

I'd be a little miffed, but more at myself. He shouldn't be punished for being crafty.

Sportsmanship would be based off his attitude before, during, and in the aftermath of the game, not how he played.

Mind you, this is meant as a shame on people that do this than a rant at the OP. Since you're using sportsmanship scores, it can only be assumed to be a tournament. Last I knew those were supposed to be competetive, meaning doing whatever you can, within the rules, to win the game. If I were the one that reserved everything and had that happen, I'd certainly be kicking myself not my opponent. So what you're saying is you're going to tank his score because he beat you? It's a damn shame that sportsmanship scores get bashed on because you got beat. That's the biggest problem with soft scores in a tournament imo.

My suggestion for next time since you have almost 2 hours until the round ends... offer to buy him a beer/soda/whatever and then pick his brain for ideas to improve YOUR game. When you pay to play, expect to play to win.

I gotta agree with the folks saying that this isn't a matter of sportsmanship. Especially at a tournament, and especially since that picture was from a 'ard boyz tournie as well (which is supposed to be pretty darn cutthroat if I understand it).

As folks have said, it's easily countered and avoidable. If the guy was a total jackass about it, then yes, I'd give him a low score. But if he was cool and all I'd be a bit miffed that I just got beaten at my own game... and let's be honest, this is exactly what this situation essentially boils down to, by having a trick beaten by another... but to dock sportsmanship over a viable and legal tactic? Sounds like the one with bad sportsmanship isn't the guy who had the infiltrators.

I've said it elsewhere, sportsmanship is great to judge... but should never be controllable by your opponent in any fashion. Too much room for abuse.

To all the people saying it shoudl have been expected - why?

"reserves that cant move on are destroyed" is NOT, repeat NOT an actual Rule of the game, but a Houserule that, in the incident talked about, was only decided IN the game.

IF it had been published beforehand, then yes - in that instance it was a legal tactic.

As it wasnt - destroying one persons game with a ----->houserule<------- is NOT a good ruling from a TO.

Nosferatu1001... Since the question in the OP is "What sportsmanship score would you give for this tactic: lining up infiltrators to block reserves?"
And not a discussion of the ruling given in that game.....(thats another thread)
Perhaps you would like to offer your Sportsmanship Score for the Tau player in question.....

Have already done so....or did you not read the thread?

Given that I dont consider it a tactic at all (as it requires a houserule to enact it is at best a specialist tactic only at certain places, and is only a "tactic" at all if it is houseruled *before* the event) I would give a low sportsmanship score - because you have deliberately put the judge / TO in the position of either wasting lots of time (with a do over) or destroying someones entire game by ruling that the units are destroyed. Neither is satisfactory, the first as most events are time pressured.

So the persons actions have required the TO to make a houserule up on the spot, and done so KNOWING that it will require a houserule to continue. THAT is bad sportsmanship.

However I have an utter, utter hatred for "soft" scores being used to decide anything in a tournament other than "best sportsman" really.

The only time "bad" sportsmanship should be recorded is when someone is *so* bad, and against repeated opponents, that they should be barred from winning - and this isnt done through a score being added to their tournament battle score (as this can allow 1 person to influence their outcome) but instead an *entirely* seperate "is this guy an idiot?" tally - if it reaches a number, such as 5/6 opponents said you were an idiot, then you are barred from winning the best general prize. Your score remains unaffected, and each person nominating would be expected to give specific reasons as to WHY they should be barred from winning, but you are stopped from winning.

It is more transparent, less open to single person influence (as the chances of collusion amongst X opponents to ALL say you were an idiot is low) and, ultimately, fairer to all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The only time "bad" sportsmanship should be recorded is when someone is *so* bad, and against repeated opponents, that they should be barred from winning - and this isnt done through a score being added to their tournament battle score (as this can allow 1 person to influence their outcome) but instead an *entirely* seperate "is this guy an idiot?" tally - if it reaches a number, such as 5/6 opponents said you were an idiot, then you are barred from winning the best general prize. Your score remains unaffected, and each person nominating would be expected to give specific reasons as to WHY they should be barred from winning, but you are stopped from winning.

It is more transparent, less open to single person influence (as the chances of collusion amongst X opponents to ALL say you were an idiot is low) and, ultimately, fairer to all.

I have made a similar suggestion on another thread. If one person scores All of his opponants badly and All of his opponants score him badly, then the TOs should look more carefully at the situation.

It is a tourny (i think) and if you are stupid enough to try this tactic against a WAAC player your going to fail.

EagleArk wrote:It is a tourny (i think) and if you are stupid enough to try this tactic against a WAAC player your going to fail.

....and for the 100th time, this is not a "tactic" (or at least wasnt at this event) as it requires a ---->houserule<---- to work. A houserule that was decided *in* the game.

Helgrenze - but thats why a "score" is ireelevant - the only thing you need to know is: were the good to play against, or were they a complete ass and should potentially be barred from winning. You dont need to "score" anything more granular thant that - and this assesment should have *nothing* to do with (i.e. be totally independent of) the battle score.

Soft scores that form part of an overall "winning score" are *ripe* for abuse, and way too subjective to base winning from - all it takes is one opponent who dings you (even giving say 30% instead of 0% so it doesnt look too extreme) and you can lose, and you have no recourse as it is is inherently opinion based. Whereas if all "soft" coudl do is bar you from winning if the vast majority of opponents agree that you are a complete dick, that removes the ability of one person to unduly influence the results of a tournament through abuse of the scoring system.

I was talking about the white scars player but i see your point.

EagleArk.

ProtoClone wrote:How does the saying go...

"Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

Couldn't say it better, the guy who plays one and only one tactic deserves bad sportsmanship for that alone, but i'd give him extra bad sportsmanship for not being mature enough to accept the fact that he didn't think of leaving at least one or 2 units on the board to secure an entry point and chose to whine at a judge instead.
By the way the gamerules doesn't break if you block entry points, nor are the units destroyed if they can't enter, they simply try again next turn, fail again until end of game is reached and points tallied up.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
....and for the 100th time, this is not a "tactic" (or at least wasnt at this event) as it requires a ---->houserule<---- to work. A houserule that was decided *in* the game.

Do you know that for a fact? Or is it remotely possible that the judges for the European championship discussed certain issues ahead of time? You keep stating that as fact, but is it? Do you know for sure one way or the other that the judges had or had not conferred on this particular question ahead of time? I've pointed out that the US GT judges were smart enough to do so (ie specifically discuss this exact issue weeks in adavance of the GTs), why do you automatically assume that the European championship judges were not?

Yes, it's not covered in the rules, like so many other things. So what? The most commonly accepted answer to the question of what happens is that the unit is destroyed. That's the old GW answer, that's the INAT answer. And any player competing at that level should know this, which means it is indeed a valid "tactic".

I would say: fair game. I have a feeling this isn't a big problem (as I have never heard of it before), so when it happens, it's quite an event. It is unfortunate to lose this way, but it is a big hole in a "come in from reserves" tactic. I would give a fair Sportsmanship score if I were level headed (though I probably wouldn't be, having just lost a game on a technicality).

This does show the whole in the game, however. The rules really shouldn't allow something like this to happen. 40k is an abstraction, but this is a little too far. Considering how little of a problem it is however.... I'm not sure how easy it would be to write a "fix-it" rule.

Sportsmanship is nothing to do with your tactics (or non-tactics, for Nosferatu101) it is to do with your demeanour in playing the game.

The Tau guy is allowed a big smile for winning, but if he then goes all "Luser, Loozer, n00b, Loser! Ha Ha I beat you because you are a n00b", that is when his sports score takes a hit.

If it is true they immediately played a friendly game, marking down the Tau guy would be plain sour grapes on behalf of the Whitescars guy.

Don - people who were there stated it was decided upon in the game, so it as much a "fact" as anything else wher eyou are not present to witness it.

The most common answer to a lot of questions is not necessarily the right one - witness the strugle people have with "not occupy same space as" and "end move over" when the Valkyrie came out.

Edit: a "sort it out" rule wouldnt be too difficult - use an extension of the "any special rule of the unit that would prevent it (or could) from coming on is ignored" (badly paraphrased) to resolve it - so the 1" rule would be omitted.

I hold this "tactic" in about as much contempt as range / LOS sniping in 4th, and at least in 4th it was backed up by actual Rules.

nostromo wrote:By the way the gamerules doesn't break if you block entry points, nor are the units destroyed if they can't enter, they simply try again next turn, fail again until end of game is reached and points tallied up.

That's how I'd play it but there's no rules to support that.

Brother SRM wrote:I love the story behind this one! The image of the smug mofo who pulled it off is even better:



I'm afraid the story is old hat, but I'd probably give the guy a 1 for sportsmanship. Then again, your fault for doing an all-infiltrating gimmick.

HA an Actual use for Kroot.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Don - people who were there stated it was decided upon in the game, so it as much a "fact" as anything else wher eyou are not present to witness it.

Edit: a "sort it out" rule wouldnt be too difficult - use an extension of the "any special rule of the unit that would prevent it (or could) from coming on is ignored" (badly paraphrased) to resolve it - so the 1" rule would be omitted.

I hold this "tactic" in about as much contempt as range / LOS sniping in 4th, and at least in 4th it was backed up by actual Rules.

Fair enough, first hand reports from someone that witenessed the event.

As for sorting it out, why not just use what GW has previously said on the issue? Sure, it was a previous edition but the situation is almost exactly the same. It's not like it's hard to prevent someone doing this to you, all it takes is deploying one unit normally and pretty much your entire board edge or side edge if outflanking is safe from being blocked by infiltrators. So you have to sacrifice one unit so that the rest can safely enter from Reserves.

On dakka thats full sports.

In real life its a douche move. Why, because he broke the game before turn 1 even began.

If he did that to me with a smart arse attitude he would get full sports but find his car door locks superglued..

haha.

All the white scars player had to do was not reserve his entire army to not lose the first turn of the game.

This incident has nothing to do with how the players treated each other and anyone would would mark down sportsmanship to either player because of it is simply bitter and a poor letting their feelings on what happened affect their judgment.

As to whether or not the models are destroyed, it doesnt matter. The WS player would lose even if they were not destroyed because he would never be able to to enter onto the table to claim any primary/secondary objectives.

All the WS player had to do was put 1 unit on the table to stop this and he didnt.

This event rarely comes up in any game or tourney and when it does honestly if you put your entire army in reserve you should be aware that you are losing not only command but any control over the battlefield and accept what happens, including never being able to arrive on the battlefield table because you failed to establish an initial presence on the battlefield.

I see nothing unsportsmanlike in eithers conduct, just a gamble the WS player took poorly and felt the sting of what happens when someone is able to counter it.

Regardless of how he might have acted he gets an automatic 10 for that grin.

Shaman wrote:In real life its a douche move. Why, because he broke the game before turn 1 even began.

If he did that to me with a smart arse attitude he would get full sports but find his car door locks superglued..

You're wrong. Whitescar boy decided to hold everything in reserve, Mr. Kroot just took advantage of a very very stupid move. If you cry like a bitch every time someone whoops your ass for doing something stupid wargaming is not for you.

Exactly. If the WS player placed a single model in the middel of his board edge, he would have guaranteed himself a 3-foot-wide entry corridor.

If anybody's the dick, it's the Russian for placing everything in Reserves to deny the Tau player his first 2 shooting phases.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Exactly. If the WS player placed a single model in the middel of his board edge, he would have guaranteed himself a 3-foot-wide entry corridor.

IF the player had known that this HOUSERULE was in effect, then yes,m agreed.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If anybody's the dick, it's the Russian for placing everything in Reserves to deny the Tau player his first 2 shooting phases.

Uh, no. Thats in the rules of the game, and the WS is risking his army coming on in dribs and drabs and easier to pick off. Hardly a dick move by any stretch of the imagination.

A player only deserves a 1 imo, if he/she is arrogant, bragger, show off. Basically, all around bad personality.

What that player did, was exploit your weakness. You wanna deepstrike your army, we'll these are the things you'll deal with. Dont get confused with bad gamer, to a gamer who stragigizes, even if it is as severe as what happened to you.

There are just some games, we have our asses handed to us.

Your sportsmanship is in question here OP. You should be looking at your list and learning from this. Shake the dudes hand and say thanks. He taught ya a good lesson there.

The rules of the game say pretty clearly that you can't come within 1" of an enemy model when moving, and there's no exception to that given here.

Perhaps you can clearly explain why denying one's opponent the critical part of their game is such a good thing, and then explain why turnabout isn't fair play?

But don't worry, I'm sure 6th Edition will clearly state that models unable to move onto the board from Reserves are automatically Destroyed.

I would not dock any Sportsmanship points for pulling off that move.

I would however dock you points for a smug arsed pose in a photo while I was still conversing with the judge to make sure it was legal.

Oh, come on - he isn't even posing "thumbs up"...

Sorry, but if you try holding an entire army in reserve to gain an advantage and this happens, you deserved it.

Tactics VS tactics, and the best ones won.


I'd give a full score for it.

I prefer checklist sportsmanship scores, and the checklist that I would use would net this gentleman 12/12 points assuming he had all required materials, he was on time, courteous, etc.

Not very sporting...but definitely smart...and taking advantage of this was in fact intelligent.

How can anyone besides those there that witnessed it come up with any value?

Anyway, the Sportsmanship score for me would depend on how he acted during the whole ordeal, and not the choices they made in game.

As for the Reserves vs. Line Up...guys you play to win at Tourneys...the White Scars player gave the Tau player free reign on board control KNOWING he had kroot as it is an open list environment with complete information available.

Sanctjud wrote:Anyway, the Sportsmanship score for me would depend on how he acted during the whole ordeal, and not the choices they made in game.

This.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The rules of the game say pretty clearly that you can't come within 1" of an enemy model when moving, and there's no exception to that given here

And the reserves rules specifically statey ou MUSt come on. So you hit a stalemate and the game cannot continue.

Meaning you need a houserule.

theyve had 2 editions already (4th and 5th) and not felt the need to do this, so what makes you think this will be any different?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Exactly. If the WS player placed a single model in the middel of his board edge, he would have guaranteed himself a 3-foot-wide entry corridor.

IF the player had known that this HOUSERULE was in effect, then yes,m agreed.

Then the White Scars player should have probably made sure he was going to be able to bring in his reserves if he was blocked. It is not the most intuitive thing to have to do, but if that's going to be your tactic, you might want to consider every possibility, including the one where your entire reserves entry point may become blocked by your opponent's models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If anybody's the dick, it's the Russian for placing everything in Reserves to deny the Tau player his first 2 shooting phases.

Uh, no. Thats in the rules of the game, and the WS is risking his army coming on in dribs and drabs and easier to pick off. Hardly a dick move by any stretch of the imagination.

And yet Deep Strikers can be Destroyed or Delayed on a Mishap, and NOT come on when expected, if at all. So there's clear precedent that the "must" isn't nearly as strong as you pretend it to be.

The difference is some TFGs think they should gain an risk-free advantage by not letting other players play their game.

Anyhow, I think this thread is done.

Good luck, nosferatu.

The only problem that you run into in the whole situation of being unable to resolve moving onto the board hence stand there for 2 hours comes down to one situations The mission, because if it is Capture and Control or Seize Ground using RaW you can declare a win.

How that works is Turn 1 goes off without a hitch, and the blocker can control objectives while keeping a blockade up. If they are troops and he has enough bodies to do it all. Because you completed an entire game turn, and the unable to resolve stall kicks in, he holds more objectives than you and can by RaW claim a win.

If it's an Annihilation game, RaW states it would be a draw because you both have equal KPs, 0.

However as a special aside to all this, most people will point to the deep strike mishaps table for "confirmation" of the unit is destroyed. They're trying to point out that being "in reserves" is what kills them, but it's the delayed effect off the mishap table that does it. I think most people make a bad assumption and think that rule sets the standard for reserves unable to come in equates into unit destroyed.

No you cannot "RAW" claim a win, as the game never ends - a turn never completes as you never get out of the second players movement phase. The game remains unfinished for ever, only by imposing external factors (such as a timelimit, which is never defined in the Rules, or the Houserule they decided on) can the game ever end.

JohnHwang - um, that is because the rules for DS state what happens. Its called a permissive ruleset. DS rules modify the must, but only when a unit is entering via DS - otherwise "must" is fairly explict.

So "must" come in is optional? Great, my 5th turn grabbing gretchin are *definitely* coming in on the 5th turn, regardless of what I roll - after all, "Must" is now optional!

For what it's worth, the Dark Eldar FAQ partially covers this case for the Webway Portal, which is effectively the table edge for units declared to be coming in from reserve via WWP. If the unit is unable to come onto the board legally, you're screwed, tough luck. In typical GW FAQ fashion it doesn't state what happens (destroyed or delayed) except for when all WWP carriers are killed before any are deployed.

So, although the more general case of units in reserve coming onto the player's edge isn't covered by the rules or by a FAQ, the DE WWP ruling seems to indicate RAI, and I'd expect most TOs to rule similarly in the general case.

Also, a ruling that the unit is delayed or destroyed doesn't require inventing a whole new mechanic for resolving the situation. I would not expect any TO to devise off-the-cuff rules for deploying in this situation.

Ruling that the units are either delayed or destroyed rather than deployed is more than simply a "houserule"; it's RAI and extremely likely to be ruled that way by any given TO.

As for Sportsmanship, I base it on whether how the winning player acted as he deployed, explained the situation, responded to the judge's decision, whether he offered to play a friendly game during the round, etc.

I don't think sportsmanship scores should be lowered for not handicapping yourself against an obviously less skilled player.

LMoE

I wouldn't say the opponent was "less skilled" in this case, he just got caught in a loop-hole in the rules in a very interesting set of circumstances.

It is no more "RAI" than any other Houserule - they have had at LEAST 2 editions (4th and 5th) where reserves being blocked from coming on has been a potential issue, and they have not made a general ruling - just the BEL Wolf Scouts ruling which has now been removed.

YOu dont need to invent a whole new rule - just a do over. Its the (by definition!) very start of the game, there have been no crucial dice rolls made which cant be retained (i.e., first turn) and only one army has deployed - if you get to this situation a reset should be a 5minute job. If there isnt 5minutes of slack in a tournament I would be surprised.

Destroying someones game based on a Houserule? Bad call.

I don't see why it is unsporting to attempt to gain a tactical advantage. Surely that is the whole point of playing a wargame.

Both players did their best to gain a tactical advantage through the use of the deployment rules.

It isn't anyone except GW's fault that the situation which arose was not covered in the rulebook.

The judge had to make a decision, that is what he was there for.

The decision could not be that the reserves come on anyway, since that would violate the clear rule against moving near to an enemy model.

His options were limited.

1. What he did.

2. Declare the game a tie, since neither side scored any KPs if the SMs are unhurt in reserve. This works if it is a KP mission. If it was an objective mission, the Tau player would only have needed to get near an objective during his deployment to win.

3. Declare the game a false start, and make them start it again.

There is the argument that *putting* that judge in the situation in the first place is unsporting - you have engineered a situation where a judge must resolve, knowing full well it is an issue with the rules. Thus, you have delayed the game (definitely unsporting) at a minimum, and attempted to engineer a win (as was the decision) by exploiting the pressure put on the judge to keep things moving.

I wouldn't call him a bad sport for using such a tactic. In fact, kudos to him for actually using Kroot in a productive way. Really, it's a mistake/oversight that he exploited. If your opponent was to declare a charge and was found to be just out of range (but still clearly), would you be a bad sport if you denied him the charge? After all, he's only made an honest mistake by misjuding the distance. Does that make you a bad sport when you shoot/charge that unit next turn and exploit his mistake? Not in my books.

My only Diellema here is whether I should deduct sportmanship points for that massive grin, or add them.

@ nosferatu1001 : I disagree. It is not unsporting to use an entirely legitimate method in which to gain a major tactical advantage. Just because GW is unclear about how to resolve the issue is not the player's fault; it is GW's. If this were a highly contestable issue (i.e.; where two very clear rules are butting heads with no clear answer either way) then I could see the Judge having a difficult time making a decision. But this is, in fact, a pretty simple situation; the White Scars can not come on the board. Now what happens to them could be considered a point of contention, however the rulebook is again clear on this by not saying they are destroyed by their restricted ability to mount the table. In that way, no KPs can be acquired. What would be a complicated issue is if the Tau player, in his following turns, gave the White Scars player a whole to move onto the board. Were the previously unavailable units destroyed? Or were they simply delayed? That would be contestable.

@ Killkrazy : I would fight against a "false start." There were no rules oversights made by either player; both knew what they were doing. It would be unfair to the Tau player to give the White Scars player a "second chance" because of his poor decision making. Just in the same way as it would be unfair to allow any player who makes poor tactical choices during the game a chance to start over. The White Scars player simply has to bite the bullet and realize he made a huge tactical error. At a minimum it could be considered a tie if the mission were KP/VP, but definitely not a loss for the Tau player in anyway (unless the mission has some other sort of caveat).

Deduct? Do you know how hard it is to find a truly great gak-eating grin now a days?

Emporers failthful - except the big difference is that those situations are clearly described in the rules, whereas in this situation the player was exploiting a gap to force a situation.

ONe is sporting, the other isnt.

He was exploiting, what he believed to be at least (otherwise he would not have tried it), a viable rule and the opposing players inexperience/lack of knowledge. It was up to the judge to decide how this turned out. If the guy didn't crack a spack and went along with the judges decision, even if it meant a tie or a restart, ( pointed out by Killkrazy) that would make him a decent sport.

@Tyyr: I swear I know this guy... Seriously, it's bugging me.

@nosferatu1001:

So the only option for the Tau player is take it up the ass and let the White Scars player enjoy his full reserves?

What next? Give him a bad sportsman score for screwing himself?

nosferatu1001 wrote:There is the argument that *putting* that judge in the situation in the first place is unsporting - you have engineered a situation where a judge must resolve, knowing full well it is an issue with the rules. Thus, you have delayed the game (definitely unsporting) at a minimum, and attempted to engineer a win (as was the decision) by exploiting the pressure put on the judge to keep things moving.

This I will adamantly disagree with. I've been a GT judge in US/Canadian GTs, and that 'spot' is what I signed on for when I signed on. Course, I'm also smart enough to confer with my fellow judges in advance of the event on items that I think might cause problems, and this issue is one I've always brought up. Now continuing to argue with me after I've made a ruling, whether I made it in advance or on the spot. THAT would be unsporting.

Sanctjud wrote:@nosferatu1001:

So the only option for the Tau player is take it up the ass and let the White Scars player enjoy his full reserves?

What next? Give him a bad sportsman score for screwing himself?

Well, given that full reserves is explicitly allowed for in the rules (in the rulebook and encouraged in battle reports), whereas blocking the board edge to stall the game isnt - guess which way you should play? In a way that requires a houserule or one which doesnt?

There are many options the Tau player can exploit - you know, to a limited degree, what the arrival spread of units is going to be in general, and if it is kill points you ability to focus fire (more accurately known as: how you win KP missions) is increased. So the Tau player doesnt have to "take it up the ass" (lovely phrase implying its a bad thing....lol) as there are plenty of tactics available that dont require a hosuerule to function.

I've already explained why the WS player is putting themselves at quite a risk from going all reserves, as they risk getting their units on piecemeal. Apparently this is somehow "risk free" according to some.

Well, I'm not sure what your scale of 'bad' with respect to taking it up where the sun don't shine, but we are thinking of two different things then...you of pleasure and I was more thinking of a discharging shotgun... I kid.
________________

But it's still a legal move to deploy infiltrators at the board edge. The result fuxes up the game. You'd have to make a house rule to avoid another house rule. So...what: don't conga line to prevent people from coming in.

How about blocking alot of the entrance but leaving only a small gap to keep things legal?

Lets say you outflank with Al'qua-whats his face...and he's got a crap load of chimeras....you gonna force him to move more than 6" and prevent his whole line from firing because he's blocking that side and potentially block incoming enemy outflankers?

The WS player allowed this to be a possibility, so I'd say they would be both at fault.
WS player needed only to deploy just one model...as easily as the Tau player could have infiltrated elsewhere.

WEll, the WS allowed it as a possibilty, only one player took affirmative action to actually cause it. That Tau player had a choice in the matter!

In this case, which is by far the most common of an uncommon set, has an easy resolution - it takes all of 5 seconds to work out you will cause a stall, so you either prevent the stall and use some actual tactics, or you stall and then do over. Either way it wont take very long to resolve, and even in a tournament this is unlikely to cause any noticeable delay - after all, if theyre slow players they would still be slow players, even with an extra 2-3 min added on.

OT: you think of a shotgun when you use that phrase? Odd Unless "shotgun" is a euphamism for something else lol...

Why should the Tau player have infiltrated elsewhere? How can you write a "house rule" that restricts something as vague as tactics? How was it not the White Scar's fault that this happened?

I mean, is it as if the Tau player knew something the WS player did not? I mean, it's all in the rulebook, the WS player could have reasonably contemplated this happening, and if they were relying on the kindness of others to win/continue to play then that's too bad for him at a Tournament.

The WS player took a risk either not knowing by their own ignorance that his could happen, and the Tau player exploited a weakness of the WS deployment. It is no more unfair than anything else, really.

Huh? Have you missed the part where this is only a "tactic" if a ----->houserule<------ allows it? It ISNT in the rulebook, that is the point - the game *stalls* unless a houserule is used. For the 100th time of repeating....

Sheesh.....

Essentially the Tau player had many other options other than causing the stall, and chose not to do so. At a bare minimum they are both at "fault"

Edit: in addition the hosuerule isnt restricting tactics - as I said, you simply have one that restricts you blocking the board edge, OR allow something like ignoring the 1" restriction in the same way as OTHER rules which would prevent a model from arriving are ignored - this has precedence in the existing rules as a way to handle non-arrival causing rules, is the easiest fit into the rules (as it still means the *game* moves along for both players) AND it means the abuse of the 6x4 table as being the entire "world" is minimised.

LIning your guys up at the edge to block people arriving is the equivalent of shouting obscenities across a low wall - neither should have a great expectation of success.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Huh? Have you missed the part where this is only a "tactic" if a ----->houserule<------ allows it? It ISNT in the rulebook, that is the point - the game *stalls* unless a houserule is used. For the 100th time of repeating....

Not since 3rd Edition have I heard of a Tournament level "house rule" restricting a tactic. House rules are supposed to help gloss over major and minor issues of ambiguous rules and rules conflicts, not something that is relatively straightforward as this (in regards to how the player is allowed to play). To my knowledge, there are no rules in 40k that restrict tactics beyond describing the bounds of the game (i.e.; no rules saying "you can't hold your entire army in reserves so your opponent can't get his first turn of shooting," or "you can't outflank your opponent if it would prove too detrimental to his tactics," or even the courteous "you can't objective rush your Falcons in the bottom of turn 5 or later to contest objectives because you were too poor a player to be a better general."). There is no precedent that I can think of for a house rule like this.

What sort of house rule would I contemplate for this situation? Either units that are unable to arrive from reserves are destroyed, or units unable to arrive from reserves are delayed and may come on in the owning players next movement phase from reserves or units unable to arrive from reserves are returned to reserves. Those are simple, short, sweet, and fit into the entity of the current rules. House rules should fit into the current rules, not redefine them (at least at the Tournament level).

nosferatu1001 wrote:Huh? Have you missed the part where this is only a "tactic" if a ----->houserule<------ allows it? It ISNT in the rulebook, that is the point - the game *stalls* unless a houserule is used. For the 100th time of repeating....

Sheesh.....

Essentially the Tau player had many other options other than causing the stall, and chose not to do so. At a bare minimum they are both at "fault"

Edit: in addition the hosuerule isnt restricting tactics - as I said, you simply have one that restricts you blocking the board edge, OR allow something like ignoring the 1" restriction in the same way as OTHER rules which would prevent a model from arriving are ignored - this has precedence in the existing rules as a way to handle non-arrival causing rules, is the easiest fit into the rules (as it still means the *game* moves along for both players) AND it means the abuse of the 6x4 table as being the entire "world" is minimised.

LIning your guys up at the edge to block people arriving is the equivalent of shouting obscenities across a low wall - neither should have a great expectation of success.

Yes, it takes a houserule to answer, sheesh, we get it, for the 100th time.

So what? It really doesn't matter that it takes a houserule to answer.

So instead of a houserule deciding what happens in this rare circumstance, you want a houserule to change the infiltration rules, limiting where one can legally place their infiltrators. So instead of a houserule to cover one rarely occuring circumstance, you want a houserule that affects every infiltrating unit in the game? If limiting where you can place your infiltrators isn't limiting tactics, what is? So now I cannot infiltrate within a set distance from his board edge? What if it's Spearhead and I'm trying to set my Infiltrators up for a side shot on his armor? What if he uses a refused flank and I want to inifltrate to some cover on his flank near his board edge. How/where do you draw the line on this magical mystical houserule you want to put in place? Far easier to answer one specific question ie this is what happens when a unit is unable to enter due to enemy models than to try to cover all the variations on restriciting infiltrators.

The point is, the Tau player made a legal Infiltration deployment, that's the 'tactic' part. It's not HIS fault that the rules don't cover what happens next. So they did the right thing, and asked the guy who's supposed to answer these questions, ie the judge. The judge ruled, and it so happens that his ruling is in agreement with the INAT, with historical precedence ala GW, and with the most commonly used answer to this question. Wow, imagine that! Now if the judge had made some other houserule, say ok, the bikes can assault from off-table, then the tau player would have been screwed. My question to you is, would you be complaining as vociferously about it being a 'houserule' if that was the case? Or is it just the WS player losing due to sheer stupidity that has you so out of sorts?

It's worth noting that the player who lost had - what looks like - an all bike army. Lets face it. His plan was to fly in on an exposed, weak as hell CC Army and overwhelm it as quickly and mercilessly as possible. My point is he held units in reserve because he thought it was the "smart" thing to do with a fast list like that. If you're going to exploit every possible advantage you can perceive and couple that strategy with the risky choice of leaving all units in reserve (something I'd never do), then why should your opponent have mercy on you?

I would still not give full points for sportsmanship, as -lets face it - there wasn't a whole lot of "sport" to be had in this game.

The WS player created this situation - he took an army with no tanks or skimmers or deep strikers or outflankers and held them all in reserve against an army with a large number of infiltrators.

If he had taken a single tank/skimmer/deepstriker/outflanker or deployed a single unit he'd have been ok. If he'd done what he did against an army that didn't have infiltrators then he'd have been ok.

If you're going to compete with an all-reserve army then you have to be aware of the potential for this to happen.

Say I have enough models to entirely cover a table and my opponent is an entirely Deep Strike army (like Demons? Do they all have to DS?). Would I be at fault if I were able to cover the entire table before they get a unit out? But in that case, all the units could be destroyed by the mishap table or because they could not be fielded.... just a hypothetical situation.

No no Skinnattittar, it would be house ruled that you MUST go into reserves or risk the Deepstrikers making YOU roll for Mishap on YOUR units to die or go into reserves

It would depend on the guy TBH. if he was cool he gets full points. if not he wont get them.

The marine player was asking for it this game though. No khan in his bike army, won first turn, and still reserved everything. I think most people would have deployed and gone for it.

If this is the competition in europe team egobus will win full points.

I agree full marks for both if they were cool guys.

Now on the whole house rule issue, making a house rule that breaks the infiltrating rule is just bunk.

At no time did the Tau player break a rule in his infiltration. He placed his models per the rules and looked to be pretty precise in maintaining coherency(LOL).

Now since there is a precedence set for what happens when models cannot be deployed via the wolf scouts and webaway portals, the judge did have standard to work from when making his decision to declare the WS army destroyed. However, lets look at the actual non-game breaking house rule he could have enforced and the results:

House rule option # 1: Units in reserve that cannot come on the table are sent back into reserves till next turn.

Result: Tau player gets to leave his Kroot alongside table edge continually pushing WS reserves back a turn until end of game when all units still in reserve are considered destroyed. This whole time the rest of the Tau forces are able to come on the table and claim objectives or whatnot for mission.

Same result using a house rule that does not break the game.

Seriously Nos, by saying that the game should have been restarted as a result of completing a perfectly legal infiltration rule stinks of poor sportsmanship. There are plenty of tactics and moves that result in a bad spot for a player. Do we grant them do-overs as well?

Actrually Don that wasntr the solution I posed - I suggested instead you use the mechanic *already* within the rules (units ignore ANY special rule they have that could mean they dont arrive on the board from reserves, such as S&P / old BA turbocharged engine) and extend it to the 1" rule.

There, done, sorted. Entirely within the concept of the existing rules, doesnt require anything "new", and takes about, ooh, 1 line extra in the rulebook? And luckily ALSO fits with the 5th ed ethos of generally removing stupid abstractions sduch as shouting at someone with a low wall in the way is a good idea!

Then the tactic is not restricted - just made entirely, well, useless in practice.

Easy.

The thing is nos, this tactic is already useless in practice. It only works if you have infiltrators and the other guy has no skimmers, no tanks, no deep strikers, no infiltrators and he puts everything into reserve regardless (and it's an objective mission).

This isn't a tactic for players with infiltrators, the all-reserve players have to put themselves in this situation.

@ nosferato1001 : The problem is, you're now making up new rules and a new dynamic. It's not a major change in the game, but it is a change. You're also creating a very vague rule that breaks the idea of not passing through units or walking over other models. This creates more problems as later on what if one unit near the board edge suddenly finds itself inhabiting the same space as a recently arrived unit? They can't make any move as they are now all within 1" of other units. Make an exception for that? What if the area of movement is restricted? Make an exception for that as well? More problems than solved, and allows manipulation. Would not the simpler solution be to say that in circumstances like we have here, that units unable to mount the table from reserves must remain in reserves? Yeah, it sucks for the White Scars guy, but if that were a rule in the book he would/should have known that. As opposed to the current situation where it is not addressed directly.

However the rules are pretty clear, currently. White Scars held in reserves legally. Tau Infiltrated legally. White Scars attempted to come on the table from reserves legally. White Scars could not mount table due to movement restrictions from enemy models. So either they should go back in reserves, or count as having been off the table and destroyed (for some reason I'm feeling that the rulebook says if a vehicle goes off the table it counts as destroyed.... or was that a House Rule?).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:The thing is nos, this tactic is already useless in practice. It only works if you have infiltrators and the other guy has no skimmers, no tanks, no deep strikers, no infiltrators and he puts everything into reserve regardless (and it's an objective mission).

This isn't a tactic for players with infiltrators, the all-reserve players have to put themselves in this situation.

I shall quote this for truth.

Well, given that *whatever* way you work it you HAVE to make up new rules (thats the point - the rules dont cover this situation, and the game stalls) so why not make up a new rule that follows the system ALREADY in the book? Something that also removes the "low wall" issue which, frankly, makes no sense (and 5th ed is a lot about sense - hence no range or LOS sniping)

It doesnt interfere with "not moving through other models" at all....

Baring other factors. based on only the deployment, i would award 10 outa 10 to both.
As the OP askes, the thread is about sportsmanship and not rules.
@nos: if the rules do not cover a certain situation its up to the players to work it out, after that the judges. obviuosly a ruling was made and the SW lost. (personally the correct ruling IMO) your flinging around words like start over, and stall.... where does it say that a game is ever stalled or a turn is redone? i must have read over those parts.

@Hawkins:

Nosferatu1001 says 'stall' as in having to 'have' to have the judge come over and figure out what to do...at the end of the day, it's still time 'wasted' not playing the game...(a game which was pretty much over frankly).

@nosferatu1001:

I don't think the 1" rule counts as a 'special rule' to be ignored with respect to stuff like S&P and the like that would prevent the unit from moving on.

House rule is a house rule and that is the only way to figure this out as GW laughs at all this.

So long as the guy wasn't a douche about it, max. If you made the mistake of falling for that, then why ding your opponent?

Sanctjud wrote:@Hawkins:

Nosferatu1001 says 'stall' as in having to 'have' to have the judge come over and figure out what to do...at the end of the day, it's still time 'wasted' not playing the game...(a game which was pretty much over frankly).

@nosferatu1001:

I don't think the 1" rule counts as a 'special rule' to be ignored with respect to stuff like S&P and the like that would prevent the unit from moving on.

House rule is a house rule and that is the only way to figure this out as GW laughs at all this.

Ok thanks for the clarification.

What if a player put a bunch of rhinos in reserve? Could he tank shock his way onto the table?

Yes, if he had Rhinos, he could Tank Shock.

Assault Marines could fly over.

Or, if he could OutFlank, that would go around the line.

Skinnattittar wrote:Say I have enough models to entirely cover a table and my opponent is an entirely Deep Strike army (like Demons? Do they all have to DS?). Would I be at fault if I were able to cover the entire table before they get a unit out? But in that case, all the units could be destroyed by the mishap table or because they could not be fielded.... just a hypothetical situation.

2 years ago at Ard Boyz I had that situation. But, the player looked at the table, saw he was going to lose, and went to the judge and said because there were an odd number of players he would bow out and let someone else take his spot.

So I played a Tyranid kid who argued everything had a cover save...on an open table...because a genestealer was 6 inches from a termagaunt and the HIve Tyrant in between got cover from being between them....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:The thing is nos, this tactic is already useless in practice. It only works if you have infiltrators and the other guy has no skimmers, no tanks, no deep strikers, no infiltrators and he puts everything into reserve regardless (and it's an objective mission).

This isn't a tactic for players with infiltrators, the all-reserve players have to put themselves in this situation.

But, if his infantry comes in first, he loses those units. And if the tanks try to shock themselves onto the board, they could be destroyed off table. So it is not useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, if he had Rhinos, he could Tank Shock.

Assault Marines could fly over.

Or, if he could OutFlank, that would go around the line.

You have to announce outflanking at the start of the game.

The point that I was making was that it's not something that the player with infiltrators can plan on doing - it requires their opponent to take a very limited army list and then to deploy it in a particular way even though they've seen that you have those infiltrators.

BTW, I do heartily approve of the dude's "cookie-eating grin". I agree that he should get points just for that.

LMoE

Nos, as has been said, there is a viable method to avoid the situation presented here, it would just involve models other than bike mounted infantry, which is what that white scars player was using.

He had no vehicles, otherwise he could have tank shocked.

He had no skimmers or jump troops, otherwise he could have moved over the models.

As for this being a houserule, you're right. But we have clear precedent of GW's thoughts on the matter from various FAQs and Erratas from GW themselves, the most obvious being the Dark Eldar Webway portals (if blocked, units leaving are destroyed, but skimmers can fly out and over intervening models).

If there is a delay of the WS player from the Kroot, it's this...

Turn 1: Try to deploy: Fail. Next turn...
Turn 2: Try to deploy: Fail. Next turn...
Turn 3: Repeat first two steps until end of game.

Since nothing is moving, the whole resolution takes less than a minute, unless the kroot player moves, which he has no reason to.

It's a vague tactical move, but an interesting one that is perfectly viable and or legal. Remember, units coming from reserves act as moving. If they cannot make a legal move (staying 1" away from enemy models), they're screwed. And since you can't move through enemy models (impassable terrain), you're really screwed. A single rhino would have allowed his deployment to continue; a land raider would have done even better. The WS took a stacked and unbalanced list, and it probably worked very well for him in most games. This one it bit him in the rear. No fault of the Kroot player either, who I'd give points for ingenuity.

1) Oddly enough only Tanks can Tank shock, so not all vehicles would fit this bill.

2) How DARE the white scars player play a White Scars army! Oh the horror!

/sarcasm

I *fully understand* the ways around this - oddly enough I'm not a complete nub at this game! That does not alter that, as a tactic, it relies on a) a houserule to work, and b) an inordinate amount of abitrary "high" abstraction as to the playing surface and what it represents.

The point is that the edge of the board should not be the equivalent of a line marked on a playing field that your mere presence next to stops people from walking over. It is an abstraction, anda HUGELY silly one, to stop models moving on due to the edge having models stood at it jeering. It is as silly as LOS and range sniping, and those horrors were removed in 5th as 5th ed took a more, um, "sensible" view on these things. (removing some silly abstractions..)

And you have the turn sequence wrong - it is:

Turn 1: try to deploy but cannot. Must deploy but cannot. Must deploy but cannot. Must deploy but cannot......recurring.

You never reach past the start of the movement phase of turn 1, thus the game never ends. That is why, although the move is legal, it creates a "stalled game" - outside (of the Rules) intervention is required. In this the judge ruled in a very 3rd / 4th ed "high abstraction" way, which does not fit 5th ed at all.

Removing the 1" rule is a sensible and easy reconcile to this issue, as it a) follows the existing rules on removing unit special rules, just extending it to one rule in the main ruleset and b) removes the *STUPID* idea that someone stood next to the board edge stops models moving on - it is AS stupid as range / los sniping, engagement zone clearance, etc - all things that were got rid of in 5th for, if you read the design studio notes, they didnt fit the spirit or idea of the game.

If you really think that in a real war you stood next to the edge of the battle ground is enough to stop reserves moving, shoooting and / or assaulting you - well, good luck with that abstraction. I prefer the far less stupid one above.

Actually, that would happen in Turn 2. Since he's keeping his army in reserve until then. So Turn 1 would occur normally. (Unless they were playing Dawn of War)

Whether it is turn 1 or 2 doesnt matter hugely - I thought it was DoW hence starting at turn 1.

You still "stall" the game (2 conflicting imperitives with no way to reconcile them and continue) until an outside force intervenes.

How is LOS and Range Sniping stupid? "I can't see the other guys in that unit, so I'll shoot the guy I can!" Because I guess it makes more sense have guys that can't be seen be killed? Yeah, that makes sense (sarcasm).

Everything in 40k is an abstraction, and part of that abstraction is actually making it to the battlefield. Perhaps the White Scars, seeing the entire battlefield being possessed by an enemy, assumed that the sheer number of Tau forces was too great for them, and they left. Or! Since the Tau player was able to take so much ground, the abstraction would be to hold the battle in a totally different location, and in the scope of battle-time the White Scars would never be able to make it to their objectives. There are dozens of simple "fluff" reasons, but that has no bearing on the abstraction that is 40k.

White Scars player had access to all the same knowledge and rules that the Tau player did and still chose to not deploy a single model to prevent this situation. The Tau player, reasonably believing that he could at least force an advantage from the situation, if not a victory, seized the initiative and defeated the White Scars without firing a shot. There is nothing wrong with that.

I put forward that nosferatu1001 is grabbing at straws in defense of the poor decision of the White Scars player (in all seriousness, how could he NOT have seen this as a possibility?). The situation is abundantly clear. The argument that the Tau player was simply "stalling" has been chopped off at the knees time and again. A "house rule" that would cause far more complication than any solution in this case is highly undesirable. Why break a longstanding, reasonable rule as "don't try and hug your enemy, his armor might be spiky" and stay 1" away from him (except when assaulting) just to solve one very, very, very specific situation that is only outdone in it's level of specificness by the level of ease that it could have been avoided by the "victim."

nosferatu1001 wrote:Well, given that *whatever* way you work it you HAVE to make up new rules (thats the point - the rules dont cover this situation, and the game stalls) so why not make up a new rule that follows the system ALREADY in the book? Something that also removes the "low wall" issue which, frankly, makes no sense (and 5th ed is a lot about sense - hence no range or LOS sniping)

It doesnt interfere with "not moving through other models" at all....

Or why not use what GW has said to do in the past? That's what I don't get. You KNOW that GW has addressed this issue in the past. You KNOW what their answer was. Yet, for some reason, you think we should come up with some new solution. Why? Really, I don't get your adamant opposition to using the suggested GW solution. Just think about it.

As for the low wall, yep, it exists and it definitely affects the game. Falling back units that hit it are gone from the game. Blast markers that cross it disappear. Deep striking units that cross it have to test for mishap and are affected by that mishap. A unit just on the other side of it (ie in Reserves) can't be targeted or (as a general rule) affect what happens on table. And think about that one. A walking unit, the turn before it arrives, has to be within 6" of the edge of the world. Yet, as long as it's in Reserves, it can't be hurt. Even if I have a unit that can shoot 20'. This (the picket fence) is just one more game mechanic created by that same low wall, even if it does take a houserule (following GWs recommendation from times past) to put it into effect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
2) How DARE the white scars player play a White Scars army! Oh the horror!

I think the phrase you're really looking for is "How dare he play a White Scars army so stupidly.............."
Really, I have no sympathy for him. If, as has been mentioned, the Tau player warned him in advance, and he didn't bother to check with a judge on it, he deserves to lose.

Skinnattittar wrote:How is LOS and Range Sniping stupid? "I can't see the other guys in that unit, so I'll shoot the guy I can!" Because I guess it makes more sense have guys that can't be seen be killed? Yeah, that makes sense (sarcasm).

So all the troops stand aruond taking turns? Wonderful! Your arguments are getting better and better.

Skinnattittar wrote:White Scars player had access to all the same knowledge and rules that the Tau player did and still chose to not deploy a single model to prevent this situation. The Tau player, reasonably believing that he could at least force an advantage from the situation, if not a victory, seized the initiative and defeated the White Scars without firing a shot. There is nothing wrong with that.

Yet the Tau player knowingly caused a rulesbreak, and didnt get a ruling from a judge beforehand knowing this would happen. They are *both* guilty of this btw, still doesnt alter that it IS a rulesbreak.

Skinnattittar wrote:I put forward that nosferatu1001 is grabbing at straws in defense of the poor decision of the White Scars player (in all seriousness, how could he NOT have seen this as a possibility?). The situation is abundantly clear.

A poor decision to second guess a judge on exactly what houserule they would decide to play?

THinking that this is one of those undesirable abstractions is "clutching at straws"? I put it to you that you have yet to understand the argument, as evidenced by your next post...

Skinnattittar wrote:The argument that the Tau player was simply "stalling" has been chopped off at the knees time and again.

AS the above quote shows your knowledge of this interaction is lacking - the game HAS stalled and this argument has not been rebutted - certainly nto by you (saying it has doesnt actually make it so....) and neither have any of the posters before you. If you will look at Dons post you will see he *gasp* agrees with me that this requires a houserule to resolve.

The. Game. Stalls *until* an external force (a ---->houserule<-----, by definition) resolves it. *ANY* resolution requires a houserule. ANY.

Skinnattittar wrote:A "house rule" that would cause far more complication than any solution in this case is highly undesirable. Why break a longstanding, reasonable rule as "don't try and hug your enemy, his armor might be spiky" and stay 1" away from him (except when assaulting) just to solve one very, very, very specific situation that is only outdone in it's level of specificness by the level of ease that it could have been avoided by the "victim."

Why break a long standing rule that models with S&P have to test as they come onto the board, potentially not making it on? Oh wait, thats exactly what 5th ed did!

I've provoked enough (sorry everyone, it's in my nature, MEWAHAHAHA), so I'm going to let that lie. We also should not get too off topic talking about how "Line of Sniping" was perfectly reasonable, and was far less a broken abstraction then the current solution.

However; nofaratu1001, are you suggesting that instead of performing the action then getting a judge (which in all honesty was more something the White Scars player needed to do), thus causing a perceived "delay," the Tau player should have told the White Scars player (who should have asked a judge what would happen if his entire table edge was blocked and he couldn't come on from reserves) to wait, ask the judge, who should have told the Tau player the same thing, then perform his action post "delay?" It doesn't matter if you add 2 before or after you add 1, you're still adding two.

Despite that, the Tau player still did nothing wrong! I understand the argument quite well; was the Tau player being a jerk. The popular answer thus far has been "no, the Tau player did everything correctly and was perfectly permissible, the White Scars player lost fair and square, if only by a reasonable hole in the rules (where is simply doesn't explicitly state what happens in this instance)."

By the way, what is S&P? I don't think I'm familiar with that acronym.

Slow and Purposeful.
__________________________________

So...how about if we bend it and block off almost everything except a small opening in which the White scars player had to move on in a corner say?

Still poor sports score?

When i say "stall" I mean the game halts - not the usage in "stalling for time", i.e. one player slowing the game down.

The game halts until someone resolves the immovable object (cannot move within 1") vs irresistable force (MUST move on) issue.

BOTH players should have seen this issue coming a mile off and asked for a ruling from the judge before starting the game - in other words, is there an "auto lose" situation that you will impose to resolve the rules issue created if we both do X. The judge can then *before* it is a fait accompli on the part of the Tau player make a fair ruling so that both players know what happens.

I have maintained all along that *whatever* houserule is picked *before* the game is fine by me - as both players then have perfect knowledge. What I have a problem with is a houserule being created midgame that creates an autolose for one player. ("Auto" meaning the other player CANNOT win, as opposed to a situation where the opposing player could win if dice were lucky their way)

Sanctjud - nope, as they havent forced a break in the rules. Pretty sure I've mentioned this, oooh, a billion times now - it is creating a situation you *know* causes a break in the rules and esentially presenting it as a fait accompli to the judge that I find at fault. Sort it out before? Fine, *whatever* you then do isnt a problem. Dont create the break in the rules? Fine, dont have an issue (oddly enough)

Whether the tau player would want his essentially saveless, T3 models out in the open for a whole load of bikes to mow down - well, thats another story!

OT: current one is at least a consistent abstraction, i.e. everything affects a "unit" on a "unit" basis, and prevent someone moving rhinos "just so" the sarge is the only visible model. THAT was stupid, as it implies the sarge stands there while all this happens...which I hope you can see is NOT a sensible abstraction. Big issue with a turn based system is representing this "intra turn" movement that *would* be happening, and the removal of LOS/ /range sniping from within a unit DOES reflect this in a lot more realistic way that previously, as it shows that the unit is not static.

Well it sounds like the White Scars player should have checked on that before deciding on his tactics. Still not really a problem for the Tau player, if he had assumed wrong, he would have probably paid for it. Again, the main issue is on the White Scars player, not the Tau player, who has only done exactly what the rules allows him to, it is the White Scars player who is trying to do something that the rules have contention for.

Regardless of whose "fault" it was and how they could have absolved it, the White Scars player would have at best gotten a tie (if it were KP) and lost if it were anything else (as long as the Tau player sat a troop on an objective). So the White Scars player, before deciding to put his entire army in reserve, should have asked a judge what would have happened if he could not mount the table because his army was blocked by enemy models. Why? Because the Tau player did everything correctly and had no rules contention with the operation of his army and chosen tactics! Rules should not disallow tactics, only allow tactics, and currently the chosen tactic was not clearly resolved with the rules!

OT: Please stop trying to be Off-Topic, or at least start a different thread about that topic, rather than derailing the thread with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Sanctjud : Oh, dur! My thanks.

Both should have asked, neither did. It takes two to tango.

It's up to BOTH players to check each other really and for both players to resolve these issues.

Can't fault one or the other for being short sighted...actually to hell with this...

Who was there, as second hand information is less than ideal?
How do you (anyone) rate sportsmanship?
Shouldn't it be a culmination of things and not just a single move that 'stalls' the game?
Etc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

BOTH players should have seen this issue coming a mile off and asked for a ruling from the judge before starting the game - in other words, is there an "auto lose" situation that you will impose to resolve the rules issue created if we both do X. The judge can then *before* it is a fait accompli on the part of the Tau player make a fair ruling so that both players know what happens.

And supposedly, the Tau player warned the WS ahead of time (ie when WS said he was placing everything in Reserves, before the Kroot were infiltrated) on what he (Tau) was going to do, and gave him (WS) a chance to not reserve everything.........................
If at that point the WS player chooses to go ahead and place everything in reserves without asking the judge first..............

I've already said that was, if true, entirely stupid on the part of the WS player - however the onus is *still* on *both* players to ensure this is resolved beforehand. It is presenting a fait accompli that is that big issue here.

Skinna... you have your OOP incorrect - the WS player reserved everything THEN the Tau player caused the issue through the Infiltration.

ALso, you dont seem to get that *the game would not end* until an external force (houserule or timelimit) kicked in .

WS allowed it - so the WS player has some fault
Tau *actually* created it - so definitely shares some fault.

White Scars not only allowed the situation, he created the perfect environment FOR the situation with the motivation to do it, knowing full well (or should have) that the Tau player could do that. Whether or not the Tau player actually perpetrated the act leading to the result, the issue already existed.

Fact: Everything the Tau player did was entirely legitimate, that can't be denied. The White Scars player did everything legit as well, however it was his deployment method that ended up at this problem. In an abstract way, the Tau player shares some blame, but strictly in an aesthetic sense. The Tau player created nothing, he just used it, which he was perfectly within all his writes to do.

Also, this is less of a "time limit" issue than it is a "systems crash." If this were a computer program, it would have crashed, and required an external force (the Judge) to step in and correct the issue. In this case, I feel he made a legitimate call; White Scrars player's units are destroyed if they can not mount the table.

Now as far as Sportsmanship goes, the Tau player did everything correctly and fairly (and it sounds like he even warned his opponent, so +points there!), not breaking any rules or manipulating the situation; he stayed entirely within the realm of very common and accepted rules. The White Scars player, however, made a tactical decision that came around and bit him in the arse. Since the rules are unclear, and I'm guessing the White Scars player wasn't willing to simply concede the game, and the Tau player willing to "undo" the situation (they're in a Tournament, he doesn't have to, nor is he expected to within any good reason), they did the right thing and contacted a Judge. Judge decided; White Scars lose.

If a mech force deploys with their weak Rear Armor facing the opponent, and is tabled before his first turn, does he get to blame his opponent for this result?

@JohnHwangDD:

Your example is a poor one frankly.

It does not encounter a 'system crash'.

I would see him doing it, not say anything, and laugh like a maniac while I tank-shock onto the board.

I can't discount him for trying though, but I might subtract 1 from his sportsmanship score.

I only saw this done one other time, a guy with a scout army was up against nids with stealers, so he made a wall on both short edges, making it impossible for the nids to outflank their stealers until they dealt with some of the scouts. (nids still won though)

@Sanctjud: It's no more of a "system crash" than any other situation where the player can't make a compusory move (cf. Fallback).

GW shouldn't be in the business of protecting players from their own stupidity.

And in this particular situation, the Tau player was completely sporting, asking the WS player if he was sure he wanted to hold everything in Reserves.

If they can't make a fallback move within their corridor they are dead...
If the tanks are deployed on the board and they get killed first turn by enemy guns...the squad fails morale and runs away through the wreck...what's the problem?

Are you talking about tank shocking with rear armor and having them get destroyed 'off-the board' from a Death or Glory attack? Simple... you ignore Death or Glory.

Fallback says the models "must" move, but if they can't, game over.

If the tanks are deployed stupidly, so that the weak armor is exposed, that's the player's fault. Same as holding in Reserves. Player's should take responsibility for their actions.

I have maintained all along that *whatever* houserule is picked *before* the game is fine by me - as both players then have perfect knowledge. What I have a problem with is a houserule being created midgame that creates an autolose for one player. ("Auto" meaning the other player CANNOT win, as opposed to a situation where the opposing player could win if dice were lucky their way)

Whats wrong with an auto lose. Suppose I play tau, park my whole army in the back table corner, and decide not to shoot at all. There is nothing in the rules requiring me to shooting each turn. I would auto lose, as my opponent could either gun my guys down or just take objectives safely.

Sanctjud - nope, as they havent forced a break in the rules. Pretty sure I've mentioned this, oooh, a billion times now - it is creating a situation you *know* causes a break in the rules and esentially presenting it as a fait accompli to the judge that I find at fault. Sort it out before? Fine, *whatever* you then do isnt a problem. Dont create the break in the rules? Fine, dont have an issue (oddly enough)

I feel to see how it creates a rules issue.

To everyone speaking out against this, I ask them if they would be as angry at me for DARING, indeed having such sheer AUDACITY, as to load my Chimeras up with company command squads carrying plasma, KNOWING FULL WELL ahead of time that should I lose but two of them to "Get's Hot", that space and time themselves fold in and collapse all around the game as it can not possibly continue from that point on due to my pending (soon to be failed) leadership save. At least the infiltration crash requires the other guy to be a sucker. All I need is something to fire at and time.

I sure hope not. The rules aren't the perfect flawless pillars of wisdom and insight that people want to lawyer them as. I for one would applaud the guy and offer to buy him a beer in the time before the next game. I'd even applaud someone for pulling it off in a friendly game. Most of my friends would also find it hilarious as well.

"I can't see the other guys in that unit, so I'll shoot the guy I can!" Because I guess it makes more sense have guys that can't be seen be killed? Yeah, that makes sense (sarcasm).

Since we are using real life logic now, rather than GW logic, i disagree
You see a single person walking about, you know he is part of a unit and they are near by.
Most units would open fire on him and the immediate area around him knowing other unit members will be about.
It will either hit them (through a surface) or get thier attention and bring them out.



OT: To be honest, its down to how he acted, now the tactics he used.
WS player held in reserve to gain an advantage against a shooting army.
Tau blocked them out of the board to gain an advantage over them.
No harm done to be honest, both player were employing tactics to help them, it was just a case of one working on the basis of the other.

Now, if he didnt cause a problem with it, full score, if he started making comments and acting like a dick, you drop the score.
Tactics dont come into sportsmanship.

This is getting flamy and I daresay, surreal. As this issue comes up, well never, shutting down before it gets truly out of hand. Time for some much needed wiener dog commentary.