I am not sure what the exact story is behind this picture, or the exact tournament... but maybe someone out there can tell me for sure??
The story i heard what that the white scars player (in white shirt) had their entire army in reserve, the tau player (black shirt) infiltrated his Kroot and created the line along board edge with his infiltrate move, and thus blocking the the white scars player from being able to enter the battle field... at all?? How accurate is this story?? would this strategy even work?? You can see the judge (in safety vest...no i don't know why he is wearing it) and the white scars player searching the rules.... so basically in this unlikely scenario.. is it possible to win before the game has officially started????

You make Da Call!!

Uhhh.. I've seen in it happen in Apocalypse........
But not in a regular game.......
Wtf......
That is just a dick move....

God this is so old.
Tau-insta win no matter what way you rule it.
The game went full points to the smiling guy.
They played again anyway for fun.

Yeah, it is an actual event. Can't remember what tournament it was at though. Happened a while ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asherian Command wrote:That is just a dick move....

Nooo! Not this argument again!

Is this really that old??? i have never seen it before and a friend of mine sent it to me, he just got back from a tourney trip so i thought it was something from that lol.
and yes, yes it is a pretty dastardly move, i'd do it myself... if i didn't want to sleep at night.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:That is just a dick move....

Nooo! Not this argument again!

sorry guys, not trying to re-hash any old wounds, just trying to get some info on this pic.

Yes its over a year old.

Sarnath666 wrote:Yes its over a year old.

Good to know, so its a fifth ed pic?? As in, whether or not this is or isn't a dick move, its legal under the current rules??? If so, how does one PREVENT this from happening to ones self?? -Deploying at least one unit??

I dont know...go find a dude in a red vest. Maybe he can tell you.

Sarnath666 wrote:I dont know...go find a dude in a red vest. Maybe he can tell you.

uh, sure.... thanks?

This is 100% legal and an awesome move. High-five to the savvy Tau player.

This, kids, is why you don't hold an entire army in reserve when your opponent has hordes of infiltrators.

It happened at last years European Team Championship, and while I have not seen a picture surface, I understand it also happened at this year's ETC. So yes, it was 5th ed.

As for legality, well, it's not covered in the rules what happens to a unit that is unable to enter play due to this scenario. IMO, yes, the unit is destroyed. I base this opinion on the only time GW ever addressed the issue, back when SW Scouts first got Behind Enemy Lines. At that time, GW said that a SW Scout unit was destroyed if they were unable to enter due to an enemy 'picket fence'. If you use it, this is also the INAT answer.

And yes, to prevent it, all you have to do is deploy one model, just enough to keep the opponent from infiltrating along your board edge. So sacrifice something so that the rest of your army can start in Reserves. Also note that it doesn't work against skimmers, jump troops and tanks as they can go over or through the models blocking the board edge.

One would think that you wouldn't hold your entire army in reserve in the first place unless there was a guaranteed way of getting them onto the board, i.e. drop pod.
in a casual game.. that is a pretty d*ck move.....
in a tournament.... d*ck moves turn into strategy.

hcordes wrote:One would think that you wouldn't hold your entire army in reserve in the first place unless there was a guaranteed way of getting them onto the board, i.e. drop pod.

One would think.

Kilkrazy wrote:Please do not engage in Gaybashing, spam threads or impersonating a Moderator.

Common sense should tell you that it is a bad thing to do.

? Not sure what that means Sarnath, care to enlighten us.

Hmm... Is it time for another one of these threads already... must remember to set my watch.

we really need an "eyeroll" emoticon.

:eyeroll:

Sarnath666 wrote:FAGCAKES

i am sorry if this post doesn't interest you at all... or you are somehow offended by it. You have previous experience with this picture and this scenario... i did not until now. I am sorry I was not as up to date on 40k tourney scene as you are. But that is no reason to be mean and through around nasty slurs.

I struggle with simple things !

What iduoit would put his entire army in reserve and have no backup plan? Like drop pods?

Sarnath666 wrote:I'm sorry...let me elaborate. It was a flawless win on the tau players part but he is obviously a fagcake for not losing any models while winning. Typical tau player no respect for the Blood god.

why would tau have anything to do with the blood god in the first place, much less respect what he represents?? did this happen to you and you are bitter? ((not trying to be a d*ck myself, just curious)) I don't think it makes him a "fagcake" ((whatever that is)) it makes him a dastardly bastard but that's about it.. it was a tournament, and in a tournament i would do the same thing, in a casual game i would not.

hcordes wrote:"fagcake" ((whatever that is))

I assumed it was some kind of baked confection featuring cigarettes.

Truth be told, sounds entirely unappetizing, but to each his/her own, I guess.

Asherian Command wrote:What iduoit...

Ah, Irony rears it's funny little head...

... This is one of those occasions I am torn between my desire to slay the smiling guy for trying that move on me,
or to secretly give in to my desire to do that to somone, just to ruin their day.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:What idiot...

Ah, Irony rears it's funny little head...

What me? I miss spelled. Thats how I use to spell it.....
I suck at grammar, and spelling sometimes.

Sarnath666 wrote:I'm sorry...let me elaborate. It was a flawless win on the tau players part but he is obviously a fagcake for not losing any models while winning. Typical tau player no respect for the Blood god.

So you insult him because the White Scars player was an idiot? Or is it just players that score a victory while losing zero models (I've done it, BTW, with my IG). I can (almost) understand those that call him unsporting, even tho I disagree. But random insults. I don't get it.

My question is if the white scars player had vehicles in his list, would he be able to tank shock onto the board?

Viper217 wrote:My question is if the white scars player had vehicles in his list, would he be able to tank shock onto the board?

good question..... but doesn't the tank have to have an official starting spot? and off table doesn't count for that...... or does it?

Yes, perfectly legal to tankshock / ram onto the board.

Viper217 wrote:My question is if the white scars player had vehicles in his list, would he be able to tank shock onto the board?

Where would he measure distance from? There is no way to measure from a unit off of the board. Also to tank shock you have to give up normal movement which means he couldn't move onto the board. There are no rules to answer all of these questions so it was ruled in the Tau's favor. It was the easiest way to go.

Viper217 wrote:My question is if the white scars player had vehicles in his list, would he be able to tank shock onto the board?

Good question. I'd say no, since you must "first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intend to move it and declare how many inches the vehicles is going to move."

How can you turn the vehicle on the spot if it's not on the board?

Is that only bike army even legal?

Thank you so much, Viper.

General concensus in the past is that yes, you can legally tank shock / ram onto the board. As long as there is the tiniest sliver of board available for you to begin said tank shock / ram, you're golden. Note that there's no restriction on beginning a tank shock within 1" of an enemy model. It's not normal movement, and you're beginning the movement phase within 1" of the enemy model, not ending it.

Yup. You take Kahn on his bike then Bikes become troop choices.

Lokirfellheart wrote:Is that only bike army even legal?

Yes. Kor'sarro Khan and the Spess Mehree Captain (on a Spess Mehreen Bike) both make bike squads count as troops choices.

SaintHazard wrote:This is 100% legal and an awesome move. High-five to the savvy Tau player.

This, kids, is why you don't hold an entire army in reserve when your opponent has hordes of infiltrators.

Or why a White Scars player who plans to hold everything in reserve should have a Ko'sarro Khan card up his sleeve.

puma713 wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:This is 100% legal and an awesome move. High-five to the savvy Tau player.

This, kids, is why you don't hold an entire army in reserve when your opponent has hordes of infiltrators.

Or why a White Scars player who plans to hold everything in reserve should have a Ko'sarro Khan card up his sleeve.

Or a drop pod, or scouts, or any of the other 19,480,314,932,443 ways to get around that tactic that I didn't mention because there are roughly 19,480,314,932,443 of them.

SaintHazard wrote:

puma713 wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:This is 100% legal and an awesome move. High-five to the savvy Tau player.

This, kids, is why you don't hold an entire army in reserve when your opponent has hordes of infiltrators.

Or why a White Scars player who plans to hold everything in reserve should have a Ko'sarro Khan card up his sleeve.

Or a drop pod, or scouts, or any of the other 19,480,314,932,443 ways to get around that tactic that I didn't mention because there are roughly 19,480,314,932,443 of them.

thats a big number......

ko'sarro khan card? did i miss something in this quip??

hcordes wrote:ko'sarro khan card? did i miss something in this quip??

Kor'sarro Khan's Chapter Tactics removes Combat Tactics and gives Dedicated Transports the ability to outflank.

SaintHazard wrote:

hcordes wrote:
ko'sarro khan card? did i miss something in this quip??

Kor'sarro Khan's Chapter Tactics removes Combat Tactics and gives Dedicated Transports the ability to outflank.

Gives -everything- the ability to outflank.

hcordes wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

puma713 wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:This is 100% legal and an awesome move. High-five to the savvy Tau player.

This, kids, is why you don't hold an entire army in reserve when your opponent has hordes of infiltrators.

Or why a White Scars player who plans to hold everything in reserve should have a Ko'sarro Khan card up his sleeve.

Or a drop pod, or scouts, or any of the other 19,480,314,932,443 ways to get around that tactic that I didn't mention because there are roughly 19,480,314,932,443 of them.

thats a big number......

ko'sarro khan card? did i miss something in this quip??

Ko'sarro Khan is a nasty piece of work. The bike list is devastating when it works.

puma713 wrote:Gives -everything- the ability to outflank.

Yep, you're right, my bad. I somehow selective readeded the second sentence, and skipped the first.

Yes, this is legal, but very unlikely. The following conditions all have to be met:

1) Player A goes first
2) Player A contains enough infiltrators to cover an entire long board edge
3) Player B reserves his entire army
4) Player B has no vehicles, no jump packs, no flanking, no deep strike, no jetbikes (what else am I missing?)

So, be aware this strategy can happen. If your army has enough infiltrators, be on the lookout for a list that doesn't contain a way to get past you and reserves everything. If your army doesn't have a way to get past an enemy unit, don't reserve everything if your opponent has tons of infiltrators.

It's not a particularly obvious strategy, but be aware of it and don't let it happen to you/take advantage when you can!

If my opponent ever did this to me, I'd laugh.

The spectacular absurdity of doing this goes way beyond "dick move" and well into the territory of hilariously awesome.

You cant call it being a dick move because the other guy left himself open for it so badly. This is pretty much a never happens kind of move but given the right situation and such, you get that picture lol. I bet that white scars player never pulled THAT again against Tau

To me, it is like "Fool's Mate" in chess. If you're paying any amount of attention at all, it shouldn't happen.

LOL, I think the leason here is don't be a dick and keep everyone in reserve, or someone smarter then you will make you pay. I be giving the Tau a pat on the back, for beating the other guy at his own game.

hcordes wrote:One would think that you wouldn't hold your entire army in reserve in the first place unless there was a guaranteed way of getting them onto the board, i.e. drop pod.
in a casual game.. that is a pretty d*ck move.....
in a tournament.... d*ck moves turn into strategy.

QFT^

In a casual game i woudl have been annoyed if someone pulled this on me (but i also wont reserve everything unless i'm outflanking, or deep striking them just so this wouldn't happen.

in a tournament well anythng goes, and you can't be too annoyed that you messed up and let someone pull that on you! haah. i wonder what it was like for the tau player if he knew this trick or if he just stood there thnking where to deploy and then was like what if i did this hahaah and then did it hahaahhahaha.

Grakmar wrote:Yes, this is legal, but very unlikely. The following conditions all have to be met:

1) Player A goes first
2) Player A contains enough infiltrators to cover an entire long board edge
3) Player B reserves his entire army
4) Player B has no vehicles, no jump packs, no flanking, no deep strike, no jetbikes (what else am I missing?)

And 5) Whoever is adjudicating the game rules that it results in your entire army in Reserve being destroyed.


The simple fact is that the situation is completely legal... but resolving it requires a house rule, since the rules don't cover what happens if a unit is supposed to move on from Reserve and doesn't.

Although some players are of the opinion that the rules do in fact allow the enemy units to move on, on the basis that the rule forcing them to move on would over-ride the normal prohibition on moving within 1" of enemy models... 'Must' over-riding 'may not'.

Ultimately, unless the rules for what happens in this case have been sorted out ahead of time, this is not a clever way of winning a game. It's a clever way of bringing the game to a halt by exploiting a loophole. Whether or not that becomes a win depends on the ruling made to deal with it.

insaniak wrote:And 5) Whoever is adjudicating the game rules that it results in your entire army in Reserve being destroyed.

The simple fact is that the situation is completely legal... but resolving it requires a house rule, since the rules don't cover what happens if a unit is supposed to move on from Reserve and doesn't.

That is also true. Or, alternatively, the Reserves rules force you to place the unit on the table, the presence of an enemy model forces you NOT to place the unit on the table, and the universe implodes. I like option A: Make gak up.

Noir wrote:LOL, I think the leason here is don't be a dick and keep everyone in reserve, or someone smarter then you will make you pay. I be giving the Tau a pat on the back, for beating the other guy at his own game.

What? How is it being a dick to keep everything in reserve? That's a standard tactic against many armies, and a totally fair one.

If keeping your units in reserve is a dick move, so is playing an alpha-strike list looking to wipe out your opponent before they can have a turn.

Technically, this situation isn't covered in the rules, and you'd get stuck in the beginning of the second (SM) player's movement phase if you follow RAW. Just as units that aren't fully on the table (2D perspective) isn't covered by the rules fully (again, technically it's allowed, but that's a whole different can of worms).

Note, however, that when moving on to the board, the unit is placed outside the board, so a tank could tank shock just fine even if there weren't a sliver of board's edge to use. The rules specifically say that placing a model the tiniest fraction on the board and then measuring from the model is illegal and that you should measure from the table edge.

Edit: Also, before calling something a "dick move" (grotesque use of language), try to evaluate what other options there are to play. Some codices do not offer much in terms of viable options, so being annoyed because someone uses them is just... silly. The only thing I'd call a dick move is using distinctly overpowered units in a friendly game.

Saldiven wrote:To me, it is like "Fool's Mate" in chess. If you're paying any amount of attention at all, it shouldn't happen.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Of course as far as i know the Scars player deployed as he did to deny the Tau a turn of shooting (which is very important to the tau) but, still praising himself about his cunning deployment, he didn't realise that this could happen. Tbh, i can't blame him, it's a pretty insane kinda thing to do (though well done to the guy who actually though 'hang on a minute, if i just...') and you wouldn't expect it. The Scars player is a bit unlucky imo, as has been mentioned, there are a lot of things- tanks, deep strikers- that could have kept him in the game, he just happened not to have any of them. Though now obviously people are gonna be a bit more wary of this kind of thing, as this picture is known my most of us wargamers.

Apparently, this was the second time it had happened at that particular tournament, the first being the year before. Don't quote me on it, though, my memory is sketchy on this.

I rarely see the "keep everything in Reserve" tactic work out too well anyway.

This is why I run kroot. Just waiting to see the guy that trys to put everything in reserves at the FLGS. Try to deny me a turn of shooting, will you!

Thanks for posting this up, not kidding. Seeing it again brought a smile to my face. Look at how happy the Tau guy is!

I had a similar thing occur in final round of 'ard Boyz in Philadelphia this year. Was playing a nids player with my Ork horde, and he wins roll, has me go first.

I place things as far forward as I can, and he puts everything into reserve, everything outflanking.

I get two turns of move + run and snikrot + 15 kommandos come on turn 2 as well. I'm able to block off all of one side of the board with the kommandos and some grots, and all but the last 4-6" of the other side with grots and some truk boyz.

He gets in all but 1 unit, and is only able to move 1 unit of genestealers onto the board- he immediately concedes and refuses to play a 'for fun' game instead. So... I sat around in Media, PA for almost 3 hours with nothing to do but watch everyone else's games.

Legit, but pretty damn impossible to pull off on a common basis.
As stated, there are too many factors to make it work.


IMO: I give the tau player credit here.

Tau suck in cmobat, marines will tear through there quickly (even more so than normal due to more speed)

Tau player simply makes a move that stops combat from working ...... or anything else for that matter.

Lots of good posts, thanks guys! I had never seen this until this morning when an old gaming buddy sent to me. I am such a casual player that I have only played in one tournament in the last fours years. (getting married and two kids will do that to you.) So i am not as rules savvy as some of you out there, so I had no real idea about the situation or it's "inner workings"

+1 to all

If it's a White Scar army he should of had the Khan and then he would be outflanking and this deployment would be useless.

bigyounk wrote:If it's a White Scar army he should of had the Khan and then he would be outflanking and this deployment would be useless.

Not really. I'm pretty sure that if you can cover the whole long table edge you could cover the two short ones as well.

Only takes 25 models to cover a 72" edge with 2" - a bit less, actually - coherency. One model in each corner on a 1" base, 2" between, next 1" base, 2" along, etc.
Take two squads of 15-20 kroot and he could do that.

Takes 36 to do the same to either flank edge (So if he takes 2 squads of 20 kroot AND goes 2nd after his opponent declares "All in reserve, outflanking" he could do it easliy).

Wow... what an awful yet horribly incredible move... I'm torn between crying at the sheer idiocy of the one guy (poor kid) and laughing my @$$ off, and sneaking away to try it myself.

kartofelkopf wrote:I had a similar thing occur in final round of 'ard Boyz in Philadelphia this year. Was playing a nids player with my Ork horde, and he wins roll, has me go first.

I place things as far forward as I can, and he puts everything into reserve, everything outflanking.

I get two turns of move + run and snikrot + 15 kommandos come on turn 2 as well. I'm able to block off all of one side of the board with the kommandos and some grots, and all but the last 4-6" of the other side with grots and some truk boyz.

He gets in all but 1 unit, and is only able to move 1 unit of genestealers onto the board- he immediately concedes and refuses to play a 'for fun' game instead. So... I sat around in Media, PA for almost 3 hours with nothing to do but watch everyone else's games.

But are the units that were unable to enter the board destroyed? Seems to me that that part is questionable, meaning in the case of the Tau vs White Scars neither player would receive VP's due to destroying models and in your case couldn't it be argued just as well that the units that were unable to enter the board would come on the next turn? I could understand the annoyance from the Tyranid player if the Tournament Organizers ruled those units were destroyed as it doesn't say anywhere in the rules that they would be.

It does however count units not on-table at the end of the game as destroyed...

SlaveToDorkness wrote:It does however count units not on-table at the end of the game as destroyed...

so if they can never come onto the table... you basically cycle through the turns... unable to come onto the table till the "game" is over, at which point they are off table and count as destroyed???

*sighs*

how very dastardly/smart/genius, its exploiting a situation to the fullest.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:It does however count units not on-table at the end of the game as destroyed...

I can't find anything in the Reserve rules that supports this statement.

Page number?

How is it exploiting? Not a single rule is even questionable. The coherency is maintained. The rules for infiltrating have been followed. The player in reserve lost himself the game. If anything the outflanking player simply controlled the battlefield so completely, the other players army could not even make it out of reserves.

SaintHazard wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:It does however count units not on-table at the end of the game as destroyed...

I can't find anything in the Reserve rules that supports this statement.

Page number?

BRB pg 90 under Wipeout.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:It does however count units not on-table at the end of the game as destroyed...

I can't find anything in the Reserve rules that supports this statement.

Page number?

BRB pg 90 under Wipeout.

noted.. but i did pick up on something else... not intentionally keeping this can of worms going.. but....... by turn 5 his reserves have to come on right.... its automatic...... it says, pg94 of BRB under Arriving From Reserve "..Each model's move is measured from the edge of the battlefield, as if they had been positioned just off the table board in the previous turn and moved as normal....."
couldn't one argue that the turn they arrived they couldn't move onto the table because of movement restrictions ect. but couldn't they charge onto the table?? and fill in those 2" gaps with his own models... and basically fight his way onto the table......??

Only by dividing by Zero or expecting clear non-conflicting rules from GW (same thing really...).

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Only by dividing by Zero or expecting clear non-conflicting rules from GW (same thing really...).

soooo.... that a no?? lol

The pic does not give a good perspective
As long as the bikes didn't touch a Kroot base, or end the move within 1" of a Kroot base then he could come on the board.

It looks like there is enough space between a few of those kroot to move onto the table, Since bikes have a base of just less than one inch. and there seems to be more that an inch gap between a few of those bases. he should be able to deploy.

Except that you may not move within 1" of an enemy for the entirety of your movement, not just ending it.

Brother Ramses wrote:How is it exploiting? Not a single rule is even questionable. The coherency is maintained. The rules for infiltrating have been followed. The player in reserve lost himself the game. If anything the outflanking player simply controlled the battlefield so completely, the other players army could not even make it out of reserves.

It's exploiting a loophole because it is deliberately creating a situation not covered by the rules.

Keeping your entire army in reserve is legal. That's covered by the rules.
The infiltration is legal. That's covered by the rules.
What happens when you have to bring units on from reserve, but can't is not covered by the rules.

Contrary to popular opinion, being unable to move on from reserve does not immediately count the unit as destroyed. It doesn't count as anything... you are told that you must bring the unit on but (unless you subscribe to the 'must' over-riding 'may not' theory I mentioned earlier) have no way to do so. So the game comes to a crashing halt until you agree on a house rule to cover the situation.

Again, the rules don't make this an automatic win for the infiltrating player. The house rule that made it so that units unable to move on were immediately destroyed did that.

This is not a triumph of tactical brilliance. It's a player taking advantage of a grey area of the rules, and being handed a win by a judge making up a rule on the spot.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Except that you may not move within 1" of an enemy for the entirety of your movement, not just ending it.

It looks like there is a space enough to move on, but there might not be, you can not really tell from the pic.

but its a BS move anyway, there should be a provision there allowing you to move on if someone tries to do this, GW needs better rules guys.

Well round these parts if you can't or forget to bring something on that you rolled for to come on then it just stays in reserve. But this is insignificant, if they're in reserve by the end of the game they are classed as destroyed for the purposes of Kill Points.

Oshova

DeathReaper wrote:
but its a BS move anyway, there should be a provision there allowing you to move on if someone tries to do this, GW needs better rules guys.

I hope GW shouldn't have to write rules to make up for Player incompentence. Games Workshop is Not Blizzard and 40k is not WoW. The 40k Player base should be able to think, chew bubblegum, and walk at the same time.

People keep coming back to the idea that the player keeping his army in reserve was incompetent... and I'm honestly puzzled as to why.

It's not incompetent to fail to take into account that keeping your entire army in Reserve may result in a tournament judge deciding to just make up a rule that hands your opponent a win.

insaniak wrote:People keep coming back to the idea that the player keeping his army in reserve was incompetent... and I'm honestly puzzled as to why.

It's not incompetent to fail to take into account that keeping your entire army in Reserve may result in a tournament judge deciding to just make up a rule that hands your opponent a win.

valid, and as i mentioned.. it also says ((in the reserves section of rule book)) nothing about charging from the "off table" area.... if they legally HAVE to move onto the table as if they were just off table (i.e. the front of there bases are at the edge of table) and they can't move onto the table during regular move, i am ok with this, but i see no reason why they can not charge into Hand to Hand, destroy a target unit blocking a path and create an opening which other units can pass.

Because you're not on the table maybe? Or maybe everyone should just take round some board extensions just in case this happens. So when your models don't fit on the table, you use a board extension, then charge from there.

Sorry hcordes, it just makes no sense to be able to assault when you're not on the table.

Oshova

insaniak wrote:People keep coming back to the idea that the player keeping his army in reserve was incompetent... and I'm honestly puzzled as to why.

It's not incompetent to fail to take into account that keeping your entire army in Reserve may result in a tournament judge deciding to just make up a rule that hands your opponent a win.

This.

To be fair though, I bet he won't make the same mistake twice!

Oshova wrote:Because you're not on the table maybe? Or maybe everyone should just take round some board extensions just in case this happens. So when your models don't fit on the table, you use a board extension, then charge from there.

Sorry hcordes, it just makes no sense to be able to assault when you're not on the table.

Oshova

it also doesn't make sense that when the rule books says THEY HAVE TO MOVE ONTO THE TABLE, and then.. someone says they can't and are destroyed because he has to make an on-the-spot ruling during a tournament.......

No. They apparently "Have" to move onto the table, but there is nowhere to move onto the table. So they stay in reserve until such a time when there is space.

However, if when the game ends there are any models left in reserve, then the rulebook states they are classed as destroyed.

So whether they are destroyed when they can't get on the table, left in reserve until they can come on, turned into a tasty chocolate dessert, it doesn't really make much difference. The White Scars lose, the Tau get a victory with full victory points, as there are no enemy models on the table, and didn't lose a single model.

Oshova

Edited for typo

insaniak wrote:People keep coming back to the idea that the player keeping his army in reserve was incompetent... and I'm honestly puzzled as to why.

It's not incompetent to fail to take into account that keeping your entire army in Reserve may result in a tournament judge deciding to just make up a rule that hands your opponent a win.

I'm in no way one to fault the guy in pic, as that was (AFAIK) the first recorded instance of that happening, and early into the 5th edition era. But, if someone had this happen to them today, I (and I doubt I'd be alone) would feel more than justified in some pointing and laughing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hcordes wrote:

Oshova wrote:Because you're not on the table maybe? Or maybe everyone should just take round some board extensions just in case this happens. So when your models don't fit on the table, you use a board extension, then charge from there.

Sorry hcordes, it just makes no sense to be able to assault when you're not on the table.

Oshova

it also doesn't make sense that when the rule books says THEY HAVE TO MOVE ONTO THE TABLE, and then.. someone says they can't and are destroyed because he has to make an on-the-spot ruling during a tournament.......

It makes the most sense of the available options. If we allow your 'charge on" approach to work, then what about shooting from off-board? And, if your models are just of the board edge, why can't I charge off the board to contact them? Etc...

Should they count as destroyed? Maybe not. But the rules don't allow for them to just hang around off-board, either. Regardless, by the end of the game, they're going to count for VP/KP.

kartofelkopf wrote:

It makes the most sense of the available options. If we allow your 'charge on" approach to work, then what about shooting from off-board? And, if your models are just of the board edge, why can't I charge off the board to contact them? Etc...

Should they count as destroyed? Maybe not. But the rules don't allow for them to just hang around off-board, either. Regardless, by the end of the game, they're going to count for VP/KP.

i think this is one of those round about arguements ..... something needs to be addressed here, so no one has to make an on the spot ruling.... thats all.

hcordes wrote:... but i see no reason why they can not charge into Hand to Hand, destroy a target unit blocking a path and create an opening which other units can pass.

That's one of the house rules that was suggested the previous times this came up. It's fine as a house rule, but not supported by the rules, which specifically require reserves to move on during the movement phase.

Oshova wrote:No. They apparently "Have" to move onto the table, but there is nowhere to move onto the table. So they stay in reserve until such a time when there is space.

Also fine as a house rule. But also not supported by the rules, which require reserves to move on as soon as they are available. Without a rule specifically allowing it (as in the case of Necrons coming in though the Monolith) they can not be held back until later... they have to move on immediately they become available.

So whether they are destroyed when they can't get on the table, left in reserve until they can come on, turned into a tasty chocolate dessert, it doesn't really make much difference. The White Scars lose, the Tau get a victory with full victory points, as there are no enemy models on the table, and didn't lose a single model.

If the house rule you adopt to deal with the situation involves the unit remaining off the board, then yes, they will be destroyed when the game ends. But that's not the only solution that has been previously floated to deal with this situation.

Other ideas have included:
1 - The aforementioned 'must move on' trumping the 'may not move within 1"' allowing them to move through the blocking units.
2 - allowing them to move on directly into close combat in the assault phase
3 - allowing them to move on from the nearest available board edge
4 - allowing them to outflank or deep strike
5 - forcing the infiltrators to maintain a certain distance from the board edge

... all of which are just as valid as forcing the unit to remain in reserves or counting them as immediately destroyed.

kartofelkopf wrote:I'm in no way one to fault the guy in pic, as that was (AFAIK) the first recorded instance of that happening, and early into the 5th edition era. But, if someone had this happen to them today, I (and I doubt I'd be alone) would feel more than justified in some pointing and laughing.

The fact that it's happened before, somewhere in the world, in no way means that tournament players the world over have heard of it.

Nor has the problem been resolved anywhere other than unofficial or tournament-specific FAQs.

bigyounk wrote:If it's a White Scar army he should of had the Khan and then he would be outflanking and this deployment would be useless.

Special characters were banned from that tournament.

I am pretty sure he had enough kroot to cover the short edges too.

insaniak wrote:People keep coming back to the idea that the player keeping his army in reserve was incompetent... and I'm honestly puzzled as to why.

It's not incompetent to fail to take into account that keeping your entire army in Reserve may result in a tournament judge deciding to just make up a rule that hands your opponent a win.

I disagree. The White Scars player was indeed incompetent. At that level of play (European Team Championship), you should be aware of the possibilities. And the possilibilty that the judges would agree with GW's old ruling that unit's unable to enter play are destroyed is something he should have taken into account.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:BRB pg 90 under Wipeout.

I see it now, thank you.

kartofelkopf wrote:

I'm in no way one to fault the guy in pic, as that was (AFAIK) the first recorded instance of that happening, and early into the 5th edition era. But, if someone had this happen to them today, I (and I doubt I'd be alone) would feel more than justified in some pointing and laughing.

And yet it happened at the ETC AGAIN tis year................................................ Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

don_mondo wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:

I'm in no way one to fault the guy in pic, as that was (AFAIK) the first recorded instance of that happening, and early into the 5th edition era. But, if someone had this happen to them today, I (and I doubt I'd be alone) would feel more than justified in some pointing and laughing.

And yet it happened at the ETC AGAIN tis year................................................ Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

+1 to this.

It is rather uncommon, but not a one time thing. It's a semi-valid strategy and you should be aware of it (both to avoid and to exploit).

The rules are totally unclear as what exactly to do in this situation, but there is a good chance a judge will decide your army is destroyed. Is it a big enough hole that GW will rush to fix it? Probably not.

SaintHazard wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:BRB pg 90 under Wipeout.

I see it now, thank you.

This is further reinforced in the Deep Strike Mishap Table under the Delayed paragraph;

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

Yes..

And how does any of that matter in this discussion, since the units are not in reserves because they passed their reserves rolls?

Unit cannot get on-table

Units off-table at game's end are Destroyed

Easy!

Gwar! wrote:Yes..

And how does any of that matter in this discussion, since the units are not in reserves because they passed their reserves rolls?

Just trying to point out that models in reserve at the end of the game are destroyed.

Unfortunately, by RAW, the models are not delayed or placed back in reserve (in the OP question) so the game again goes into a terminal if-then loop.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Unit cannot get on-table

Units off-table at game's end are Destroyed

Easy!

That isn't what the rules say...

Gwar! wrote:Yes..

And how does any of that matter in this discussion, since the units are not in reserves because they passed their reserves rolls?

A unit can pass it's Reserves roll and yet wind up back in Reserves.................... So passing a Reserves roll also has nothing to do with this discussion.

Bottom line, it's not covered under current rules. A former GW FAQ and the INAT both say unit destroyed, which is how the judge's have ruled it for the past two years at the ETC. So if you're going to the ETC, be aware of that. If you're going to a tournament that does not use the INAT, ask in advance how they're going to rule it, especially if your strategy relies on putting everything in Reserves. For your local group, discuss it and play it however you want, bearing in mind that there is no RAW solution.

There, did I cover everything so we can get off the merry-go-round?

The situation is exceedingly rare, requiring:
-Player holds everything in reserve and has no skimmers, outflankers, tanks or jump infantry.
-Enemy has enough models who can reach the board edge and block ground entry.

There is no clear RAW coverage of the exact situation.

RAI:
This is the opposite of the terrain prohibiting movement from reserve. Here, it is due to the opponent's actions that entry is blocked. If you cannot deploy by the end of the game, your units should count as destroyed.

That pic is awesome.

First off let me say that the picture is AWESOME look at how happy the Tau guy is.

Now as much as I hate to say it if I were that judge that is how I would have ruled it. You can not move within 1" of an enemy unit and since coming on the board edge would require you to do that then you couldn't and so on and so forth, basically Tau win.

Now, do I think this was fair? Feth no, this is a guy exploiting the rules to the fullest and where I play I see a lot of people exploit the rules but this is by far the worst example I have ever seen. However, I do have to feel a small bit of pride in the fact that I hate that GW has added the whole, "For any scenario you can now keep stuff in reserve." I am thorougly convinced that 5th edition rules cator WAY to much to certain army types. Case and point would be a guy that plays at my FLGS. He playes all Mech Guard and keeps ALL his stuff in reserve so you can't shoot him, then he brings it on and just makes artillery meat of your army. I really wish Deep Striking was still the only way to come on in reserve, IMHO the rules just fail and in this case break.

Sanguinis wrote: I really wish Deep Striking was still the only way to come on in reserve, IMHO the rules just fail and in this case break.

What? When was this a rule?

Grakmar wrote:

Sanguinis wrote: I really wish Deep Striking was still the only way to come on in reserve, IMHO the rules just fail and in this case break.

What? When was this a rule?

It used to be you couldn't put whatever you wanted in reserve, it was specific units. Most often deep strikers/scouty type units.

Grakmar wrote:

Sanguinis wrote: I really wish Deep Striking was still the only way to come on in reserve, IMHO the rules just fail and in this case break.

What? When was this a rule?

It wasn't. But the 'everything can start in Reserves' is new with 5th, as previous editions required the unit or the scenario to have special rules allowing a unit to start in Reserves.

And I disagree with Sanguinis about it being an 'explot'. But I think I've made my opinion clear in previous posts, so I'll let it rest with that.

I may have this wrong but I don't see how this needs a house rule, or isn't covered by the rules.

Turn 1:
Player A puts units in reserve.
Player B goes first and moves his units.
Player A does nothing for his turn.

Turn 2:
Player B spends his turn moving into final "bend your opponent over for reserving everything" position.
Player A rolls for reserves and can't move anything on.

Turn 3,4,5,6*:
Player B stays where he is and doesn't move anything.
Player A rolls for reserves and can't move anything on.

Turn 7:
Player B stays where he is and doesn't move anything.
Player A rolls for reserves and can't move anything on.
-Game Ends- Everything not on the table is considered destroyed and player B wins.

The only house rule is to call it a win at the end of turn 2 if the losing player doesn't concede defeat.

*turns may vary based on scenario and dice rolls.

zeshin wrote:I may have this wrong but I don't see how this needs a house rule, or isn't covered by the rules.

Turn 1:
Player A puts units in reserve.
Player B goes first and moves his units.
Player A does nothing for his turn.

Turn 2:
Player B spends his turn moving into final "bend your opponent over for reserving everything" position.
Player A rolls for reserves and can't move anything on.

Turn 3,4,5,6*:
Player B stays where he is and doesn't move anything.
Player A rolls for reserves and can't move anything on.

Turn 7:
Player B stays where he is and doesn't move anything.
Player A rolls for reserves and can't move anything on.
-Game Ends- Everything not on the table is considered destroyed and player B wins.

The only house rule is to call it a win at the end of turn 2 if the losing player doesn't concede defeat.

*turns may vary based on scenario and dice rolls.

The highlighted portions are where a house rule is required. You are correct in that he can't move anything on, but are missing the part where Reserve rules say he must move the unit onto the board.

So it's a contradiction of can't move on and must move on that requires a house rule.

zeshin:

The problem is that the rules don't actually cover what happens when you can't move a unit coming from reserves onto the board. The reserve rules say you must, but the rule about coming within 1" says you can't.

The part requiring a house rule is to determine what wins: The irresistible force or the immovable object.

And, what happens to those units that can't move on? Do they stay in reserves? Are they immediately destroyed? The rules don't have any permission to allow a unit to stay in reserves apart from deep striking mishaps. So, it doesn't make any sense to keep them in reserves. And, there's nothing in the rules saying the unit is destroyed until the end of the game. Is the unit left in some limbo? Unable to move onto the board, but not destroyed? So, where exactly are they?

This is just further proof about how 40k is just too loose of a rules system and how FAQ's like INAT are needed.

spireland wrote:This is just further proof about how 40k is just too loose of a rules system and how FAQ's like INAT are needed.

If only the GW or INAT FAQs actually addressed problems instead of giving no-brainer answers that are already clearly spelled out in the rules... or contradicting the rules, making them even muddier than they were before.

That'd be nice.

SaintHazard wrote:

spireland wrote:This is just further proof about how 40k is just too loose of a rules system and how FAQ's like INAT are needed.

If only the GW or INAT FAQs actually addressed problems instead of giving no-brainer answers that are already clearly spelled out in the rules... or contradicting the rules, making them even muddier than they were before.

That'd be nice.

I would even accept them changing the rules wholesale if only they were honest about it.

spireland wrote:This is just further proof about how 40k is just too loose of a rules system and how FAQ's like INAT are needed.

No confirmation bias here. Oh no, none whatsoever. Pure objective fact.

Ah, I was looking at the "what happens when the units aren't on the board" not "what happens if they can't move on the board". Point taken Hazard, thank you.

SaintHazard wrote:

spireland wrote:This is just further proof about how 40k is just too loose of a rules system and how FAQ's like INAT are needed.

If only the GW or INAT FAQs actually addressed problems instead of giving no-brainer answers that are already clearly spelled out in the rules... or contradicting the rules, making them even muddier than they were before.

That'd be nice.

Too bad there isn't someone on the Dakka boards who could write their own much more logical FAQ's.

zeshin wrote:Ah, I was looking at the "what happens when the units aren't on the board" not "what happens if they can't move on the board". Point taken Hazard, thank you.

SaintHazard wrote:

spireland wrote:This is just further proof about how 40k is just too loose of a rules system and how FAQ's like INAT are needed.

If only the GW or INAT FAQs actually addressed problems instead of giving no-brainer answers that are already clearly spelled out in the rules... or contradicting the rules, making them even muddier than they were before.

That'd be nice.

Too bad there isn't someone on the Dakka boards who could write their own much more logical FAQ's.

I know. If only there was someone willing to write comprehensive FAQs that call a Spade a Spade (or in this case, call a rules change a rules change) and explain why the change was made and in face write said FAQs before the codex even comes out on general sale.

If only...

That's one reason to play daemons

It's also a reason to not reserve your entire force. If you do, you're asking for trouble with the picket fence strategy.

Gwar! wrote:I know. If only there was someone willing to write comprehensive FAQs that call a Spade a Spade (or in this case, call a rules change a rules change) and explain why the change was made and in face write said FAQs before the codex even comes out on general sale.

If only...

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Gwar here: The existence of anyone outside the GW Development Team both willing and capable of writing the definitive FAQ is indeed a pipe-dream.

Probably saved him an hour or two struggling to enjoy a game against TFG. Would you really want to play someone who regarded that as a good way to win a game?

Although an entire bike army held back in reserve isn't a particularly sporting way to play, either, but I might be missing something about the White Scars.

doctorludo wrote:Probably saved him an hour or two struggling to enjoy a game against TFG. Would you really want to play someone who regarded that as a good way to win a game?

Although an entire bike army held back in reserve isn't a particularly sporting way to play, either, but I might be missing something about the White Scars.

Lol.

"You are TFG for not letting me deploy," says the guy playing an assaulty army who tried to dick a shooty army out of 2 or 3 turns of shooting.

Yeah, the tau player is soooooooooooooooooooooo TFG.

doctorludo wrote:Probably saved him an hour or two struggling to enjoy a game against TFG. Would you really want to play someone who regarded that as a good way to win a game?

Although an entire bike army held back in reserve isn't a particularly sporting way to play, either, but I might be missing something about the White Scars.

In a friendly game I might suggest that the opponent not reserve everything and give him the reasons. This would teach him the error of his ways while still allowing for a fun game to be played. In a tournament however I don't see where you'd want to hold back. If your opponent makes a game changing mistake I think it's bad form not to exploit it. Should Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant have slowed down or not jumped as high because it wasn't fair to the other players?

Couldn't the Scars player outflank Khan and come from the sides?

Read the thread man. No special characters allowed.

zeshin wrote:

doctorludo wrote:Probably saved him an hour or two struggling to enjoy a game against TFG. Would you really want to play someone who regarded that as a good way to win a game?

Although an entire bike army held back in reserve isn't a particularly sporting way to play, either, but I might be missing something about the White Scars.

In a friendly game I might suggest that the opponent not reserve everything and give him the reasons. This would teach him the error of his ways while still allowing for a fun game to be played. In a tournament however I don't see where you'd want to hold back. If your opponent makes a game changing mistake I think it's bad form not to exploit it. Should Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant have slowed down or not jumped as high because it wasn't fair to the other players?

And from what I understand, the Tau player kinda did warn him, asking him if he was sure he wanted to do that and pointing out that he had a lot of infiltrators. Come on, if your opponent gives you that kind of a clue, you really need to stop and think about what you're doing and why a combination of all-Reserves and lots of enemy infiltrators might be a bad thing.

I'm reminded of the three-move checkmate in Chess. It's possible, but it's the player's fault if it happens rather than some problem with the rules.

So you insult him because the White Scars player was an idiot? Or is it just players that score a victory while losing zero models (I've done it, BTW, with my IG).

hehe iv actually achieved this aswell. necron phase out at turn 3, and my guard army took no damage whatsoever. thank the machine spirit for leman russ!

and in regards to this post, i was under the impression that you couldnt put your whole amry in reserve. i thought that atleast one unit had to be on the board...

Nurglitch wrote:I'm reminded of the three-move checkmate in Chess. It's possible, but it's the player's fault if it happens rather than some problem with the rules.

I've been check-mated in two moves.. but I still get your point.

The Bringer wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:I'm reminded of the three-move checkmate in Chess. It's possible, but it's the player's fault if it happens rather than some problem with the rules.

I've been check-mated in two moves.. but I still get your point.

Eh, it depends on what you mean by move.

Under standard chess nomenclature, a move consists of both players moving a piece.

"Fool's mate, also known as the "two-move checkmate," is the quickest possible checkmate in the game of chess."

Yea that image was from an international tourney in europe a year ago where the sm biker player held all his guys in reserve, not outflank or deep strike and the tau player infiltrated all his kroot in the deployment zone of the sm player, so he couldn't enter the board

Asherian Command wrote:
That is just a dick move....

Try playing tau. It's not as fun as yer space marines and imperial guard. Or anything else recent. Hell half the upgrades don't do crap and half the units don't do any better. I'll take any win for the greater good anyday, regardless of what the newer codex boyz say.

Agreed jutaigamer. People seem to forget that it was not the Tau player being TFG, it was the White Scars player by trying to deny the Tau 2 or 3 Turns to shoot at him, thus making it more likely he would win or at least Draw.

Nurglitch wrote:I'm reminded of the three-move checkmate in Chess. It's possible, but it's the player's fault if it happens rather than some problem with the rules.

Except that in chess, when your opponent pulls off a three-move checkmate, the rules actually say what happens... There's no excuse for not seeing it coming, because both players know up front what the result is going to be of each possible move.

This situation is more like a game of chess where the judge has wandered over after one player has moved his first pawn, and just awarded him the win for the hell of it.

insaniak:

No, I think I prefer my Chess analogy.

don_mondo said:
And I disagree with Sanguinis about it being an 'explot'. But I think I've made my opinion clear in previous posts, so I'll let it rest with that.

Fair enough. I guess by exploit I meant the Tau player had to really rummage through the rulebook to find out whether there was any consequence to what he was about to do and had to think about it prior to that tournament. From my standpoint thats an exploit. It's like a lawyer that goes through the rules very carefully looking for a loophole to win a case, is it fair? Yes. An exploit? Yes. Either way you spin it the Tau player won fair and square.

Lets all be honest that had the judge allowed the White Scars player to come on somehow that Tau player would have been royally screwed. All his units were in a line so LoS and unit positioning would have been a problem. Not to mention that it would have been terribly easy to charge his units especially with an outflank or if he just comes on the board edge.

Overall I think the Tau player won fair and square (as I said above) and I'm not gonna gripe to much because right now Tau are TERRIBLY UNDERPOWERED, so to see them win at all especially in something as big as that tournament sounded is quite impressive. I also agree with those of you who say the White Scars player was being a dick. Playing an all bike army is, 1. Expensive, and 2. Kind of a dick move. Like Mech Guard its an army that GW should never have allowed to begin with. Overall I think the ruling was quite fair, especially when you look at what is required to pull it off. It was a sort of Perfect Storm scenario!

SaintHazard wrote:This is 100% legal and an awesome move. High-five to the savvy Tau player.

This, kids, is why you don't hold an entire army in reserve when your opponent has hordes of infiltrators.

Should you really be allowed to know what the enemy has before you even get to the field?
Thats one thing that bugs me. "Oh this is a rhino with a tactical squad in it.... oh just kidding, it had termies in it.. take that Tau military intelligence".
That never happens. Everyone knows exactly what everyone else has before they've even made it to the planet.

SaintHazard wrote:This is 100% legal and an awesome move. High-five to the savvy Tau player.

This, kids, is why you don't hold an entire army in reserve when your opponent has hordes of infiltrators.

I completely agree.

It is extremely cheap when someone holds their entire army in reserve, because you can effectively get the first turn of firing and assaulting, sure you're giving your opponent to free moves, but it is still pretty cheap. He had it coming to him.

Honestly, the worst thing about the Tau player insta-winning is that his opponent was [insert some word here] enough to keep his entire army in reserve.

This is veering off course from a rules discussion to a tactics one.

Should we start a thread in tactics on the various advantages and disadvantages of starting an army completely in reserved?

Or, a thread in Proposed Rules to do away with the ability all together?

But, I think any rules issues relating to this have been addressed: "The rules are unclear, judge may decide this as valid."

Sanguinis wrote:Fair enough. I guess by exploit I meant the Tau player had to really rummage through the rulebook to find out whether there was any consequence to what he was about to do and had to think about it prior to that tournament. From my standpoint thats an exploit. It's like a lawyer that goes through the rules very carefully looking for a loophole to win a case, is it fair? Yes. An exploit? Yes. Either way you spin it the Tau player won fair and square.

I wouldn't say that it's an exploit. The rules don't say what to do when you can't enter on the appropriate table edge, true. There are a few obvious options - destroyed & back into reserves are the obvious ones. Problem is, with what the WS player had done it made no difference. With no skimmers, no vehicles, nothing outflanking, nothing deepstriking and nothing on the table he was screwed.

Put all of your eggs into one basket and this is the kind of thing that happens.

Sanguinis wrote:Lets all be honest that had the judge allowed the White Scars player to come on somehow that Tau player would have been royally screwed. All his units were in a line so LoS and unit positioning would have been a problem. Not to mention that it would have been terribly easy to charge his units especially with an outflank or if he just comes on the board edge.

He wouldn't have been screwed - only the kroot were on that edge and having a bunch of passable fighters behind you is not a good way to start.

Grakmar wrote:This is veering off course from a rules discussion to a tactics one.

Should we start a thread in tactics on the various advantages and disadvantages of starting an army completely in reserved?

That would be a good idea. This one seems to have been pretty well hashed out once again.