What if a complete table side is blocked to infiltraters when they arrive via that flank...?

Do they go back into reserve or die!?

They die. Unless they're jump infantry/skimmer.

Sooner or later someone will post the Tau vs White Scars pic where the White Scars player lost before the game began.

Happyjew wrote:Sooner or later someone will post the Tau vs White Scars pic where the White Scars player lost before the game began.

How about we don't.

As said though they would not be able to move fully onto the board, so they would die.

But you should not ever let anyone do this to you. if they have a lot of infiltrators, just make sure that there are places you can enter from.

C'mon, that's a great pic. The look on the white scars players face is PRICELESS! HAHAHAHA

sub-zero wrote:C'mon, that's a great pic. The look on the white scars players face is PRICELESS! HAHAHAHA

....+1 to this.....

1000 internet kudos to whomever posts that EPIC pic!

It had to be done. I'm not sorry.

Ha ha ha, now post the pics without the changed faces.

Cheexsta wrote:It had to be done. I'm not sorry.

HAHAHAHAHA YESSS!!! I seriously spit coffee out when I saw this pic. Well played sir...well played indeed.

rigeld2 wrote:They die. Unless they're jump infantry/skimmer.

Tanks can also tank-shock through. If you have multiple tanks, you can potentially use them to push the Infiltrators back via tank-shock to make room for infantry units to enter beside them.

BRB FAQ answers this too

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but
is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

That is 100% the White Scars player's fault. No remorse.

puma713 wrote:That is 100% the White Scars player's fault. No remorse.

Actually its the rules that are at fault, and the judge's arbitration that the White scars lost the game without any real rules backing at the time.

There really should be a rule disallowing infiltration and scout moves within 6" of your opponents edge.

Why? I feel bad for the sm player. But same time without khan why would you hold reserve? Completely unfun yes. Tournaments in my experience aren't.

And to answer the op original question. Ish. When you hold a unit in reserve and it has the scout abilty. You don't have to outflank. Could just walk on. Correct me if I am wrong.

puma713 wrote:That is 100% the White Scars player's fault. No remorse.

At the time that picture was taken, there was actually nothing that said that units unable to move on were destroyed. Hence the intense study of the rulebook in that pic. The judge decided to hand the game to the Kroot player, and when the FAQ was updated later on the picture was retroactively adopted as an example of the situation.

DeathReaper wrote:

puma713 wrote:That is 100% the White Scars player's fault. No remorse.

Actually its the rules that are at fault, and the judge's arbitration that the White scars lost the game without any real rules backing at the time.

There really should be a rule disallowing infiltration and scout moves within 6" of your opponents edge.

Ya the Judge had to make some kind of call. There are no rules allowing the White scars player on the board. He could have just said play the game and if your reserves can't come on then they can't leave reserves. 6 turns later the Tau would have won anyway. Unfortunatly until the FAQ there was no rule covering the situation so the Judge was forced to make one up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
he could have also declared they are stuck on the turn when the White scar's reserves come in untill the time limit runs out and again the tau wins by tableing.

VoxDei wrote:Ya the Judge had to make some kind of call. There are no rules allowing the White scars player on the board. He could have just said play the game and if your reserves can't come on then they can't leave reserves. 6 turns later the Tau would have won anyway. Unfortunatly until the FAQ there was no rule covering the situation so the Judge was forced to make one up.

Given that there was no existing ruling, simply telling the Kroot player 'Well done, you found a loophole... It's only turn one, so start over and play an actual game' would have been a fairer option than making up a ruling that hands the game to one player on a platter.

insaniak wrote:

VoxDei wrote:Ya the Judge had to make some kind of call. There are no rules allowing the White scars player on the board. He could have just said play the game and if your reserves can't come on then they can't leave reserves. 6 turns later the Tau would have won anyway. Unfortunatly until the FAQ there was no rule covering the situation so the Judge was forced to make one up.

Given that there was no existing ruling, simply telling the Kroot player 'Well done, you found a loophole... It's only turn one, so start over and play an actual game' would have been a fairer option than making up a ruling that hands the game to one player on a platter.

Wonder how well he did on sportsmanship

insaniak wrote:Given that there was no existing ruling, simply telling the Kroot player 'Well done, you found a loophole... It's only turn one, so start over and play an actual game' would have been a fairer option than making up a ruling that hands the game to one player on a platter.

I agree with this 1000%

Cheexsta wrote:It had to be done. I'm not sorry.

LMFLOFMC!

Laughed.my fething.lungs.out of my chest. I almost need CPR.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:And to answer the op original question. Ish. When you hold a unit in reserve and it has the scout abilty. You don't have to outflank. Could just walk on. Correct me if I am wrong.

You're incorrect. When you declare a unit to be held in Reserve you also must declare how it will be entering play (from your own edge, Deep Strike, Outflank) at the same time. You can't wait and choose later. A special exception is the DE Webway Portal. You declare a normal method, then, IF there is a portal deployed when they arrive, you may use the declared method OR have them enter through the portal.

insaniak wrote:

puma713 wrote:That is 100% the White Scars player's fault. No remorse.

At the time that picture was taken, there was actually nothing that said that units unable to move on were destroyed. Hence the intense study of the rulebook in that pic. The judge decided to hand the game to the Kroot player, and when the FAQ was updated later on the picture was retroactively adopted as an example of the situation.

insaniak wrote:
Given that there was no existing ruling, simply telling the Kroot player 'Well done, you found a loophole... It's only turn one, so start over and play an actual game' would have been a fairer option than making up a ruling that hands the game to one player on a platter.

Sure, but the judge made the exact same decision that GW did. So, in that, wouldn't you say he made the perfect decision? The judge's ruling is the judge's ruling - you know that before you set up your army. Just because GW came out with a ruling that confirmed what he enforced, doesn't make his decision any less valid.

puma713 wrote:Sure, but the judge made the exact same decision that GW did. So, in that, wouldn't you say he made the perfect decision?

No. It would have been the right decision if it was in a published FAQ for the event before anybody put miniatures on the table. It would have been the right decision if he had allowed the game to start over.

But making a call that simply hands the game to the other player is not the way to encourage people to come back to events that you run...

The judge's ruling is the judge's ruling - you know that before you set up your army. Just because GW came out with a ruling that confirmed what he enforced, doesn't make his decision any less valid.

It's not a matter of the decision being valid. It's a matter of the decision being fair.

Imagine if you were playing in a tournament, and your game stalls when you come to a situation that the rules don't cover. You call over a judge, he considers the issue, turns to your opponent, and says 'You win the game'.

That's essentially what happened here. The call might have been the 'right' one strictly by the rules, but it wasn't the right one to make for a game currently in progress.

Mannahnin wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:And to answer the op original question. Ish. When you hold a unit in reserve and it has the scout abilty. You don't have to outflank. Could just walk on. Correct me if I am wrong.

You're incorrect. When you declare a unit to be held in Reserve you also must declare how it will be entering play (from your own edge, Deep Strike, Outflank) at the same time. You can't wait and choose later. A special exception is the DE Webway Portal. You declare a normal method, then, IF there is a portal deployed when they arrive, you may use the declared method OR have them enter through the portal.

Also the tunnel made by trygons.

insaniak wrote:
But making a call that simply hands the game to the other player is not the way to encourage people to come back to events that you run...

It's a simple enough mistake to correct from happening to him again - partly why its so funny. Though extreme, I don't think a TO should start ruling in a way that tries to compensate for bad choices of either player. The winning player knew what he was doing and knew the rules well enough to try it.

Getting tabled on turn 2 doesn't encourage people to keep playing 40k but on the very rare occasion is happens, it is still fair by the rules. Getting punished for bad choices in the game can give people a reason to play too.

Nemesor Dave wrote: Though extreme, I don't think a TO should start ruling in a way that tries to compensate for bad choices of either player.

I'm not talking about compensating for bad choices by the player. I'm talking about the TO ruling on a previously unaddressed rules loophole in a way that is fair and allows the game to continue.

insaniak wrote:
I'm not talking about compensating for bad choices by the player. I'm talking about the TO ruling on a previously unaddressed rules loophole in a way that is fair and allows the game to continue.

Well, fair is such relative term. On that issue, TO cannot make "fair" ruling that allows game to continue. You will either be "unfair" against the White Scars player (play as RAW, White Scars cannot move within 1" of model) or you will be unfair against the Tau player (White Scars player is allowed to break rules by moving to table).
IMO, in this case TO hit hard issue and made the right choice (later confirmed by GW to be the correct interpretation of rules).

In friendly game, it's pretty obvious that the "fair" way to go would have been for the White Scars player to just say: "Ok, I lost. Let's do another game." But in tournament, losing is losing.

Gotta say that I agree with Insaniak. At the time, the rules simply didn't address the situation, so it would not have been fair to expect the White Scars player to know it could happen.

Of course, after the FAQ the player would have no excuse.

There is no loop hole. If you can't move within 1" of your opponent, then in this case you can't move at all. The tau player knew that and took the opportunity. It's the sm player's fault that didn't pay attention to the tau player's list. I bet he thought "Tau?! Easy pickings..."

In the original pic, the tau guy has such a deuscthy smile on, that I find the whole thing ridiculous. Congrats, you found a baby seal and you clubbed the snot out of it. Then you took a pic and rubbed it in his face.
I for one would have liked it if he went outside and found someone had taken a piss on his car's door handles. Then posted a pic with that same smile.

So much for sportsmanship, if you'd rather win like that then actually play the game.

Have to agree there.

I've had this happen to me a grand total of once (before i'd seen the pic ) and considered it a dick move then.

I've also been quakeshunted out of a game in tournaments a few times, which i consider even dickier, as there was no way for me to deploy at all (rather than me making a tactical error aside from that of bringing Daemons to a tournament), granting an autowin regardless.

In a friendly game you can always say 'You win, congrats , can we play an actual game now? ' but in tournaments, with money on the line, you'll be sitting the round out as a 0 score, watching the other games.

Not to mention the w***er who wins tells everyone he tabled you on the very first player turn and every sees your score, and pisses themselves laughing

Luide wrote:In friendly game, it's pretty obvious that the "fair" way to go would have been for the White Scars player to just say: "Ok, I lost. Let's do another game." But in tournament, losing is losing.

Losing is losing... when both players are playing by the same rules. That's not what happened here.

The Kroot player forced the game into a situation that the rules didn't cover, and the judge awarded him a win for it. Would people be just as ok with the ruling if he had then walked over to the next table, tapped one guy on the shoulder and said 'Hey, new rule, you win. Oh, and you over there in the green shirt, there's a new rule that the guy in the green shirt automatically wins the tournament. Congratulations, thanks for coming everyone!'

If both players had been made aware before the game started that this was how the ruling would go, then it would have been the marine players own fault for winding up in that situation. But without a rule in place to cover the situation, 'fair' is not awarding the game to one player without a game being played.

copper.talos wrote:There is no loop hole. If you can't move within 1" of your opponent, then in this case you can't move at all.

And then what...?

The loophole is that the models coming from reserve must move on, but can't. Until GW clarified the situation, there was no clear way within the rules to resolve it. GW chose to go with 'models that can't move on are destroyed'. They could as easily have gone with 'must trumps may not, and so models can move on anyway so long as there is sufficient room between the blocking models.'

Just out of curiosity here. Lets say the Kroot player set up all his guys 7" away from the table edge and the WS player had all his guys come on the table, shoot the kroot, assault them and the Kroot player looses would you be applauding the WS player for this tactic or calling it a cheesy move because he used a legal tactic and beat the Kroot player.

I've never seen this as bad sportsmanship on the Kroot player rather it was idiocy on the WS player. IMO it was the right call at the time.

In the last DEX I ran a DE wych cult and played an IG player with 3 Basis once. He went first and on turn one made one Web Way Portal squad run off the table and pinned the other one who fled on turn 2 when they were shot again. Would you have required that game to be replayed if you were running the tourney and it happened or would you have said if was my fault for putting my Raiders in reserve? (note I said LAST DEX when Raiders could come out of a WWP)

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Just out of curiosity here. Lets say the Kroot player set up all his guys 7" away from the table edge and the WS player had all his guys come on the table, shoot the kroot, assault them and the Kroot player looses would you be applauding the WS player for this tactic or calling it a cheesy move because he used a legal tactic and beat the Kroot player.

Legal tactics are not the problem.

The problem is a player winning based on a non-existent rule that the judge made up on the spot.

Guess I just have issues with folks calling it a Dick move or cheesy when the army the Kroot player was facing had the capabilty to roll him with no problems.

All he had to do was start one single unit on the table and the Kroot would have been in for a bad day as they were facing a bike army.

insaniak, even without the FAQ, he would clearly win the game. The SM player couldn't move his units ever. So, even if the judge ruled that they just stay in reserves, the Tau player would win the moment the game ended.

The only thing the judge could have done was to allow the SM player to fight using units OFF the board, but that opens up all sorts of loopholes.



And, to people saying you would table your opponent first turn, that's false. You only destroy the units when they come on from reserve. As long as they stay in reserve, they're totally alive.

And, even if they all do get destroyed, you still don't win until the end of the final turn. Destroying your opponent's entire army doesn't immediately win the game for you. Having them be destroyed at the end of the game wins the game for you.

@insaniak What do you mean and then what? If the reserves can't move into the table then
1. you count them as destroyed, or
2. you let them stay in reserves and then when the game ends in turn 5-7, then count them as destroyed.

Anyway both the judge and GW made the logical decision. The only wrong decision was made by the WS player that didn't actually care to think how he would get his units on the table when the enemy has so many infiltrators

I don't feel bad what so ever for the WS player. There was a slim chance the kroot player was winning the match anyways. The WS player made a choice to reserve his army. Stupid move in the first place. The kroot player saw the weakness and exposed it. Written rule or not it was a hilarious move and worthy of the win just to see the dumb looks on everyone's face. +1 to that Tau player, sure it's a dick move but I don't care, that's priceless.

I find it interesting that it is being called a dick move on the assumption that the judge just turned to the Kroot player and said, "You win."

The judge could have just easily said,

"The rules do not allow you to move within 1" of an enemy model so your models will remain in reserve until they an opportunity arises that they can move on the board."

Which means units not on the board at the END of the game are considered destroyed, and the Kroot player wins based on a judges cal with an expedited turn process to end the game with the WS army off the baord.

To sit there and give the White Scars player a mulligan to start the game over penalizes the Kroot player with absolutely zero justification. Fine and dandy in friendly games, but not in a tournament.

Grakmar wrote:insaniak, even without the FAQ, he would clearly win the game. The SM player couldn't move his units ever. So, even if the judge ruled that they just stay in reserves, the Tau player would win the moment the game ended.

The marine player didn't have the option to not move his units. Hence the loophole. You're ina situation where you have to do something, but can't... and prior to the FAQ there was nothing that gave a 'correct' way to resolve that situation.

The only thing the judge could have done was to allow the SM player to fight using units OFF the board, but that opens up all sorts of loopholes.

Or, as I said, have decided that they had hit an unintentional loophole, and told them to start over.

And, to people saying you would table your opponent first turn, that's false. You only destroy the units when they come on from reserve. As long as they stay in reserve, they're totally alive.

Again, they don't have the option to stay in reserve.

copper.talos wrote:@insaniak What do you mean and then what? If the reserves can't move into the table then
1. you count them as destroyed, or
2. you let them stay in reserves and then when the game ends in turn 5-7, then count them as destroyed.

Find a rule in the rulebook that tells you to do either of those things.

That's the point. It's only since the FAQ came along that this situation was covered. At the time that picture was taken, there was no way within the rules to resolve the situation.

insaniak wrote:

Grakmar wrote:insaniak, even without the FAQ, he would clearly win the game. The SM player couldn't move his units ever. So, even if the judge ruled that they just stay in reserves, the Tau player would win the moment the game ended.

The marine player didn't have the option to not move his units. Hence the loophole. You're ina situation where you have to do something, but can't... and prior to the FAQ there was nothing that gave a 'correct' way to resolve that situation.

The only thing the judge could have done was to allow the SM player to fight using units OFF the board, but that opens up all sorts of loopholes.

Or, as I said, have decided that they had hit an unintentional loophole, and told them to start over.

And, to people saying you would table your opponent first turn, that's false. You only destroy the units when they come on from reserve. As long as they stay in reserve, they're totally alive.

Again, they don't have the option to stay in reserve.

copper.talos wrote:@insaniak What do you mean and then what? If the reserves can't move into the table then
1. you count them as destroyed, or
2. you let them stay in reserves and then when the game ends in turn 5-7, then count them as destroyed.

Find a rule in the rulebook that tells you to do either of those things.

That's the point. It's only since the FAQ came along that this situation was covered. At the time that picture was taken, there was no way within the rules to resolve the situation.

Which forced the judge to make a call that did not penalize the Kroot player and keeping with the integrity of the tournament. You can't just give the WS player a mulligan without forcing a penalty on the Kroot player (he did not break a rule) and keeping the integrity of the tournament ("oh that is the WS player got a free do over because he couldn't come in from reserve the whole game").

Brother Ramses wrote:Which forced the judge to make a call that did not penalize the Kroot player and keeping with the integrity of the tournament. You can't just give the WS player a mulligan without forcing a penalty on the Kroot player (he did not break a rule) and keeping the integrity of the tournament ("oh that is the WS player got a free do over because he couldn't come in from reserve the whole game").

So why is it ok to penalise the Marine player and not the Kroot player?

He's not getting a free do-over because he didn't move on for the whole game... The whole game doesn't happen because it's fallen into a black hole where one player has to do something but is unable to do so. He can't just keep everything in reserve... you have to move on as soon as a unit is available.

Reserves say that when the units arrive you place them right outside the table edge and then you move them as normal. Moving as normal within 1" of the enemy is forbidden. So the units stay out off the table. This happens in 2 occasions, when the units get destroyed or are in reserves, Take your pick...

Copper - no, you MUST move onto the table. You have no choice. You cannot move onto the table, you have no choice.

The game doesnt progress becasue you cannot move past this halting point. The game stalls.

insaniak wrote:

puma713 wrote:Sure, but the judge made the exact same decision that GW did. So, in that, wouldn't you say he made the perfect decision?

No. It would have been the right decision if it was in a published FAQ for the event before anybody put miniatures on the table.

Wait. .what? So, the judge didn't make the right decision until after a higher power confirmed it was the correct decision? That doesn't make any sense. Also, not only that, but everyone keeps talking about being fair, so it is more fair now that it is has been spelled out for people?

Cheexsta wrote:Gotta say that I agree with Insaniak. At the time, the rules simply didn't address the situation, so it would not have been fair to expect the White Scars player to know it could happen.

Of course, after the FAQ the player would have no excuse.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why is it more fair now than before? When you look at that picture, you know who else wasn't privy to the rules addressing the situation? The Tau player. He had just as much information as the White Scars player did. It's not like he pulled a fast one on the White Scars player because he had more rules information than he did. He didn't have an advanced version of the FAQ or something.

The White Scars player made a stupid move. The Tau player didn't find a "loophole" - if it was a loophole, then GW would've ruled against it - he played by the rules and the judge awarded him for it. Later, the judge was confirmed to be correct.

I completely disagree Insaniak. If the Tau player had an edge because he knew something the White Scars player didn't then sure, the ruling was unfair. But they both had the same rulebook. They had an equal opportunity to use/exploit this rule. No remorse. Next time, don't leave Khan at home or reserve your entire army when you see your opponent has 60 or so Infiltrators.

Edit: Makes me wonder - did the White Scars player just stand there with a dumb look on his face while his opponent was setting up that line of Kroot, not asking any questions, not wondering what was going on?

More then likely the WS player won the roll to pick sides and deploy first and told the Tau player he was going to Reserve everything and Outflank. Kroot player then set-up.

Brother Ramses wrote:More then likely the WS player won the roll to pick sides and deploy first and told the Tau player he was going to Reserve everything and Outflank. Kroot player then set-up.

Yes, I understand that. And then what? The White Scars player didn't stop him and say anything? The White Scars player sat there reading his Codex or something? He didn't think for a sec, Hm, maybe I should say something.

"Hey, would it be okay if I deployed one unit?"

I agree with puma. It's not like the Kroot appeared by magic. So the WS player got caught by a tactic he hadn't seen before. It sucked for him that it happened at a tournament, but you don't get to call a good move that catches you by surprise a dick move.

Edit: Of course my opinion is prejudiced because I haven't been playing that long so my playing experience still consists almost entirely of getting caught with my pants down by a good move.

kmdl1066 wrote:I agree with puma. It's not like the Kroot appeared by magic. So the WS player got caught by a tactic he hadn't seen before. It sucked for him that it happened at a tournament, but you don't get to call a good move that catches you by surprise a dick move.

But it was not a "Good Move" as there were no rules governing it at the time.

I agree with insaniak.

Deploying like that is a great way to not have a game.

This kind of situation cropped up many times prior to the FAQ. The way I always saw and heard about it being ruled was exactly this way. Blocking off a table edge wholly or in part has been in use for many years. Heck, it used to be darn near essential in 3rd for shooty armies to defend against Wolf Scouts, and then it saw a resurgence in popularity in 4th ed to defend against Snikrot.

In practice whenever I saw it happen the units got stopped and couldn't move on the table. If and when it actually stopped a whole army (which usually didn't happen until 5th, with voluntary Reserves, but used to happen with some regularity with old-rules-Webway Dark Eldar if you killed for portal bearer/s), it was common practice in tournaments to record the win then play a second game for pure fun.

racta wrote:In the original pic, the tau guy has such a deuscthy smile on, that I find the whole thing ridiculous. Congrats, you found a baby seal and you clubbed the snot out of it. Then you took a pic and rubbed it in his face.
I for one would have liked it if he went outside and found someone had taken a piss on his car's door handles. Then posted a pic with that same smile.

So much for sportsmanship, if you'd rather win like that then actually play the game.

Please bear in mind, that famous photo is staged. The situation actually did happen with those guys, and that judge (at the European Team Championships a couple of years ago), but they posed for that photo AFTER the decision had been rendered and someone decided to immortalize the occasion. The Tau player (from what I heard) is not a dick; he's mugging for the camera because they all agreed to make it a better photo. The opponent and judge were fine with it and posed with the rulebook.

DeathReaper wrote:

kmdl1066 wrote:I agree with puma. It's not like the Kroot appeared by magic. So the WS player got caught by a tactic he hadn't seen before. It sucked for him that it happened at a tournament, but you don't get to call a good move that catches you by surprise a dick move.

But it was not a "Good Move" as there were no rules governing it at the time.

I agree with insaniak.

Deploying like that is a great way to not have a game.

There is a matter of perception obviously.

You ass-end your walkers into contact with vehicles you're assaulting so that if the vehicle is destroyed or doesn't move your rear armor is protected. Many would consider that a dick move. I think it's awesomely smart even though I probably won't do it myself.

If I was the Marine player I'd probably hurt someone. That's such a dick move it's unbelievable.

puma713 wrote:Wait. .what? So, the judge didn't make the right decision until after a higher power confirmed it was the correct decision? That doesn't make any sense.

That's because it's not what I said.

It wasn't a good decision because it was ridiculously unfair to one player.

After the FAQ was published it wouldn't have been an issue. Both players could be expected to be aware that it was a potential issue, and would have been aware of how it would be ruled. But before that FAQ, unless they had discussed it prior to the game, there was no reasonable expectation for the marine player to expect that his opponent would force a situation that was not covered by the rules, and that the judge would subsequently hand the game to the kroot player on a platter.


If a judge rules that, say, Marines can fire 3 shots with their bolters if they stand still when you're in the middle of a game against a Marine player is that a good call? Does it become a good call retroactively if a new codex is released 3 weeks later that gives Marines that ability?

This is ultimately no different. The judge made up a rule that was drastically unfair to one player. The fact that GW subsequently ruled the same way doesn't make it any more fair at the time when it was pulled out of a hat with no prior warning.

Also, not only that, but everyone keeps talking about being fair, so it is more fair now that it is has been spelled out for people?

Yes. The key is that both players should be using the same rules from the start. If a hole is found in the rules mid game, finding an equitable solution is going to result in a better game for both players than just awarding the game to one of them for being clever enough to break the game.

if it was a loophole, then GW would've ruled against it -

It was a loophole because the rules didn't cover it. The way GW later choose to rule on it doesn't change that.

I completely disagree Insaniak. If the Tau player had an edge because he knew something the White Scars player didn't then sure, the ruling was unfair.

It doesn't matter whether the Tau player knew what he was doing. Handing the game to one player based on a rule that didn't exist when they game began is unfair no matter what the motivations of the players might be.

For the record, at no point have I suggested that the Tau player did anything dodgy. All he's guilty of is bringing the game to a grinding halt. The only person at fault here is the judge, for choosing to just hand him the game.

Next time, don't leave Khan at home or reserve your entire army when you see your opponent has 60 or so Infiltrators.

Next time it wouldn't be an issue, since the loophole has been closed...

Eh what has most of the last dozen or so posts have to do with the OP, the question is answered and you are fighting over a call in a game from years ago.

Just out of curiosity here. I ran a tourney right after the Necron DEX was released and ran into a situation where a Necron player wanted to conga line his scarabs. I ruled no that they had to be deployed in coherency with the scarabs that we're all ready on the table. That night the FAQ came out stating the same thing I ruled on. By your line of reasoning Insaniak II screwed over the Necron player as there was no FAQ out at the time.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Just out of curiosity here. I ran a tourney right after the Necron DEX was released and ran into a situation where a Necron player wanted to conga line his scarabs. I ruled no that they had to be deployed in coherency with the scarabs that we're all ready on the table. That night the FAQ came out stating the same thing I ruled on. By your line of reasoning Insaniak II screwed over the Necron player as there was no FAQ out at the time.

That's not my line of reasoning at all. I don't have a problem with judges making judgement calls on unclear rules. That's a very large part of their function. And there are quite a few shades between 'ruling against' and 'screwing over'...

The issue here was just one of degrees. Your ruling on the Scarabs isn't likely to have brought the game to a sudden screeching end, awarding the win to the other player. Ruling that the WS player's army was destroyed might have been the 'right' way to rule it, purely going by RAW and precedence from other rules on deployment... but it was the wrong call to make for a game already in progress, because it introduced a new rule that the players were not aware of when the SM player took actions that lost him the game solely because of that ruling.

If your ruling for the Necron player had instead been 'The moment you create a scarab swarm you lose the game' right after he had created a swarm, that would have been screwing the player over in a similar fashion to what happened here.


Again, the fact that the FAQ ruled the same way is largely irrelevant. It's the severity of the impact of a ruling made mid-game that is the sole bone of contention on this.

Yeah the better statement would be:

"Now the game can not be finished correctly. So please give me a correct game and start again from the very beginning."

Another call could be the choice 0:0 or start again, but if its at the ETC where we have a team fight and the game would have the same value as a draw, this call wouldnt be correct as well.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Yeah the better statement would be:

"Now the game can not be finished correctly. So please give me a correct game and start again from the very beginning."

To me, this is just as unfair as calling the game for the Tau player. And what if they started over and the White Scars player beat him, then the FAQ was released - who is being treated unfairly then?

That's like saying, "Oh, you screwed up your deployment that would most probably give your opponent the game? Oh, well - DO OVER!"

There are no "do overs". The player got caught with his pants down, the judge made the right call (completely enforced by Games Workshop) and the White Scars player was a good enough sport to have a mock photo taken afterwards. Not only that, but the White Scars player learned something from the experience and the cunning Tau player advanced in the tournament.

It is my opinion that this entire situation played out exactly as it should have.

puma713 wrote: And what if they started over and the White Scars player beat him, then the FAQ was released - who is being treated unfairly then?

And then a week after that, the new Tau codex was released, and the Tau became more powerful ... who is being treated unfairly then...?

The answer obviously is that it changes nothing, because something that hasn't been published yet has absolutely no effect on the game being played now.


You're still apparently missing the point. The FAQ has nothing to do with it, because at the time the ruling was made, the FAQ hadn't been published. Prior to the FAQ a player who kept his army in reserve had absolutely no reason to suspect that a judge would rule that his army would be completely destroyed in this situation.

That's like saying, "Oh, you screwed up your deployment that would most probably give your opponent the game? Oh, well - DO OVER!"

No, it's nothing like that at all. Because just screwing up your deployment doesn't lead to a breakdown of the rules of the game

To me, this is just as unfair as calling the game for the Tau player. And what if they started over and the White Scars player beat him, then the FAQ was released - who is being treated unfairly then?

Nobody. If I throw stones at my opponents models just because I could and after that he does not fulfil WYSIWYG requirements afterwards, do I win the game because he didnt realize that?

That's like saying, "Oh, you screwed up your deployment that would most probably give your opponent the game? Oh, well - DO OVER!"

No its not anything like that. As a judge I cannot make my call to justify a players intention. I make my call based on what the situation is and what has to be done to continue with the game. In this situation there is nothing that can be done, so we have a gamebreaking situation.

So there are 2 possible calls: 0:0 or start over. 0:0 would be too harsh because I can't say they did something wrong and shouldnt be punished, start over would be fair because now both of them know that this cant be solved and go around the problem.

There are no "do overs". The player got caught with his pants down, the judge made the right call (completely enforced by Games Workshop) and the White Scars player was a good enough sport to have a mock photo taken afterwards. Not only that, but the White Scars player learned something from the experience and the cunning Tau player advanced in the tournament.

Not the White Scars player is caught with his pants down. The rules are caught with pants down. And the white scars player has nothing to do with it. Although I could accuse the Tau player of forcing a loophole in his favour I won't as a neutral judge. So I just see a collapsing game that is either illegal (0:0) or I give them a second chance for a legal game.
Is it cunning to throw stones at my opponents models?

insaniak wrote:

puma713 wrote: And what if they started over and the White Scars player beat him, then the FAQ was released - who is being treated unfairly then?

And then a week after that, the new Tau codex was released, and the Tau became more powerful ... who is being treated unfairly then...?

The difference is what I am referring to actually happened and had a direct correlation on the game (to the specific ruling of a judge).

Insaniak wrote:The answer obviously is that it changes nothing, because something that hasn't been published yet has absolutely no effect on the game being played now.

It validates the judge's ruling (which shouldn't need validation anyway, but in this case, might because it resulting in a one-sided loss). You don't think the later release of the FAQ may have made that White Scars player feel a tiny bit better about the call?

insaniak wrote: Prior to the FAQ a player who kept his army in reserve had absolutely no reason to suspect that a judge would rule that his army would be completely destroyed in this situation.

And prior to the FAQ, a player who stopped another player's army from entering the board had absolutely no reason to suspect that a judge would rule that his opponent's army would be completely destroyed in that situation.

We're not going to agree, so we might as well just leave it at that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

-Nazdreg- wrote:
If I throw stones at my opponents models just because I could and after that he does not fulfil WYSIWYG requirements afterwards, do I win the game because he didnt realize that?

I'm confused as to what this has to do with anything.

Nazdreg wrote:So there are 2 possible calls: 0:0 or start over.

And both would have been the incorrect call, as evidenced by GW. The judge made the right call. The FAQ simply backed it up.

Nazdreg wrote:
Is it cunning to throw stones at my opponents models?

Again. . .what?

Might be a dumb question, but isn't the FAQ just a clarification of existing rules? If this situation had required entirely new rules wouldn't it then be called an errata?

I'm confused as to what this has to do with anything.

It has to do with the fact that you dont win if anyone acts outside the rules. And every kind of continue in that situation would be outside the rules. So the conclusion the Tau player win can not be justified. (Remember: The FAQ wasnt published that time)
Of course the WS-player cant win under that circumstances. If I were harsh, I would consider this game not finishable and therefore a 0:0 would be the solution. But since I have to assume that both players didnt know what they were facing, and in fact did nothing wrong, They can start again.

And both would have been the incorrect call, as evidenced by GW. The judge made the right call. The FAQ simply backed it up.

I think the judge was sympathizing with the Tau player. FAQ cant be taken into account, they can change actual wordings quite drastically.
So it wasnt a neutral decision. And it wasnt a rules based decision. So I would consider it bad.

At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, I think the judge made the better call. In a situation where neither player can solve a problem, it becomes the judge's responsibility. He made a decision. At the end of the day, his word is law. GW thought so.

I think if they gave the WS player another chance it would be no different than giving him another chance if he was down by 5 KP's half way through the game. That would be unfair to the Tau player. Ruling in the Tau player's favor wasn't unfair because his army wasn't the one that was "breaking the rules." The WS army was.....thus he loses.

I can see both sides of the argument though. It really just comes down to opinion. There is really no right or wrong way to call that situation. I would've made the same call, but I wouldn't be upset or confused if I was the Tau player and the judge said "restart the game."

Dannyevilguy wrote:Might be a dumb question, but isn't the FAQ just a clarification of existing rules? If this situation had required entirely new rules wouldn't it then be called an errata?

No, FaQ's Change rules all the time.

Look at the ruling on Tyranids about the Venomthrope brood's Spore Cloud, that changed the BRB ruling, and it is not an errata.

I think the judge made the better call. In a situation where neither player can solve a problem, it becomes the judge's responsibility. He made a decision. At the end of the day, his word is law.

Of course. But law isnt always good. Neither is it always fair...

I think if they gave the WS player another chance it would be no different than giving him another chance if he was down by 5 KP's half way through the game. That would be unfair to the Tau player.

Yes that would be unfair to the Tau player. But being down 5 KP is a perfectly legal situation within a game that can continue after that as normal.

Ruling in the Tau player's favor wasn't unfair because his army wasn't the one that was "breaking the rules." The WS army was.....thus he loses.

No. Neither of the armies broke the rules. The game just crashes. So it would be illegal to continue in any way. The game therefore will not end and no one can win. I could also disqualify the Tau player for provoking the situation. But this wouldnt be fair too.

puma713 wrote:The difference is what I am referring to actually happened and had a direct correlation on the game (to the specific ruling of a judge).

Which would be relevant if the judge is clairvoyant.

Insaniak wrote:It validates the judge's ruling (which shouldn't need validation anyway, but in this case, might because it resulting in a one-sided loss). You don't think the later release of the FAQ may have made that White Scars player feel a tiny bit better about the call?

I have no idea how he felt. Fo myself, it probably would just make me grumpy that the FAQ hadn't been issued a couple of weeks earlier so I would have been aware of the issue before the event.

insaniak wrote: Prior to the FAQ a player who kept his army in reserve had absolutely no reason to suspect that a judge would rule that his army would be completely destroyed in this situation.

And prior to the FAQ, a player who stopped another player's army from entering the board had absolutely no reason to suspect that a judge would rule that his opponent's army would be completely destroyed in that situation.

I really am of the opinion that the judges ruling did have some precedent, in so much as the WS not being able to do something they must but not be allowed to and therefore destroyed. Here is why;

As players we already know that we cannot move within 1" of a enemy model unless we are assaulting. Now in the game it is established through other rules that when you cannot do something that you are required to do, yet an opponent can prevent you from doing said required task, you are destroyed. A couple of examples would be,

1. Forced to fall back, but trapped by enemy troops gets you killed.

2. Unable to deploy from a destroyed vehicle.

So thinking about it, the judge could have easily looked at other incidents, such as those above, that the situation was similiar and ruled as those situations are played out per the rules.

Didn't the infiltration rules always say that unless you are completely able to move on the table, the model dies?

So why would preventing the model from moving onto the table be an unclear situation that the WS player was not able to anticipate?

copper.talos wrote:There is no loop hole. If you can't move within 1" of your opponent, then in this case you can't move at all. The tau player knew that and took the opportunity. It's the sm player's fault that didn't pay attention to the tau player's list. I bet he thought "Tau?! Easy pickings..."

sounds like a loop hole to me. avoiding the battle with a rule that wouldn't typically be used in such a way.

why? what do you think a loop hole is?

Brother Ramses wrote:To sit there and give the White Scars player a mulligan to start the game over penalizes the Kroot player with absolutely zero justification. Fine and dandy in friendly games, but not in a tournament.

bzzt. wrong. there's ample justification, but none of it is bound to the Rule Book. I mean, it's not like that was a 'Just' move to make. even if you can truthfully say a part (or most) of the scenarion involved doing the "right thing" that doesn't absove the WHOLE of it. of course, we both know what's really important here

insaniak wrote:The Kroot player forced the game into a situation that the rules didn't cover, and the judge awarded him a win for it. Would people be just as ok with the ruling if he had then walked over to the next table, tapped one guy on the shoulder and said 'Hey, new rule, you win. Oh, and you over there in the green shirt, there's a new rule that the guy in the green shirt automatically wins the tournament. Congratulations, thanks for coming everyone!'

what is that? that's going even further than the extreme

puma713 wrote:The White Scars player made a stupid move. The Tau player didn't find a "loophole" - if it was a loophole, then GW would've ruled against it - he played by the rules and the judge awarded him for it. Later, the judge was confirmed to be correct.

funny thing about loop holes is that they're legal. if you do a crime you get punished, if you exploit a loop hole then the higher ups/legal teams address it. depending on what's being exploited.

puma713 wrote: Next time, don't leave Khan at home or reserve your entire army when you see your opponent has 60 or so Infiltrators.

the tounament didn't allow named Heroes.

d-usa wrote:Didn't the infiltration rules always say that unless you are completely able to move on the table, the model dies?

Assuming you mean reserve, rather than infiltration... no, they never did.

If they had, this wouldn't have been an issue.

Ummmm
Fact is, it was a dick move and a clever move by the Tau player, regardless of what the WS player was planning on, he was in a tournament, and he should have asked about his opponents team, and realized that he would not be able to get on board if the kroot all infiltrated there. And he should have deployed differently, not just counted on the Tau player being a good sport during a competition where both of them paid money not just to "play" but to play for the prize, which means, alls fair in war.
Never having to move the kroot and the WS being stuck in limbo until the game was over if it was an objective game of any kind means Tau wins. If it was KP's, than it probably should of been a draw and the Tau player figured either it would be a win or a draw and he played as he should have in a tournament.
The WS player learned a valuable lesson and although he will never forget that game I'm sure he learned from it, in any case, isn't this slightly off topic, hasn't the OP's question already been answered??

Brother Ramses wrote:I really am of the opinion that the judges ruling did have some precedent, in so much as the WS not being able to do something they must but not be allowed to and therefore destroyed. Here is why;

As players we already know that we cannot move within 1" of a enemy model unless we are assaulting. Now in the game it is established through other rules that when you cannot do something that you are required to do, yet an opponent can prevent you from doing said required task, you are destroyed. A couple of examples would be,

1. Forced to fall back, but trapped by enemy troops gets you killed.

2. Unable to deploy from a destroyed vehicle.

So thinking about it, the judge could have easily looked at other incidents, such as those above, that the situation was similiar and ruled as those situations are played out per the rules.

Agreed. It's also not as if this was an entirely unknown or unprecedented situation.

The White Scar player may not have encountered it before, or may have forgotten about it (I know someone who forgot the same thing during the Adepticon Champs last year against a Tyranid player with a ton of Genestealers), but many players have encountered this situation or closely-related ones like blocking table edges from Wolf Scouts or Snikrot, for many years.

I think that if he reserved the whole army he should have thought of the possibility that the Tau player did that, and if he did think about it, what was he expecting? Being allowed to move through the tau? a free restart?

Holy smokes ya'll... this is one soapbox we have here...

Really... everyone needs to understand that the TO makes the final call and in fact, it needs to be understood that the TO is the final arbiter (right or wrong).
I get that prior to the FAQ, the game broke. So, the TO at the time decided in favor of the Tau...

Personally, I think it's a fantastic tactic in a tournament setting...

You will get blind sided... come on... who hasn't been blind sided before?? (it'll be a good topic... quick, someone make one STAT!)

Then, on the next tourny, clarify it with the TO. Here's my standard list that I normally clarify with the TO:
-FNP vs Secondary effect
-deffrolla
-KFF coverage
-does game continue if opponent is totally wiped.
-etc...

jgehunter wrote:I think that if he reserved the whole army he should have thought of the possibility that the Tau player did that, and if he did think about it, what was he expecting? Being allowed to move through the tau? a free restart?

That's exactly what I'm sayin, You can't fault the Tua player for being a better general and knowing his army any more than you can blame the WS player for reserving everything. The rule clearly states: If a unit is held in reserve and cannot enter, then the unit is destoyed. That was even before the aformentioned FAQ came out. Bottom line, this was not some freindly game at your FLGS, this was a tournament, and in a tournament setting your main goal is to win. Was what the Tau player doing a "dick move", NO, he used his army with the codex rules to table his opponent turn one. Congratulations on being a better general and acheiving victory. Any further agument about this thread is pure trolling and the people posting such arguments are doing so just for the sake of argument. Just my .02 cents.

Quick question: If I deploy all of my scoring troops into a single blob within shooting distance from let's say 4-5 Vindicator tanks, and you of course destroy my troops in your shooting phase, Is that a "dick move" on your part or just bad generalship on mine? Think about how this question applies to this thread...think.

Sub zero - The rule clearly states: If a unit is held in reserve and cannot enter, then the unit is destoyed.

NO. the rules did NOT say that. Which is why the FAQ came out.

If you disagree, please post a page and paragraph. You cant...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sub zero - The rule clearly states: If a unit is held in reserve and cannot enter, then the unit is destoyed.

NO. the rules did NOT say that. Which is why the FAQ came out.

If you disagree, please post a page and paragraph. You cant...

Ok, let's step back in time before the FAQ came out, tell me if you had a unit in reserve and could not enter, then what would happen to said unit?

Nothing, because the rules do not cover this situation.

You MUST move on, and you CANNOT move on. The game halts and breaks. Do not continue, as you have no permission to do so.

As has been pointed out a number of times throughout this thread.

Do you accept that your statement was categorically incorrect then?

Mannahnin wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:I really am of the opinion that the judges ruling did have some precedent, in so much as the WS not being able to do something they must but not be allowed to and therefore destroyed. Here is why;

As players we already know that we cannot move within 1" of a enemy model unless we are assaulting. Now in the game it is established through other rules that when you cannot do something that you are required to do, yet an opponent can prevent you from doing said required task, you are destroyed. A couple of examples would be,

1. Forced to fall back, but trapped by enemy troops gets you killed.

2. Unable to deploy from a destroyed vehicle.

So thinking about it, the judge could have easily looked at other incidents, such as those above, that the situation was similiar and ruled as those situations are played out per the rules.

Agreed. It's also not as if this was an entirely unknown or unprecedented situation.

The White Scar player may not have encountered it before, or may have forgotten about it (I know someone who forgot the same thing during the Adepticon Champs last year against a Tyranid player with a ton of Genestealers), but many players have encountered this situation or closely-related ones like blocking table edges from Wolf Scouts or Snikrot, for many years.

I just saying that the precedent for declaring that the WS army in reserve was destroyed because they could not move on the table was there before the FAQ clarified that they are indeed destroyed. Insaniak is proposing that it was just a bad call with no thought process behind it, however rules did exist that the judge could have easily used as precedent to declare that the WS was destroyed by being denied movement onto the table.

whembly wrote:Really... everyone needs to understand that the TO makes the final call and in fact, it needs to be understood that the TO is the final arbiter (right or wrong).

Everybody does understand that. The discussion is simply on whether or not the call made in this case was a good one. Not on whether or not the TO was in the right to make one. He had to make some sort of call... that's his job.

sub-zero wrote:Ok, let's step back in time before the FAQ came out, tell me if you had a unit in reserve and could not enter, then what would happen to said unit?

Sorry, but what exactly did you think the discussion was about?

Before the FAQ, the rules simply did not address what happened in that situation. Hence the judge at the tournament in the posted image having to make a call on it... and hence this entire discussion on that call.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote: Insaniak is proposing that it was just a bad call with no thought process behind it,...

I don't believe I ever suggested that there was no thought process behind it. Just that I thin it was a bad call, as introducing such a rule during the game had such a one-sided impact.

If the rule had been in existence before the game started, both players' deployment may well have been completely different.

This seems to be the exact effect of when an.unstoppable force meets an immovable object.

In this case the WS is unstoppable because it must move on. The Kroot are immovable casue it ain't their turn. According to GW, Immovable objects trump unstoppable force.

I've been following this thread with some interest.

In a nutshell, the WS player decided to reserve his entire army and deny the Tau player 2 turns of shooting. This is seen to be a viable tactic.

The Tau player saw the flaw in the WS deployment tactic, and had a sufficient force to infiltrate across the board and block the WS player's table edge.

But this is classified by a few as being "a dick move" and not a viable tactic that took advantage of an opponent's deployment error.

I see this as no differrent than say, using a refused flank deployment against an opponent, or placing 2 webway portals in an opponent's deployment zone to bring units into his rear.

I think the TO made the only decision he could at the time, giving the victory to the Tau player.

The WS player paid the price for an error in deployment, and probably won't make that same mistake again.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and we know what they say about opinions!

Actually, thinking about it, it may have been the right ruling to make. Here's my line of reasoning:

1. The WS player MUST bring on his reserves, but cannot move them.
2. He would not be able to (legally) complete his movement phase, so the game would be stuck in (probably) his turn 2.
3. It's a tournament, so games have a time limit. The game would have run out of time without progressing past the WS player's movement phase.
4. The Tau player wins because the WS player has no units "left on the table" at the end of the game (p90).

He might not have gotten full battle points for the game, though, depending on the tournament's scoring system, but I believe this was the right ruling to make.

Was it still a dick move? I would say so, obviously others think it was a legitimate tactic, but I think that anything that prevents the game from actually being played is a "dick move".

I don't get this whole "let the game be played for the benefit of playing" malarkey. IT"S A TOURNAMENT. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I pay good money to enter a tourney, then my sole objective is to win said tourney. And to those of you whining about how the WS player should get a "do-over"? I don't frakkin think so! The judge made the right call, plain and simple. At this point, I don't even see the reason for the argument. 1. Did the Tau player break ANY rules in his movement phase? NO. 2. Could the WS player bring ANY of his units into play? NO. 3. Therefore the Tau player is awarded the win. It's as simple as black and white. The fact that the FAQ was not out yet, hold no bearing what so ever on this argument. 1 + 2 = 3 Lesson over. sheesh.

time wizard wrote:But this is classified by a few as being "a dick move" and not a viable tactic that took advantage of an opponent's deployment error.

Personally, I wouldn't call it a dick move. It's certainly not a problem now that the issue has been clarified. Again, the only reason I disagree with this particular ruling is down to the timing of it.

sub-zero wrote:I don't get this whole "let the game be played for the benefit of playing" malarkey. IT"S A TOURNAMENT. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I pay good money to enter a tourney, then my sole objective is to win said tourney. And to those of you whining about how the WS player should get a "do-over"? I don't frakkin think so! The judge made the right call, plain and simple. At this point, I don't even see the reason for the argument. 1. Did the Tau player break ANY rules in his movement phase? NO. 2. Could the WS player bring ANY of his units into play? NO. 3. Therefore the Tau player is awarded the win. It's as simple as black and white. The fact that the FAQ was not out yet, hold no bearing what so ever on this argument. 1 + 2 = 3 Lesson over. sheesh.

I would recommend stepping away from the computer for a while if the discussion is getting you that worked up.

Nobody is whining. We're discussing the merits of a decision made mid-game that had a big impact on the game. Nothing more.

As for why it's an argument, it was pointed out to you before. The reason for the discussion is that a player lost a game based not on his own error, but on a gap in the rules. It's not a big issue... certainly not one that's worth getting worked up about.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

Nobody. If I throw stones at my opponents models just because I could and after that he does not fulfil WYSIWYG requirements afterwards, do I win the game because he didnt realize that?

Depends on how strict the tourney is, but if it did I would ask for a TO to declare an exception to WYSIWYG given the circumstance, and if he doesn't, end up pressing criminal damage charges :p. It's very hard to win a tourney under arrest.

As to the situation, if this was a friendly game, then it would be a dick move, but since it is a tournament, tough for the WS player

I don't think it was as much a gap in the rules, but more of a case of interpreting rules differently. Or maybe not anticipating the scenario at all.

It appears that the Tau player, through his interpretation of the rules, anticipated that the WS player would not be able to come out of reserves and auto-loose (or maybe auto-draw).

The WS player either thought that there would be a way to come onto the board anyway, or really just never anticipated a scenario like this.

I know that even before the FAQ I always thought that if you have to arrive from reserves and can't, the unit is lost. So to me this decision made perfect sense because that is how I always interpreted the rule, even pre-FAQ. Other people probably had a different interpretation.

I don't think it was a gap, there was just a difference of interpretation and the TO had to make a call. I think he did the right thing, even though I don't know if the Tau player got a win/draw/partial points or whatever.

I know that if it happened to me I would have taken the ruling, then I would have played another game that didn't count towards the results just to get the game in.

d-usa wrote:I know that even before the FAQ I always thought that if you have to arrive from reserves and can't, the unit is lost. So to me this decision made perfect sense because that is how I always interpreted the rule, even pre-FAQ. Other people probably had a different interpretation.

There were half a dozen different ideas floating around pre-FAQ for how to deal with the situation, some more based in existing rules than others. Most people weren't too bothered about it, as Kroot were about the only army that made it an issue, and nobody actually used them

sub-zero wrote:I don't get this whole "let the game be played for the benefit of playing" malarkey. IT"S A TOURNAMENT. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I pay good money to enter a tourney, then my sole objective is to win said tourney. .

The first and foremost objective for most folks is to have fun. That's usually rule number 1 for having a good time at a tournament. Don't make your happiness contingent on winning the whole thing. There are usually somewhere between 20 and 100 people there, and only a few people win anything. Everyone, however, can have a good time playing the game and probably will if they keep their priorities straight and don't get too wrapped up in wanting to win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

d-usa wrote:I know that even before the FAQ I always thought that if you have to arrive from reserves and can't, the unit is lost. So to me this decision made perfect sense because that is how I always interpreted the rule, even pre-FAQ. Other people probably had a different interpretation.

There were half a dozen different ideas floating around pre-FAQ for how to deal with the situation, some more based in existing rules than others. Most people weren't too bothered about it, as Kroot were about the only army that made it an issue, and nobody actually used them

I knew and ran into a few people who ran the Kroot Mercs army (including one at the Baltimore GT), and most good Tau players I've known ran some.

I've run into the situation of infantry blocking a table edge (or part of one) to prevent Wolf Scouts or Snikrot from entering or entering in a given area literally dozens of times over the years. It's been a known and expected tactic by many players for many years, going back to third edition in the case of the Wolf Scouts. I do maintain that the Tau player's maneuver is well in keeping with the commonplace ruling for these situations, and something that could easily be anticipated by experienced tournament players well before the FAQ came out.

Mannahnin wrote:I've run into the situation of infantry blocking a table edge (or part of one) to prevent Wolf Scouts or Snikrot from entering or entering in a given area literally dozens of times over the years.

That is certainly a bigger (or at least more common) issue.

It's been a known and expected tactic by many players for many years, going back to third edition in the case of the Wolf Scouts.

Which is a good point. I don't remember, and don't have my 3rd or 4th edition rulebooks at work (fancy that!) but I'm wondering if they actually did spell out what happens if a unit is unable to move on. Would certainly explain why some people thought it was already the rule.

insaniak wrote:
Which is a good point. I don't remember, and don't have my 3rd or 4th edition rulebooks at work (fancy that!) but I'm wondering if they actually did spell out what happens if a unit is unable to move on. Would certainly explain why some people thought it was already the rule.

No, neither edition has that spelled out. And I'm not sure many people are thinking that it is a "rule", but that the mechanics of not being able to move on versus staying in reserve are clear (and have been since before the FAQ came out). Hence Mannahnin's examples about Wolf Scouts and Snikrot.

sub-zero wrote:Was what the Tau player doing a "dick move", NO, he used his army with the codex rules to table his opponent turn one.

why do you say he couldn't be doing both?

sub-zero wrote:Any further agument about this thread is pure trolling and the people posting such arguments are doing so just for the sake of argument.

that's a bit too presumptuous.

sub-zero wrote:Quick question: If I deploy all of my scoring troops into a single blob within shooting distance from let's say 4-5 Vindicator tanks, and you of course destroy my troops in your shooting phase, Is that a "dick move" on your part or just bad generalship on mine? Think about how this question applies to this thread...think.

I thought about it and I say it applies partially but not completely. though I'd assume you can draw more similarities between the two situation than I have.

Brother Ramses wrote:Insaniak is proposing that it was just a bad call with no thought process behind it

if you really think like that then you're not trying to understand what he's saying, you're arguing against a stupified (real word?) version of what he's saying that's easy for you to argue with.

time wizard wrote:I see this as no differrent than say, using a refused flank deployment against an opponent, or placing 2 webway portals in an opponent's deployment zone to bring units into his rear.

aside from the obvious differences, naturally.

Puma- Right. Not being able to move onto the table through a blocking enemy unit seemed clear and self-explanatory, given the 1" away rule.

It wasn't until 5th when voluntary table-edge Reserves became an option that this particular situation, killing a whole army preemptively, became a real concern. But the precedent seemed clear.

-Nazdreg- wrote:
If I throw stones at my opponents models just because I could and after that he does not fulfil WYSIWYG requirements afterwards, do I win the game because he didnt realize that?

TBH I haven't seen a WYSIWYG army in years, space marines are rarely modelled with their bolt pistol, bolter and two different types of grenades. If a TO demends this level of adherence to a rule that, in 3rd ed, had to be suspended for an entire codex due to the difficulty of modelling every little piece of wargear and is rarely observed in the most popular of armies then it is a poor and pedantic tournament you are in.

I do disagree with BTNeophyte though, if it happend to me that someone broke my models in a game on purpose I would be under arrest as the offending player would have aphixiated on his own army.

As to what should have happened with the game, I think as a TO if someone gets owned due to a rule like that and you read the rules to agree with the actions then you have to give the Tau the win. Although if the WS player was new to the game I would tell the Tau player to give him a game or else so that while the WS player has lost totally he does get to have another game to get familiar with the rules.

Mannahnin wrote:
The first and foremost objective for most folks is to have fun. That's usually rule number 1 for having a good time at a tournament. Don't make your happiness contingent on winning the whole thing. There are usually somewhere between 20 and 100 people there, and only a few people win anything. Everyone, however, can have a good time playing the game and probably will if they keep their priorities straight and don't get too wrapped up in wanting to win.

While I agree with your sentiment personally, I do think there are a lot of people that only go to tournaments to wave their gaming penis in the air. My 2nd game of 40k after a few years out at a tournament I had a guy that kept moving my models and doing illegal things with tank shocks, the guy was happy to try to push his luck with someone that hadn't played since early 4th ed.

Mannahnin wrote:Puma- Right. Not being able to move onto the table through a blocking enemy unit seemed clear and self-explanatory, given the 1" away rule.

It wasn't until 5th when voluntary table-edge Reserves became an option that this particular situation, killing a whole army preemptively, became a real concern. But the precedent seemed clear.

This is my point regarding the judges call.

The judge knows that scenarios exist where when an opponents models are unable to move due to positioning of their opponents models, said models are destroyed, I gave those examples earlier such as being trapped during a fallback move or unable to disembark from a destroyed vehicle due to being surrounded.

So there was clear precedence prior to the FAQ that models unable to complete a move due to positioning of enemy models are destroyed. The judge, in my opinion could have easily taken said precedence into account and ruled appropriately.

Mannahnin wrote:Puma- Right. Not being able to move onto the table through a blocking enemy unit seemed clear and self-explanatory, given the 1" away rule.

It wasn't until 5th when voluntary table-edge Reserves became an option that this particular situation, killing a whole army preemptively, became a real concern. But the precedent seemed clear.

I forget the specifics, but under 4th the Escalation mission would come close to having the same effect. Only it wasn't voluntary reserves it was mandatory.

Just to clarify, because I brought the term in, I use the word "dick move" a lot. (Venture Brothers, The Monarch)

It's seemingly being viewed in a different light.

It was a clever move, it was the right move in a tournament, yes he should have done it under circumstance, any Tournament player would have done it under circumstances, but from the WS's point of view, if I had failed to realize that and it happened, the words that would have uttered from my mouth would most likely have been similar to
"dick move" all quietly and slowly like in the realization that I was screwed. Not in the, you shouldn't do that during a tournament sense.

If it was a friendly game, both players were equally under the terms of "dick move", in the sense they took the fun out of the other playing fielding their army in some sense.

Tau not being able to do anything for two turns, and WS not being able to field. Game starts over, friendly game, and the players field differently so they can enjoy their gaming afternoon. Maybe even field different armies because the WS player realizes this tactic is better left for tournaments, unless the other player has Infiltrating units.

Honestly, I know that slang between states and countries and groups doesn't carry over, so please excuse the very common and constant use of the "dick move" phrase I like to throw it about, I feel a little guilty here.

Also, my point about this not being to related to the thread, is that, with the FAQ, the OP's question has already been answered. You know, everyone is just discussing the WS thing now. I mean, it's not a, "Was that the right call at the tournmanet with the WS player thread...right?"

Don't throw stones, we're all sinners here.

Its a good tactic if the other person is trying to mass outflank. Own one side of the board and then shoot them dead as they now have to walk all the way down the table to get to you. If you have enough guys in fast vehicles to pull it off you can make the game a easy win that way if they are having everything come in that way.

Now wait a minute? Maybe the perspective is off in the pic, and the "rule hounder" actually managed to keep it to under an1½" between every model, but it definately looks like there are gaps between those Kroot wide enough for a biker or a model to move through... They would have to come on in single file "collumns" which could possibly result in some "log jams" and subsequent loss of units to being unable to deploy, but... c'mon, reeree!

Dagger wrote:Now wait a minute? Maybe the perspective is off in the pic, and the "rule hounder" actually managed to keep it to under an1½" between every model, but it definately looks like there are gaps between those Kroot wide enough for a biker or a model to move through... They would have to come on in single file "collumns" which could possibly result in some "log jams" and subsequent loss of units to being unable to deploy, but... c'mon, reeree!

The bikers still have to stay more than an inch away from enemy models during their entire move. If the Kroot are 2" apart, then enemy models still cannot move between them without coming within 1".

Ok ok, 2am, and I had to get the Biggah Brackah....ya you get it, just to check this out...

Nothing specifically along the lines of what I'm suggesting, but *sigh* it does say under "Models In The Way" : 'may not move...through a gap between "freindly" models smaller than it's own base.' So I assume it can be extrapolated that you can not move through gaps in enemy units at all.... But I can't find if it says that specifically anywhere... anyone? Bueller?

I 'spose if thats how that works, well played sir, well played indeed! (If it'd happened to me, I probably would have wound up in jail, LOL!) But yes, I don't disagree as to the OP: if your move from reserve is blocked and you are unable to do so, you do infact die, a horrible sad and pointless little plastic death! D'oh!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

...The bikers still have to stay more than an inch away from enemy models during their entire move. If the Kroot are 2" apart, then enemy models still cannot move between them without coming within 1".

Dagger wrote:Ok ok, 2am, and I had to get the Biggah Brackah....ya you get it, just to check this out...

Nothing specifically along the lines of what I'm suggesting, but *sigh* it does say under "Models In The Way" : 'may not move...through a gap between "freindly" models smaller than it's own base.' So I assume it can be extrapolated that you can not move through gaps in enemy units at all.... But I can't find if it says that specifically anywhere... anyone? Bueller?

That rule makes no difference to this situation; it's just saying that if a model's base physically cannot fit between those of other friendly models, then it can't move there. This situation is all about not being able to move within an inch of an enemy.

Yah, I see it now... thats RAW, but pretty harsh interpretation really? The "spirit" of the rule, if you will, seems more to do with whet your models end there movement but I see it there, written in the blood of reserve moving WS!

I don't see how the "spirit" of the 1" rule could be taken any other way. If you want a fluff justification for it, you could say that the White Scars realised that this part of the battlefield (since a 40k battle really only represents a small chunk of a larger-scale conflict) was too strongly held by the enemy to risk a front-on attack, and so relocated to another zone. They might not necessarily have died, but for the purposes of the game they are casualties.

Besides, if you were playing by the "spirit" of the game rather than the RAW interpretation, then this situation probably would never have come up in the first place, since I doubt friends who are relaxed with the rules would bother pulling this kind of stunt.

Meh? ... if you have to move within an inch on your way past an enemy unit but don't end your move within an inch, then so be it? Just seems a harsh "interpretation" but I guess you could say if you came that close they would just "reach" out and initiate combat, ending your move? But realizing this now, if we're talking about a friendly game, it would not bother me... "maybe"!!! I agree, that is the rule, cut and dry. Guess it never came up for me in regards to trying to get "past" an enemy unit? I think the OP question has been answered in full however: Yes. If your movement from reserve onto the table edge is blocked by intervening terrain or models, they are lost as casualties... right? o_0

IIRC the Tau player did actually post somewhere here on Dakka about this. From what I remember, the Tau player did ask the WS player several times if he was sure he wanted to keep all of his forces in reserve. The WS player said yes.

Dagger wrote:Meh? ... if you have to move within an inch on your way past an enemy unit but don't end your move within an inch, then so be it?

Them's the rules. It can be important in regular games too. Having to stay outside 1" of enemy units as you move, means that (for example) if you're trying to move around an enemy squad or tank which is blocking your way, you have to move a wider arc around it to stay outside that inch. This means (for example) that a squad of three infantry can actually block off a space 9" wide to keep enemy units from moving through during the movement phase.

The game wasn't actually played. They got to deployment and couldn't proceed from there. If I were the judge, I would have zero qualms telling the Tau player "well, you found a loophole. You have stalled the game, pretty much forever, so we can either sit here until the tournament ends, in which case you both lose, or you back up and we have a real game."

Honestly, the most "fair" would have been either a 1:1 draw or a do-over. No game was played. Nothing was lost, nothing was won (until the judge decided, that is).

Oh, and saying "yeah, well, the FAQ backed him up, so, he was right" is wrong. That's post ex facto, and not applicable to this discussion.

Now, that judge's ruling would be backed up by rules.

Then, it was not. You can't go back in time and say it made sense then, because it didn't then as there was no way of knowing what the correct answer was.

Also, fluff wise, how does that even work? How does an enemy "block" you from entering the battlefield? HInt: They don't. That's like hundreds of Taliban fighters surrounding an Army base, and the army saying "oh crap, I guess we can't get out, I guess we should all kill ourselves because we can't get out there to fight." It's dumb and makes zero sense.

Now, that judge's ruling would be backed up by rules.

Then, it was not. You can't go back in time and say it made sense then, because it didn't then as there was no way of knowing what the correct answer was.

This is not true, and I've repeatedly explained why. Experienced tournament players had seen and dealt with similar situations, particularly defending against Space Wolf Scouts and Snikrot's Kommandos, going back as far as 2001 (when the SW Scouts got their awesome Operate Behind Enemy Lines rule). Blocking part or all of a table edge was a known tactic, and the rule on which it is based (not being able to move within 1" of an enemy) is clear and well-understood, and has been the same for three editions of the game.

While cases this extreme are rare, the application of the same rule and similar tactic to this type of situation was clear and logical.

McNinja wrote:Also, fluff wise, how does that even work? How does an enemy "block" you from entering the battlefield? HInt: They don't. That's like hundreds of Taliban fighters surrounding an Army base, and the army saying "oh crap, I guess we can't get out, I guess we should all kill ourselves because we can't get out there to fight." It's dumb and makes zero sense.

What about hundreds of US army soldiers surrounding a base, keeping the Taliban from being able to enter and attack?

It is really not that hard of a concept. Naval blockades have been carried out using the same idea for many years.

It's an abstract game rule based on the battlefield for the game being a finite, defined space. You can easily rationalize it either way to make sense.

d-usa wrote:

McNinja wrote:Also, fluff wise, how does that even work? How does an enemy "block" you from entering the battlefield? HInt: They don't. That's like hundreds of Taliban fighters surrounding an Army base, and the army saying "oh crap, I guess we can't get out, I guess we should all kill ourselves because we can't get out there to fight." It's dumb and makes zero sense.

What about hundreds of US army soldiers surrounding a base, keeping the Taliban from being able to enter and attack?

It is really not that hard of a concept. Naval blockades have been carried out using the same idea for many years.

yeah, and if you look at them, they don't work because the ships cannot physically pass by the navy. They work because they are threatened with being shot if they don't bugger off. They don't approach the blockade and explode. The Cuban Missile Crisis naval blockade is a perfect example of why a blockade works and how it can almost fail.

Mannahnin wrote:

Now, that judge's ruling would be backed up by rules.

Then, it was not. You can't go back in time and say it made sense then, because it didn't then as there was no way of knowing what the correct answer was.

This is not true, and I've repeatedly explained why. Experienced tournament players had seen and dealt with similar situations, particularly defending against Space Wolf Scouts and Snikrot's Kommandos, going back as far as 2001 (when the SW Scouts got their awesome Operate Behind Enemy Lines rule). Blocking part or all of a table edge was a known tactic, and the rule on which it is based (not being able to move within 1" of an enemy) is clear and well-understood, and has been the same for three editions of the game.

While cases this extreme are rare, the application of the same rule and similar tactic to this type of situation was clear and logical.

While I don't disagree, I can't fully agree with you either. While technically legal, it still halted the game, no actual game was played, and there is still a difference between knowing the rules/good generalship and exploiting loopholes.

That's a very subjective line. There are a great number of rules in this rather abstract game which run contrary to how you or I (or both, but not necessarily) would think the situation in question "should", "realistically" work.

In regular practice folks just can't pull their usual full-Reserve tricks against an army with a bunch of infiltrators. In a pick-up game, if a game ends early due to a fluky or lucky series of events/amazing shooting phase-combined with terrible morale checks type-deal, you just restart and play another game. I've seen and heard of games of WHFB ending literally before one player has had a turn, because his critical big unit containing his general and battle standard got panicked off the table turn 1 by a particularly devastating spell.

In a tournament it comes down to the generosity of the guy with the infiltrators when he sees his opponent making this scale of error. You don't usually let your opponent have do-overs. Or if you do, it's acknowledged as an act of generosity. When I've seen a game end early like this in a tournament, usually the players mark the sheets, turn in their results, then play a "real" game for fun and to pass the time.

Mannahnin wrote:You don't usually let your opponent have do-overs. Or if you do, it's acknowledged as an act of generosity. When I've seen a game end early like this in a tournament, usually the players mark the sheets, turn in their results, then play a "real" game for fun and to pass the time.

As I say if it was me, I would shake your hand and tell you "You're the chessiest bastard on two legs" let the TO write up the results and ask for another game.
Also if your opponent is asking you do you really really want to reserve all your forces while rubbing his hands together and smiling like a priest in a playground then maybe it is an idea to think about your plan.