If you have a unit that is outflanking or in reserve and for whatever reason you can't make it on the board because your opponent lined up along your table edge, do you stay in reserve or are you removed as a causality.? The BRB says nothing about what happens. So I would say they die. Since a lot of rules say that if a model can't be placed it is destroyed, I'd apply the same rule here

I would think that doing that is incredibly unfriendly and defeats the purpose of even playing the game.

I personally hate the whole reserves dying thing entirely. Delaying them another turn is punishment enough. If my opponent rolls a one on the mishap table, I usually tell them to delay them instead of killing the unit. Unless I'm getting ruthlessly destroyed. In the case you outlined, if I was the guy lining up on my opponents table edge, I would simply not do it. If I was the guy that was being done to, I would probably just pick up my models and leave and not play that person again, unless I was destroying my opponent and that was the only way to equalize the game for them.

RAW, however, the units would probably be dead.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I would think that doing that is incredibly unfriendly and defeats the purpose of even playing the game.

I personally hate the whole reserves dying thing entirely. Delaying them another turn is punishment enough. If my opponent rolls a one on the mishap table, I usually tell them to delay them instead of killing the unit. Unless I'm getting ruthlessly destroyed. In the case you outlined, if I was the guy lining up on my opponents table edge, I would simply not do it. If I was the guy that was being done to, I would probably just pick up my models and leave and not play that person again, unless I was destroying my opponent and that was the only way to equalize the game for them.

RAW, however, the units would probably be dead.

the question was from a competive stand point, like if it were to happen at a event and what not, in a friendly game, playing like that would be uncalled for. Showed have made that clear in my post.

I don't think there is a RAW answer. The rules require them to enter the battlefield, but do not state what happens if they can't. Being destroyed makes sense within the rules given, and as a model that's not on the battlefield, not in reserves, and not anywhere, I'd rule it a casualty for all intents and purposes.

Fifth it was FAQ d as dead, but nothing since to my knowledge.

Strictly the game halts as both players have created an Unresolvable situation.

How... Exactly did they manage to do that?

Wasn't there the infamous match where a white scar all bike army chose to go all reserve? Then, his vile xeno filth Tau opponent infiltrated his Kroot along his opponent's edge 1" apart. Since the white scars player could not deploy onto the map, he lost. There was a picture making its way through the internets, complete with a smirking Tau player mugging for the camera as the biker player and TO looked through the rule book.

Yes, it's a famous anecdote from like 3rd or 4th edition.

I'm just surprised it'd be doable still.

5th edition from memory, and was BEFORE the FAQ. The to at the time made a frankly terrible call, given it was etc. Should have restarted the game.

Yes he certainly should have restarted the game !

nosferatu1001 wrote:
5th edition from memory, and was BEFORE the FAQ. The to at the time made a frankly terrible call, given it was etc. Should have restarted the game.

And then what? Have the players go through 5 to 7 turns of the Tau player not moving and the White Scars player unable to do anything before the game ended in a Tau victory when the White Scars were counted out at the end of the game?

The fact that someone allowed that to happen to then it's by the tau players fault it's the white scars players fault for doing it to him self. But like previously stated in a event it's about doing what you need to do to win (without cheating) and the tau player came up with the best idea givin the situation he was in

It has been done many times, I killed a few units myself this way over the years.

Blocking a table edge is not an easy nor a forgiving strategy. It is quite easy to spot and disrupt. If the other player goes all out on the outflank tactic and still allows it then he should suffer the consequences.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
5th edition from memory, and was BEFORE the FAQ. The to at the time made a frankly terrible call, given it was etc. Should have restarted the game.

100% this.

That judge made an arbitrary call that was not RAW at the time.

Terrible call. That was not even a game.

I don't think that is beardy at all, I think its one of the few examples of tactical movement left in 40k.

Although an example that leaves a bit worse of a taste in the mouth is when a transport is completely surrounded and the occupants die horribly.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
How... Exactly did they manage to do that?

If the enemy goes null deployment, Infiltrate his board edge. He won't be able to bring any reserves unless Deep Strike (not every has access to) or having a Skimmer vehicle, Jump/Jet Pack infantries (also, not everyone has).

If the enemy Outflanks, you can Infiltrate at least one of the side edges to bar some of his models to enter the battle.

Jefffar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
5th edition from memory, and was BEFORE the FAQ. The to at the time made a frankly terrible call, given it was etc. Should have restarted the game.

And then what? Have the players go through 5 to 7 turns of the Tau player not moving and the White Scars player unable to do anything before the game ended in a Tau victory when the White Scars were counted out at the end of the game?

What part of "restarted the game" was tricky to understand?

Both players actively contributed towards a situation where the game halts and cannot proceed. This is undeniable (now and then, given the 5th edition FAQ timing).

The TO should have recognised this, kniowing there is no current precedent to draw upon, and taken the least damaging option of restarting the game.

They from then on can make a house rule (at the time) about destroying reserves, however killing the game before anything happened, handing a "win" that is only a "win" in name in a tournament is a frankly awful decision by a TO.

Dman137 wrote:
The fact that someone allowed that to happen to then it's by the tau players fault it's the white scars players fault for doing it to him self. But like previously stated in a event it's about doing what you need to do to win (without cheating) and the tau player came up with the best idea givin the situation he was in

At that particular point in time, it was nobody's 'fault' but the judge's, as there were no rules that actually dealt with the situation.

It wasn't the marine player failing to anticipate a tactic, or the tau player capitalising on a tactical error... It was a judge creating a rule on the spot that handed a win to one player with no game actualy having been played.

Some time after that event, the FAQ was updated to cover it... And then 6th Ed came along, and we reverted back to the rules not covering the situation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
5th edition from memory, and was BEFORE the FAQ. The to at the time made a frankly terrible call, given it was etc. Should have restarted the game.

And then what? Have the players go through 5 to 7 turns of the Tau player not moving and the White Scars player unable to do anything before the game ended in a Tau victory when the White Scars were counted out at the end of the game?

What part of "restarted the game" was tricky to understand?

Both players actively contributed towards a situation where the game halts and cannot proceed. This is undeniable (now and then, given the 5th edition FAQ timing).

The TO should have recognised this, kniowing there is no current precedent to draw upon, and taken the least damaging option of restarting the game.

They from then on can make a house rule (at the time) about destroying reserves, however killing the game before anything happened, handing a "win" that is only a "win" in name in a tournament is a frankly awful decision by a TO.

And how do you determine what "the least damaging option" entails? I'm pretty sure restarting the game would've been pretty damaging to the Tau player. The Tau player capitalized on an bad judgement the white scars player made. The only two viable options to continue the game where either destroy the units unable to come on board or delay them a turn (leaivng them in reserves the entire game).

Judges are there to clear out disputes and if need be they make calls when the rules don't cover a subject. There was no precedent so the judge set the precedent.

GIven the Tau player also helped create the unresolvable situation, why are you giving the Tau player the win? Should the Tau player not share some of the blame for this?

It was an awful deciison. Starting the game over was the only option available that was fair on both sides.

THe ONLY *fair* option was a restart. Your false dichotomy is refuted, utterly.

In a literally game ending decision such as this, you set the precedent going forwards, especially as playing another game was entirely poissible - from memory thats what they actually did in this situation.

Restarting is not a fair option, as it rewards to person that made to error by giving them a do over, while robbing the other player of victory due to making a smart move. The judge called it right, which set the precedence the current rules cover. Null deploy is a risky tactic that can pay off big or lose big. In that specific case, it lost big.

SJ

I assumed the win was given to the Tau player because the best victories are ones where no one has to fight, and preventing your opponent from even reaching the field is a way of doing that.

It was a bad call by the white scars player to null deploy in that instance, upon which the Tau player capitalized.

The marine player was outplayed, as simple as that.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Restarting is not a fair option, as it rewards to person that made to error by giving them a do over, while robbing the other player of victory due to making a smart move. The judge called it right, which set the precedence the current rules cover. Null deploy is a risky tactic that can pay off big or lose big. In that specific case, it lost big.

SJ

Giving the Tau player the win rewarded the person who made an error that resulted in the game halting. They BOTH killed the game, so the i=only fair option is to restart.

WHen you say "the current rules" you mean "not in 7th or 6th edition rulebook or FAQ" yes? Or do you have a reference to your assertion that says the current rules cover this?

bleak wrote:The marine player was outplayed, as simple as that.

THe marine player lost due to the TO deciding the Tau player won. Simple as that.

Found the pic, look at the smirk on that guy.

That was posed afterwards, sad to say. Still a genius photo

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:Restarting is not a fair option, as it rewards to person that made to error by giving them a do over, while robbing the other player of victory due to making a smart move. The judge called it right, which set the precedence the current rules cover. Null deploy is a risky tactic that can pay off big or lose big. In that specific case, it lost big.

SJ

Giving the Tau player the win rewarded the person who made an error that resulted in the game halting. They BOTH killed the game, so the i=only fair option is to restart.

WHen you say "the current rules" you mean "not in 7th or 6th edition rulebook or FAQ" yes? Or do you have a reference to your assertion that says the current rules cover this?

bleak wrote:The marine player was outplayed, as simple as that.

THe marine player lost due to the TO deciding the Tau player won. Simple as that.

He still won that round fair, and I don't see a problem with that. The marine player shouldn't have used reserve to HIS advantage which then gave the tau player the advantage to seal the table edges.

Yes, the Tau player won the round, because the TO decided no game should be played. It was a manifestly unfair decision.

Sealing the board edge causes the game to halt. Both players caused that.

Restart. AFTER that you then decide that in future units that cannot enter are destroyed.

Anything esle is demonstrably unfair.

And getting free transports are?

1) 5th edition. So youre about...2 editions ahead to complain about free transports
2) Yes, it is "fair" in that all players can gain access to free transports by playing that detachment. It is also utterly irrelevant to this discussion, due to 1)

Prior to this game there was NO decision on destroying units (and hence losnig the game in this instance) and therefore the decision was unfair.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:Restarting is not a fair option, as it rewards to person that made to error by giving them a do over, while robbing the other player of victory due to making a smart move. The judge called it right, which set the precedence the current rules cover. Null deploy is a risky tactic that can pay off big or lose big. In that specific case, it lost big.

SJ

Giving the Tau player the win rewarded the person who made an error that resulted in the game halting. They BOTH killed the game, so the i=only fair option is to restart.

WHen you say "the current rules" you mean "not in 7th or 6th edition rulebook or FAQ" yes? Or do you have a reference to your assertion that says the current rules cover this?

You should probably try reading the rules first before making bold, unsupported statements, Nos.

Sudden Death Victory
“If at the end of any game turn, one player has no models on the battlefield his opponent automatically wins. Units occupying a building or embarked on a vehicle still count as being on the battlefield, but units that are in Reserve (including Ongoing Reserve) do not.

/drops mic

SJ

IIRC it has always been, if you do not have any models on the table you lose. If you were stuck when you fell back and no where to go, you get destroyed. So that was definitely taken into consideration.

And secondly, restarting might complicate matters. What is the point of a TO when you can just restart when you feel like it?

And also, it is an analogy of fairness. If you think out ruling the TO is the definition of fairness then good for you.

Lastly, I am looking at it on a tournament level thing, where TOs actually consider things instead of just meh, we'll roll the dice and make everyone happy. My final stand is, if you are willing to cheese it out, then don't be a spoilsport if you get outwitted.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:Restarting is not a fair option, as it rewards to person that made to error by giving them a do over, while robbing the other player of victory due to making a smart move. The judge called it right, which set the precedence the current rules cover. Null deploy is a risky tactic that can pay off big or lose big. In that specific case, it lost big.

SJ

Giving the Tau player the win rewarded the person who made an error that resulted in the game halting. They BOTH killed the game, so the i=only fair option is to restart.

WHen you say "the current rules" you mean "not in 7th or 6th edition rulebook or FAQ" yes? Or do you have a reference to your assertion that says the current rules cover this?

You should probably try reading the rules first before making bold, unsupported statements, Nos.

Sudden Death Victory
“If at the end of any game turn, one player has no models on the battlefield his opponent automatically wins. Units occupying a building or embarked on a vehicle still count as being on the battlefield, but units that are in Reserve (including Ongoing Reserve) do not.

/drops mic

SJ

Please explain how you get to the end of a game turn when you cannot proceed past the start of the movement phase?

I suggest you pick the mic back up, given your arugment is, as ever, full of holes you could drive a rhino through.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:Restarting is not a fair option, as it rewards to person that made to error by giving them a do over, while robbing the other player of victory due to making a smart move. The judge called it right, which set the precedence the current rules cover. Null deploy is a risky tactic that can pay off big or lose big. In that specific case, it lost big.

SJ

Giving the Tau player the win rewarded the person who made an error that resulted in the game halting. They BOTH killed the game, so the i=only fair option is to restart.

WHen you say "the current rules" you mean "not in 7th or 6th edition rulebook or FAQ" yes? Or do you have a reference to your assertion that says the current rules cover this?

You should probably try reading the rules first before making bold, unsupported statements, Nos.

Sudden Death Victory
“If at the end of any game turn, one player has no models on the battlefield his opponent automatically wins. Units occupying a building or embarked on a vehicle still count as being on the battlefield, but units that are in Reserve (including Ongoing Reserve) do not.

/drops mic

SJ

Please explain how you get to the end of a game turn when you cannot proceed past the start of the movement phase?

I suggest you pick the mic back up, given your arugment is, as ever, full of holes you could drive a rhino through.

It means you do not have any models on the battlefield, thus setting the rule in that his opponent automatically wins. Some armies do not have shooting, does that mean they have no shooting phase? So does that means neither can they win/ or lose and the game restarts infinitely?

bleak wrote:
IIRC it has always been, if you do not have any models on the table you lose. If you were stuck when you fell back and no where to go, you get destroyed. So that was definitely taken into consideration.

And secondly, restarting might complicate matters. What is the point of a TO when you can just restart when you feel like it?

And also, it is an analogy of fairness. If you think out ruling the TO is the definition of fairness then good for you.

Lastly, I am looking at it on a tournament level thing, where TOs actually consider things instead of just meh, we'll roll the dice and make everyone happy. My final stand is, if you are willing to cheese it out, then don't be a spoilsport if you get outwitted.

1) Yes, at the end of a game turn (and that didnt exist in 5th, hence null deploy with no turn 1 reserves - you do remember this is a 5th edition situation, yes? )
2) It complicates no matters. THe game halted and could not proceed. Start again, from scratch. Given that they players actually did do that, it complicates..nothing
3) No, I am stating the TO made an objectively bad call. BOTH players caused th game to hlat, yet ONE player got the advantage of an uncontested win.
4) I am also, as a TO myself, looking it at a Tournament level thing. I have shown considerably more cosnideration of this than you have demonstrated here. I am not "making everyone happy" I am trying to apply a fair ruling that doesnt just hand the Tau player a win despite them jointly causing the situation. I then, as explained oh maybe a dozen times would make that the ruling going forward , as a public announcement, to again ensure fairness.

Your final stand is factually gak. They could not anticipate that the TO would arbitrarily decide the units were destroyed, so they were not "outwitted". The TO made an objectively bad call to make, especially in a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bleak wrote:

Please explain how you get to the end of a game turn when you cannot proceed past the start of the movement phase?

I suggest you pick the mic back up, given your arugment is, as ever, full of holes you could drive a rhino through.

It means you do not have any models on the battlefield, thus setting the rule in that his opponent automatically wins. Some armies do not have shooting, does that mean they have no shooting phase? So does that means neither can they win/ or lose and the game restarts infinitely?

Wait, you need to move models to consider the movement phase done? This is definitely a rule I didn't know.

And wow, you are a TO and you just restart the entire thing just like that? You do know that it is the laziest thing to do as a TO to just declare it to restart. This means that a tactic or strategy used by the tau player has already been shown and now the marine player has that advantage.

That too is unfair for the tau player. So the TO gave the win to the tau player who outplayed his opponent.

Sigh. No, you must move reserves onto the table. There is no option in this. If you cannot mvoe reserves on to tht etable, the game halts - yo uhave no in-game way to resolve the situation.

Slightly different to what youre proposing. Maybe you should take your sarcasm elsewhere, given youre repeatedly wrong?

No, it is not the "laziest" thing to do. It is the only *fair* solution to a sitaution BOTH players contributed to. You keep ignoring this, pretending somehow it was solely the marine players "fault".

Yes, they have the advantage of not having the game halt again. Or, given yo umake the ruling that it affects from now on, they would then lose - but would at least lose knowing that that was the rule. Again, show your thinking that handing an unfair win is somehwoe "fair" - youve demonstrated gak all so far.

You seem to be uinaware of what "playing" means, given the TO created a new rule to give the Tau player the win.

Would you appreciate a TO that came up and decided that, because you forgot to roll for reserves (something that is also a must, and that BOTH players therefore havea respionsibility to ensure) that you should lose the game - even though this isnt written anywhere?

6th edition it wouldn't have happened since you could only put half your army in reserves

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh. No, you must move reserves onto the table. There is no option in this. If you cannot mvoe reserves on to tht etable, the game halts - yo uhave no in-game way to resolve the situation.

Slightly different to what youre proposing. Maybe you should take your sarcasm elsewhere, given youre repeatedly wrong?

No, it is not the "laziest" thing to do. It is the only *fair* solution to a sitaution BOTH players contributed to. You keep ignoring this, pretending somehow it was solely the marine players "fault".

Yes, they have the advantage of not having the game halt again. Or, given yo umake the ruling that it affects from now on, they would then lose - but would at least lose knowing that that was the rule. Again, show your thinking that handing an unfair win is somehwoe "fair" - youve demonstrated gak all so far.

You seem to be uinaware of what "playing" means, given the TO created a new rule to give the Tau player the win.

Would you appreciate a TO that came up and decided that, because you forgot to roll for reserves (something that is also a must, and that BOTH players therefore havea respionsibility to ensure) that you should lose the game - even though this isnt written anywhere?

If you forget a reserves roll, that is your fault. Are you stating that if I forget to deepstrike in turn 2 I get to restart from there even when the game ended? I get to restart because I made a mistake? I stated the reason why its fair what the TO did, and the TO has a hold of what goes on in the tourney. And I am sure if its that unfair, the white scars player would have already requested for a rematch which I remembered there wasn't one.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
6th edition it wouldn't have happened since you could only put half your army in reserves

There were ways around it, like being in Transports that were required to start in Reserves, but not with that White Scars army.

bleak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Would you appreciate a TO that came up and decided that, because you forgot to roll for reserves (something that is also a must, and that BOTH players therefore havea respionsibility to ensure) that you should lose the game - even though this isnt written anywhere?

If you forget a reserves roll, that is your fault. Are you stating that if I forget to deepstrike in turn 2 I get to restart from there even when the game ended? I get to restart because I made a mistake? I stated the reason why its fair what the TO did, and the TO has a hold of what goes on in the tourney. And I am sure if its that unfair, the white scars player would have already requested for a rematch which I remembered there wasn't one.

So, given you were wrong about other points, you forget about them and come up with yet another missing the point, point?

No, actually you find it is a required action, that both players have responsibility for. There is no optional element - see, optional means one player has control over it. Non optional means that it is mandatory for the game to continue to function. This is fundamental to games design

No, I did not state that you would get to restart. Agaain, any chance you can respond to what is actually written, rather than what you imagine was written? I actually said - what if a TO decided that because YOU forgot a reserves roll, YOU forfeit the game.

So, any chance you could more carefully read what others have written, and argue the points? Not your made up gak?

Oh, and they did actually play another game.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Your final stand is factually gak. They could not anticipate that the TO would arbitrarily decide the units were destroyed, so they were not "outwitted". The TO made an objectively bad call to make, especially in a tournament.

Was it a bad call? The 5th edition FAQ stated that units unable to move fully onto the table from reserves were destroyed.

If this happened pre-FAQ then it seems like he made the right call. If it was post-FAQ then he definitely made the right call.

Dman137 wrote:
If you have a unit that is outflanking or in reserve and for whatever reason you can't make it on the board because your opponent lined up along your table edge, do you stay in reserve or are you removed as a causality.? The BRB says nothing about what happens. So I would say they die. Since a lot of rules say that if a model can't be placed it is destroyed, I'd apply the same rule here

neither actually as we see on pg 136 moving on from reserve, second paragraph.

move them on as far as you can and they can hang over the table edge if need be. so with 2" between the blocking models, you could probably get a 1/4" of the base onto the table before getting into 1" of either and just place a marker so every one knows that where the model is.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Your final stand is factually gak. They could not anticipate that the TO would arbitrarily decide the units were destroyed, so they were not "outwitted". The TO made an objectively bad call to make, especially in a tournament.

Was it a bad call? The 5th edition FAQ stated that units unable to move fully onto the table from reserves were destroyed.

If this happened pre-FAQ then it seems like he made the right call. If it was post-FAQ then he definitely made the right call.

Pre FAQ

It's a bad call to make during a game, for reasons explained at length. You make it for games going forward, but not that game.

As I said : if you're told you lost a game because you forgot a reserve roll, would that be a good call regardless of a later FAQ? You've just made a decision which the "losing" player could not have prepared for, as in this case.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, the Tau player won the round, because the TO decided no game should be played. It was a manifestly unfair decision.

Sealing the board edge causes the game to halt. Both players caused that.

Restart. AFTER that you then decide that in future units that cannot enter are destroyed.

Anything esle is demonstrably unfair.

Space Marine player did something ballsy that worked against the majority of his opponents. His tactical error was understood, and he was outplayed, unable to enter the board, and therefore participate in the game. Restarting the game, as has been noticed above, would have given the spacemarine player, who made an error, an opportunity to get a win, after he had lost.

Was it an unusual situation? Yes, was there an FAQ? No, as it has probably happened once, in the history of the game. Did the TO make the right call? Absolutely, at a tournament, if you make an error, and you lose, there are no do-overs, and the rules, as written, prevented the Space MArine player from entering the board; do not confuse smart use of rules with "there are no rules to cover this.".

 goblinzz wrote:
... after he had lost.

Where did the rules say that he lost if there was a situation not covered by the rules?

sirlynchmob wrote:

Dman137 wrote:
If you have a unit that is outflanking or in reserve and for whatever reason you can't make it on the board because your opponent lined up along your table edge, do you stay in reserve or are you removed as a causality.? The BRB says nothing about what happens. So I would say they die. Since a lot of rules say that if a model can't be placed it is destroyed, I'd apply the same rule here

neither actually as we see on pg 136 moving on from reserve, second paragraph.

move them on as far as you can and they can hang over the table edge if need be. so with 2" between the blocking models, you could probably get a 1/4" of the base onto the table before getting into 1" of either and just place a marker so every one knows that where the model is.

I would be hugely unhappy with this, and do not believe it is legal. IF any part of a model's base, or vehicles hull leaves the table, then that unit must leave the table. Having your land raider with a corner on the board, and then saying that it is firing from past the edge of the table is total nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
... after he had lost.

Where did the rules say that he lost if there was a situation not covered by the rules?

The rules as written prevented the player from entering the board. The player could not participate in the game, ergo, he lost. It is not a cpmplicated equation.

 goblinzz wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, the Tau player won the round, because the TO decided no game should be played. It was a manifestly unfair decision.

Sealing the board edge causes the game to halt. Both players caused that.

Restart. AFTER that you then decide that in future units that cannot enter are destroyed.

Anything esle is demonstrably unfair.

Space Marine player did something ballsy that worked against the majority of his opponents. His tactical error was understood, and he was outplayed, unable to enter the board, and therefore participate in the game. Restarting the game, as has been noticed above, would have given the spacemarine player, who made an error, an opportunity to get a win, after he had lost.

Was it an unusual situation? Yes, was there an FAQ? No, as it has probably happened once, in the history of the game. Did the TO make the right call? Absolutely, at a tournament, if you make an error, and you lose, there are no do-overs, and the rules, as written, prevented the Space MArine player from entering the board; do not confuse smart use of rules with "there are no rules to cover this.".

This.

No one forced the White Scars player to put himself at risk by holding his entire force in reserve. Tactical blunders result in losses. I support the judge's call.

 goblinzz wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
... after he had lost.

Where did the rules say that he lost if there was a situation not covered by the rules?

The rules as written prevented the player from entering the board. The player could not participate in the game, ergo, he lost. It is not a cpmplicated equation.

Again, please provide an actual rules quote to back up your claims that he lost.

 Ghaz wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
... after he had lost.

Where did the rules say that he lost if there was a situation not covered by the rules?

The rules as written prevented the player from entering the board. The player could not participate in the game, ergo, he lost. It is not a cpmplicated equation.

Again, please provide an actual rules quote to back up your claims that he lost.

The player could not participate in the game, as he was outfoxed at deployment, and therefore lost. It's pretty straightforward. The fact that an FAQ came out confirming this fact in the months after this game confirming this is merely the icing on the cake of the evidence supporting his loss..

 goblinzz wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Dman137 wrote:
If you have a unit that is outflanking or in reserve and for whatever reason you can't make it on the board because your opponent lined up along your table edge, do you stay in reserve or are you removed as a causality.? The BRB says nothing about what happens. So I would say they die. Since a lot of rules say that if a model can't be placed it is destroyed, I'd apply the same rule here

neither actually as we see on pg 136 moving on from reserve, second paragraph.

move them on as far as you can and they can hang over the table edge if need be. so with 2" between the blocking models, you could probably get a 1/4" of the base onto the table before getting into 1" of either and just place a marker so every one knows that where the model is.

I would be hugely unhappy with this, and do not believe it is legal. IF any part of a model's base, or vehicles hull leaves the table, then that unit must leave the table. Having your land raider with a corner on the board, and then saying that it is firing from past the edge of the table is total nonsense.

It might make for other fun issues, but that is the RAW. you must move onto the table, and you are told what to do if the whole model doesn't fit onto the table. I cited where the rule is at, give it a read when you get the chance.

 goblinzz wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
... after he had lost.

Where did the rules say that he lost if there was a situation not covered by the rules?

The rules as written prevented the player from entering the board. The player could not participate in the game, ergo, he lost. It is not a cpmplicated equation.

Again, please provide an actual rules quote to back up your claims that he lost.

The player could not participate in the game, as he was outfoxed at deployment, and therefore lost. It's pretty straightforward. The fact that an FAQ came out confirming this fact in the months after this game confirming this is merely the icing on the cake of the evidence supporting his loss..

So you still can't provide an actual rule to support your claims.

bleak wrote:
IIRC it has always been, if you do not have any models on the table you lose.

That's only been a rule for the last couple of editions.

And secondly, restarting might complicate matters. What is the point of a TO when you can just restart when you feel like it?

I think you misunderstood. People were suggesting that in this particular situation (since the game hadn't really even started yet) he should have made the ruling but then restarted the game with that ruling in place so that the game could play out with a rule that covered the issue without unfairly benefiting one player.

My final stand is, if you are willing to cheese it out, then don't be a spoilsport if you get outwitted.

It's not being 'outwitted' if an opponent breaks the game by exploiting a rules hole that results in a situation not covered by the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Was it a bad call? The 5th edition FAQ stated that units unable to move fully onto the table from reserves were destroyed.

If this happened pre-FAQ then it seems like he made the right call. If it was post-FAQ then he definitely made the right call.

It wouldn't have been a bad call to have made in the tournament rules package, so that all players were aware that this is how it would be played before any models hit the board.

It was a bad call to make in a game that was in progress, because it had such a lopsided outcome.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 goblinzz wrote:
I would be hugely unhappy with this, and do not believe it is legal.

You can be unhappy with it if you like, but it is how the current Reserves rules work.

This, however:

IF any part of a model's base, or vehicles hull leaves the table, then that unit must leave the table.

...is not a rule, unless the model is Falling Back, or is a Flyer.

Ghaz, i doubt we are going to agree, but here's my viewpoint:

An important function for the TO is to make difficult rulings and decisions in poorly covered sections of the rules. If the TO had ruled that the game had to be restarted, would he have told the Tau player that he had to leave a 1" gap somewhere for the White Scars player to come on? Banned him from being within 6" of the opponents table edge? In this situation, WHATEVER he chose to do effectively led to a new rule being created for that game, either one covering deployment, or one covering moving on from reserves.

In my opinion, the better of those two choices was to create a house rule covering what happens when someone cannot come in from reserve, as that does not penalise smart deployment.

You can ask all day for a rule covering the situation, and we both know that at the time there wasn't one, neither of us disagrees with that statement. Effectively we are arguing over which house rule was the best to resolve the situation, a discussion upon which I have made my opinion clear.

The problem with your viewpoint is that it's just that. Your viewpoint. In a game, you need rules to support your viewpoint otherwise its just your house rule.

As an addendum: I have revised my opinion slightly, as insaniak makes a good point. You can restart the game with a ruling in place, and declare that everyone now knows what is going on. In an ideal world you can have these decisions made in advance of the tournament.

Unfortunately, this situation had not come up, so by restarting the game, it is inherently going to be a bit annoying (penalising) for one person for the extent of that game.

I still support the TO's decision though. TOs have a difficult job, and you can bitch about it afterwards all you want, but when you run events, you are ALWAYS going to end up having to make a judgement call that may not be perfect. That is how FAQs evolve and grow (or at least should, looking at you GW), situations come up, are ruled on, and then added to a list of resolved questions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
The problem with your viewpoint is that it's just that. Your viewpoint. In a game, you need rules to support your viewpoint otherwise its just your house rule.

Ghaz, that's my point EXACTLY! There was NO RULE to cover the situation! Therefore a House rule HAD to be created, or that's it, game done, neither player can continue with the day?

Regardless of whether you feel the game should have been restarted, how would YOU have resolved this situation without making a house rule?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Insaniak, thanks for the clarity on reserves vs. falling back, it's amusing that you have two different situations that logically SHOULD be covered the same way, but are treated seperately!

 goblinzz wrote:
If the TO had ruled that the game had to be restarted, would he have told the Tau player that he had to leave a 1" gap somewhere for the White Scars player to come on?

There would have been no reason to do so. Both players would have started the game with the knowledge that the situation that created the game break the first time round would now result in an automatic loss for the marine player, and he would either adjust his strategy accordingly, or deploy as he had the first time and suffer a first turn loss.

In my opinion, the better of those two choices was to create a house rule covering what happens when someone cannot come in from reserve, as that does not penalise smart deployment.

That was everyone else's opinion as well.

The difference is just that some of us feel that, because of the one-sided outcome of imposing that rule on this particular game rather than making that ruling before the game had started, allowing the players to start over with that ruling in place would have been fairer for both players.

 insaniak wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
If the TO had ruled that the game had to be restarted, would he have told the Tau player that he had to leave a 1" gap somewhere for the White Scars player to come on?

There would have been no reason to do so. Both players would have started the game with the knowledge that the situation that created the game break the first time round would now result in an automatic loss for the marine player, and he would either adjust his strategy accordingly, or deploy as he had the first time and suffer a first turn loss.

In my opinion, the better of those two choices was to create a house rule covering what happens when someone cannot come in from reserve, as that does not penalise smart deployment.

That was everyone else's opinion as well.

The difference is just that some of us feel that, because of the one-sided outcome of imposing that rule on this particular game rather than making that ruling before the game had started, allowing the players to start over with that ruling in place would have been fairer for both players.

I actually agree with you now insaniak, it would have been to restart with the ruling in place, since it was effectively a house rule. The sky must be falling, somebody in an online forum (me) changed their opinion!

Two points, then I'll drop the mic again:

Arriving from Reserve
When Reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving it onto the table as described below. Then pick another arriving unit and deploy it, and so on until all arriving units are on the table. The player can then proceed to move his other units as normal. Note that you must first roll for all Reserves, and then move any arriving Reserves, before any other units can move.

Preparing Reserves
When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. In addition, if it impossible to deploy a unit for any reason, it must be placed in Reserve. The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed. Such units are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of Preparing for Battle.

The underlined in both quotes make my case. If a unit cannot be deployed from reserve, it is removed as a casualty. While you can make an argument that the second passage in question deals only with pre-game set up, it does gives us a precedent for what can occur while deploying a unit during a game turn, as noted in the first quote.

The game don't end because one person can't move their models. The game ends because one person has no models on the table at the end of the game turn. Movement phase, can't deploy models on to the table, those models are lost. No Psychic phase, no Shooting phase, no Assault phase, game turn over, sudden death victory goes to the player with models on the table.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Two points, then I'll drop the mic again:

Arriving from Reserve
When Reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving it onto the table as described below. Then pick another arriving unit and deploy it, and so on until all arriving units are on the table. The player can then proceed to move his other units as normal. Note that you must first roll for all Reserves, and then move any arriving Reserves, before any other units can move.

Preparing Reserves
When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. In addition, if it impossible to deploy a unit for any reason, it must be placed in Reserve. The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed. Such units are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of Preparing for Battle.

The underlined in both quotes make my case. If a unit cannot be deployed from reserve, it is removed as a casualty. While you can make an argument that the second passage in question deals only with pre-game set up, it does gives us a precedent for what can occur while deploying a unit during a game turn, as noted in the first quote.

The game don't end because one person can't move their models. The game ends because one person has no models on the table at the end of the game turn. Movement phase, can't deploy models on to the table, those models are lost. No Psychic phase, no Shooting phase, no Assault phase, game turn over, sudden death victory goes to the player with models on the table.

SJ

That second quote does not mean what you think it means.

Preparing Reserves happens well before you are Arriving from Reserve and as such the rules for Preparing Reserves have no affect on Arriving from Reserve.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Dman137 wrote:
If you have a unit that is outflanking or in reserve and for whatever reason you can't make it on the board because your opponent lined up along your table edge, do you stay in reserve or are you removed as a causality.? The BRB says nothing about what happens. So I would say they die. Since a lot of rules say that if a model can't be placed it is destroyed, I'd apply the same rule here

neither actually as we see on pg 136 moving on from reserve, second paragraph.

move them on as far as you can and they can hang over the table edge if need be. so with 2" between the blocking models, you could probably get a 1/4" of the base onto the table before getting into 1" of either and just place a marker so every one knows that where the model is.

I would be hugely unhappy with this, and do not believe it is legal. IF any part of a model's base, or vehicles hull leaves the table, then that unit must leave the table. Having your land raider with a corner on the board, and then saying that it is firing from past the edge of the table is total nonsense.

It might make for other fun issues, but that is the RAW. you must move onto the table, and you are told what to do if the whole model doesn't fit onto the table. I cited where the rule is at, give it a read when you get the chance.

Sorry man, I totally missed your page reference. I love that falling back, and coming on from reserves, which should logically be treated the same way, aren't...

jeffersonian000 wrote:Two points, then I'll drop the mic again:

Arriving from Reserve
When Reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving it onto the table as described below. Then pick another arriving unit and deploy it, and so on until all arriving units are on the table. The player can then proceed to move his other units as normal. Note that you must first roll for all Reserves, and then move any arriving Reserves, before any other units can move.

Preparing Reserves
When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. In addition, if it impossible to deploy a unit for any reason, it must be placed in Reserve. The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed. Such units are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of Preparing for Battle.

The underlined in both quotes make my case. If a unit cannot be deployed from reserve, it is removed as a casualty. While you can make an argument that the second passage in question deals only with pre-game set up, it does gives us a precedent for what can occur while deploying a unit during a game turn, as noted in the first quote.

The game don't end because one person can't move their models. The game ends because one person has no models on the table at the end of the game turn. Movement phase, can't deploy models on to the table, those models are lost. No Psychic phase, no Shooting phase, no Assault phase, game turn over, sudden death victory goes to the player with models on the table.

SJ

Umm... no. That is taking the sentences out of context in the second quote. It only deals with deploying units in the Deployment Phase, it has nothing to do with units arriving from Reserves in the middle of the game.

Preparing Reserves states that you can choose to put some units in to Reserves instead of Deploying them. Then if you cannot deploy them, you put them in to Reserves. EXCEPT if you cannot deploy them during Deployment, and put them in Reserves, but the unit cannot move after being Deployed, that unit is automatically destroyed.

Even if you chose to recreate the Kroot/White Scars fiasco (good luck), the White Scars could move after being deployed, as they were not immobile, and it was after Preparing for Battle, so the Preparing Reserves rule is no longer in force.

Yet again Jeffersonian has to pick the mic back up,again, after another failure to read the rules they quoted.

It wasn't impossible to deploy them during the deployment phase of preparing for battle. It was entirely possible, therefore they cannot be destroyed.

This is getting quite silly now...

Jeffersonian - any rule to backup your stance, or will you now accept you were wrong, and recover some grace?

Nos, can you cite a single rule to support your side of the argument? We both know that's a no, don't we.

SJ

Well, yes, he's going to be unable to provide a rule that says 'This rule from the Preparing Reserves rule that has nothing whatsoever to do with how units arrive from reserve should not be taken as being relevant to units arriving from reserve'...

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos, can you cite a single rule to support your side of the argument? We both know that's a no, don't we.

SJ

That still doesn't make your assessment accurate. Applying a standard that specifically addresses only deployment to the situation of a unit coming in from Reserves AFTER deployment is inaccurate unless specifically stated.

Moving On From Reserves carries no such stipulation. Outflank carries no such stipulation. The only method of arriving from Reserves which carries a "death" penalty is Deep Strike's Mishap.

Blocked Deployment Edges are not considered by the game at this present time. And let's face it, it is a real challenge to do that with all but the most ignorrant opponents these days. You need to cover 6-8 feet in order to completely block a non-Deep Striking arrival from Reserves, and most people will not give you the chance like that White Scars player, nor be prepared with that many Infiltrators at the same time like that Kroot player.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos, can you cite a single rule to support your side of the argument? We both know that's a no, don't we.

SJ

Erm, yes? That's my point

The game halts, as there is no rule to cover this.

You are forced to bring on reserves, but cannot do so. You cannot progress past this point, so you never hit the end of the movement phase, never mind the end of the game turn.

So after yet another attempt where you have had to pick the mic back up, will you concede that there are no rules supporting YOUR contention that this situation is covered in the rules?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos, can you cite a single rule to support your side of the argument? We both know that's a no, don't we.

SJ

Erm, yes? That's my point

The game halts, as there is no rule to cover this.

You are forced to bring on reserves, but cannot do so. You cannot progress past this point, so you never hit the end of the movement phase, never mind the end of the game turn.

So after yet another attempt where you have had to pick the mic back up, will you concede that there are no rules supporting YOUR contention that this situation is covered in the rules?

seeing as there no rule that states you halt a game if you can't get past a phase, I would have to disagree with you. While there are plenty of rules that state that if you cannot place a model it is destroyed I would apply the same rule here, since you cannot place your models then they are dead.
Also these people quoting a rule about reserves and marking where they would be, that rule has nothing to do with me blocking you, you can't come on at all, and since the rules don't say that you stay in reserve then your dead, and plus if your that bad of a player to allow that to happen to you then I don't think you deserve to have them alive lol (that last part wasn't directed towards you, just a general statement)

Dman137 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos, can you cite a single rule to support your side of the argument? We both know that's a no, don't we.

SJ

Erm, yes? That's my point

The game halts, as there is no rule to cover this.

You are forced to bring on reserves, but cannot do so. You cannot progress past this point, so you never hit the end of the movement phase, never mind the end of the game turn.

So after yet another attempt where you have had to pick the mic back up, will you concede that there are no rules supporting YOUR contention that this situation is covered in the rules?

seeing as there no rule that states you halt a game if you can't get past a phase, I would have to disagree with you. While there are plenty of rules that state that if you cannot place a model it is destroyed I would apply the same rule here, since you cannot place your models then they are dead.
Also these people quoting a rule about reserves and marking where they would be, that rule has nothing to do with me blocking you, you can't come on at all, and since the rules don't say that you stay in reserve then your dead, and plus if your that bad of a player to allow that to happen to you then I don't think you deserve to have them alive lol (that last part wasn't directed towards you, just a general statement)

Not past a phase. Reread what was wrote, and be more careful with your wording

You have a required action that must complete. You have no permission to ignore that action. It must complete.

It cannot complete

Cite your permission to ignore this required action. CIte how you are allowed to skip bringing reserves on.

Your disagreemetn is noted, but as it has no rules backing it is ignored as irrelevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dman137 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos, can you cite a single rule to support your side of the argument? We both know that's a no, don't we.

SJ

Erm, yes? That's my point

The game halts, as there is no rule to cover this.

You are forced to bring on reserves, but cannot do so. You cannot progress past this point, so you never hit the end of the movement phase, never mind the end of the game turn.

So after yet another attempt where you have had to pick the mic back up, will you concede that there are no rules supporting YOUR contention that this situation is covered in the rules?

seeing as there no rule that states you halt a game if you can't get past a phase, I would have to disagree with you. While there are plenty of rules that state that if you cannot place a model it is destroyed I would apply the same rule here, since you cannot place your models then they are dead.
Also these people quoting a rule about reserves and marking where they would be, that rule has nothing to do with me blocking you, you can't come on at all, and since the rules don't say that you stay in reserve then your dead, and plus if your that bad of a player to allow that to happen to you then I don't think you deserve to have them alive lol (that last part wasn't directed towards you, just a general statement)

Not past a phase. Reread what was wrote, and be more careful with your wording

You have a required action that must complete. You have no permission to ignore that action. It must complete.

It cannot complete

Cite your permission to ignore this required action. CIte how you are allowed to skip bringing reserves on.

Your disagreemetn is noted, but as it has no rules backing it is ignored as irrelevant.

I understand what you mean, but at the same time where is the rule that states the game is at a stalemate.? to me id say there dead since they can't come on, but some people might rule that they stay in reserves

Dman137 wrote:
I understand what you mean, but at the same time where is the rule that states the game is at a stalemate.? to me id say there dead since they can't come on, but some people might rule that they stay in reserves

There is no rules support for either of those options though, since were making up house rules now, you could just allow them to come on their table edge. As unrealistic as blocking and entire table edge is blocking two is magnitudes more unrealistic. Or as all your models are on one side of the table, just let them come on the other side.

Because we do know, they MUST come on the table. As that is the base rule I believe we should work towards that goal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and NOS the game does not freeze, we will complete the movement phase and we have 2 very good backup rules to fall back to to solve this dilemma.

Dman137 wrote:

I understand what you mean, but at the same time where is the rule that states the game is at a stalemate.? to me id say there dead since they can't come on, but some people might rule that they stay in reserves

And again, that is where you are wrong, Nos. The BRB does tell us how this specific situation ends. No models on the table for one player equals Sudden Death Victory for the other player. We are even told how to handle units that cannot deploy, they are removed as casualties. Your assumption that the game stalls is a How You Would Play It, not a break down in the rules that causes the game to break.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
We are even told how to handle units that cannot deploy, they are removed as casualties.

Do you have a proper quote on that? All you've quoted is the rule for deployment. Coming On From Reserves mentions nothing regarding that.

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
We are even told how to handle units that cannot deploy, they are removed as casualties.

Do you have a proper quote on that? All you've quoted is the rule for deployment. Coming On From Reserves mentions nothing regarding that.

can you quote a rule saying otherwise.? Every other rule in 40k where a model can't be place it is dead. Same thing would apply here and everyone can argue that but that's the most fair way to do it. And like I said before if you allow yourself to be in that situation then it's your own fault and you should be rewarded for stupidity

Dman137 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
We are even told how to handle units that cannot deploy, they are removed as casualties.

Do you have a proper quote on that? All you've quoted is the rule for deployment. Coming On From Reserves mentions nothing regarding that.

can you quote a rule saying otherwise.? Every other rule in 40k where a model can't be place it is dead. Same thing would apply here and everyone can argue that but that's the most fair way to do it. And like I said before if you allow yourself to be in that situation then it's your own fault and you should be rewarded for stupidity

pg 136 moving on from reserve, second paragraph.

You must place your models as far on the table as you can. so even a fraction of a mm and you're on the table, trying to kill those models is against RAW.

Dman137 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
We are even told how to handle units that cannot deploy, they are removed as casualties.

Do you have a proper quote on that? All you've quoted is the rule for deployment. Coming On From Reserves mentions nothing regarding that.

can you quote a rule saying otherwise.? Every other rule in 40k where a model can't be place it is dead. Same thing would apply here and everyone can argue that but that's the most fair way to do it. And like I said before if you allow yourself to be in that situation then it's your own fault and you should be rewarded for stupidity

That is incorrect. In many cases when a model cannot be placed, it either has to limit its movement or goes in to Mishap. The times where it is "destroyed"/"removed as a casualty" are all specifically delineated as such. Coming On From Reserves provides no such stipulation.

Let's look at those conditions which cause inability to deploy to kill the model.

First is deployment, where if a model cannot move for Deployment, but forced in to Reserves, it is automatically destroyed. The ability to force this situation is almost impossible, and usually regulated to Fortification Role units.

Deep Striking from Reserves where a unit cannot deploy because of model placement causes it to Mishap. In this case, it is 1/6 to destroy the unit, the other results either cause a delay by putting them in to Ongoing Reserves, or the opponent placing the unit.

Disembarking from a Wrecked Transport or being placed after a Transport Explodes! In these cases, the Transport must be surrounded sufficiently that an Embarked model cannot be placed in base contact with the Transport or the unit is of sufficient size as the surrounding unit provides literally no room.

I believe there is one for Falling Back, too, but in any case, it would still specifically state as such.

Where is it in Coming On From Reserves? For Outflank?

I'm not saying the rules have an answer for this situation, in fact, I'm stating quite the opposite. There are no rules for this situation, so assuming it is automatically dead is quite presumptive. In fact, there is as much case for it going in to Ongoing Reserves as there is for being automatically dead.

I'm not saying the rules have an answer for this situation, in fact, I'm stating quite the opposite. There are no rules for this situation, so assuming it is automatically dead is quite presumptive. In fact, there is as much case for it going in to Ongoing Reserves as there is for being automatically dead.

Then make that case. The whole "game broke, everyone go home" stance is a non-stance, as it has no meaning in a rules discussion.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

I'm not saying the rules have an answer for this situation, in fact, I'm stating quite the opposite. There are no rules for this situation, so assuming it is automatically dead is quite presumptive. In fact, there is as much case for it going in to Ongoing Reserves as there is for being automatically dead.

Then make that case. The whole "game broke, everyone go home" stance is a non-stance, as it has no meaning in a rules discussion.

SJ

I see that type of argument as invoking the rule that must not be named in YMDC. It's what they're trying to say without actually saying it. I highly doubt anyone has had a game end due to a broken rule.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Dman137 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
We are even told how to handle units that cannot deploy, they are removed as casualties.

Do you have a proper quote on that? All you've quoted is the rule for deployment. Coming On From Reserves mentions nothing regarding that.

can you quote a rule saying otherwise.? Every other rule in 40k where a model can't be place it is dead. Same thing would apply here and everyone can argue that but that's the most fair way to do it. And like I said before if you allow yourself to be in that situation then it's your own fault and you should be rewarded for stupidity

pg 136 moving on from reserve, second paragraph.

You must place your models as far on the table as you can. so even a fraction of a mm and you're on the table, trying to kill those models is against RAW.

if I'm lined up on your edge 1" apart, there is no way for you to even place your model, and on top of that show me in that paragraph where it states that you go back into reserves if you can't be placed. The rules are you can't come within a inch of my model so since you can't even move on at all and it doesn't say you go back into reserves then the only other option is you die. And if you're on the boat of "oh well if that's the case then I would pick up my models and never play you again" then that's even worse because people refuse to see error in there tactics from lack of play or just plain refusal of playing better players. Like I've already said, if you put yourself in that situation then your at your own fault and there for should not be idiot from anything. Just learn not to do it again lol it's not hard

Dman137 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Dman137 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
We are even told how to handle units that cannot deploy, they are removed as casualties.

Do you have a proper quote on that? All you've quoted is the rule for deployment. Coming On From Reserves mentions nothing regarding that.

can you quote a rule saying otherwise.? Every other rule in 40k where a model can't be place it is dead. Same thing would apply here and everyone can argue that but that's the most fair way to do it. And like I said before if you allow yourself to be in that situation then it's your own fault and you should be rewarded for stupidity

pg 136 moving on from reserve, second paragraph.

You must place your models as far on the table as you can. so even a fraction of a mm and you're on the table, trying to kill those models is against RAW.

if I'm lined up on your edge 1" apart, there is no way for you to even place your model, and on top of that show me in that paragraph where it states that you go back into reserves if you can't be placed. The rules are you can't come within a inch of my model so since you can't even move on at all and it doesn't say you go back into reserves then the only other option is you die. And if you're on the boat of "oh well if that's the case then I would pick up my models and never play you again" then that's even worse because people refuse to see error in there tactics from lack of play or just plain refusal of playing better players. Like I've already said, if you put yourself in that situation then your at your own fault and there for should not be idiot from anything. Just learn not to do it again lol it's not hard

Wow, you've read nothing that I've written. Nice rant though, to bad you have no rules to support any of it.

Go place your models 1" apart on the table edge, and you will see it creates a gap where the models coming on from reserves can occupy.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And again, that is where you are wrong, Nos. The BRB does tell us how this specific situation ends. No models on the table for one player equals Sudden Death Victory for the other player. We are even told how to handle units that cannot deploy, they are removed as casualties. Your assumption that the game stalls is a How You Would Play It, not a break down in the rules that causes the game to break.

SJ

So, instead of accepting with some semblance of grace, you will yet again gloss over the utter dissection of your attempted argument?

1) at the end of any game turn this is true. As you well know, having quoted this rule before.
2) this occurs when preparing reserves. And only for units which were impossible to deploy. Neither of which is the case here.

Just stop. You cannot contribute to this thread currently.

Mark your posts hywpi and argue that basis all you want. You have shown no capability to actually argue rules in an honest fashion, however.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Dman137 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Dman137 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
We are even told how to handle units that cannot deploy, they are removed as casualties.

Do you have a proper quote on that? All you've quoted is the rule for deployment. Coming On From Reserves mentions nothing regarding that.

can you quote a rule saying otherwise.? Every other rule in 40k where a model can't be place it is dead. Same thing would apply here and everyone can argue that but that's the most fair way to do it. And like I said before if you allow yourself to be in that situation then it's your own fault and you should be rewarded for stupidity

pg 136 moving on from reserve, second paragraph.

You must place your models as far on the table as you can. so even a fraction of a mm and you're on the table, trying to kill those models is against RAW.

if I'm lined up on your edge 1" apart, there is no way for you to even place your model, and on top of that show me in that paragraph where it states that you go back into reserves if you can't be placed. The rules are you can't come within a inch of my model so since you can't even move on at all and it doesn't say you go back into reserves then the only other option is you die. And if you're on the boat of "oh well if that's the case then I would pick up my models and never play you again" then that's even worse because people refuse to see error in there tactics from lack of play or just plain refusal of playing better players. Like I've already said, if you put yourself in that situation then your at your own fault and there for should not be idiot from anything. Just learn not to do it again lol it's not hard

Wow, you've read nothing that I've written. Nice rant though, to bad you have no rules to support any of it.

Go place your models 1" apart on the table edge, and you will see it creates a gap where the models coming on from reserves can occupy.

lol no it doesn't

Pls stop mass quoting. It's annoying.

Have a look at your models and work it out...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Pls stop mass quoting. It's annoying.

Have a look at your models and work it out...

just did and you can't place anything

If the bases are 1" apart you have more than 1" to each base from one edge. Curved bases.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

I'm not saying the rules have an answer for this situation, in fact, I'm stating quite the opposite. There are no rules for this situation, so assuming it is automatically dead is quite presumptive. In fact, there is as much case for it going in to Ongoing Reserves as there is for being automatically dead.

Then make that case. The whole "game broke, everyone go home" stance is a non-stance, as it has no meaning in a rules discussion.

SJ

Actually, I have made that case. Once we hit cases of "the rules do not cover them", it is pure House Rules territory.

So, please, either demonstrate I am wrong, or accept that we're headed towards the Proposed Rules section.

Ok, so here are my two cents, bear in mind I do not participate in turnoments whatsoever, so if I'm factually wrong on something here feel free to correct me, no hard feelings on that.

My understanding is that most tournaments have a time limit on matches, and on turns, weather or not this one did I do not know, but this is just another possible ruling in my opinion based on that.

If the game freezes in place, following the rules perfectly, then doesn't that run out the clock, a secondary end game condition that was aforementioned in the tournament pamphlet (if it did have a time limit) in which case the game would end right?

If that's true, all units in deserve at the end of the game count as destroyed, and the tau player would have won via tabling.

Like I said, correct me if I'm wrong on the time limit thing, but that would have been the most accurate ruling under those constraints in my opinion.

Aegis1650 wrote:
Ok, so here are my two cents, bear in mind I do not participate in turnoments whatsoever, so if I'm factually wrong on something here feel free to correct me, no hard feelings on that.

My understanding is that most tournaments have a time limit on matches, and on turns, weather or not this one did I do not know, but this is just another possible ruling in my opinion based on that.

If the game freezes in place, following the rules perfectly, then doesn't that run out the clock, a secondary end game condition that was aforementioned in the tournament pamphlet (if it did have a time limit) in which case the game would end right?

If that's true, all units in deserve at the end of the game count as destroyed, and the tau player would have won via tabling.

Like I said, correct me if I'm wrong on the time limit thing, but that would have been the most accurate ruling under those constraints in my opinion.

Not quite. The issue at the time revolved around the fact that there was literally no rule to say that units were destroyed, or if they went into what we now call ongoing reserve... Given that, the TO had to rule what happened to the units. IF he had ruled that they couldn't enter the board, and kept going back into treserve, then yes, the Kroot player could have got a draw or win, depending on win conditions.

sirlynchmob wrote:
There is no rules support for either of those options though, since were making up house rules now, you could just allow them to come on their table edge. As unrealistic as blocking and entire table edge is blocking two is magnitudes more unrealistic. Or as all your models are on one side of the table, just let them come on the other side.

Because we do know, they MUST come on the table. As that is the base rule I believe we should work towards that goal.

The Kroot in the picture weren't all of the Tau army though, it's just his infiltrators - the rest are in his deployment zone. If we decided to let the bikers come in from the sides or the Tau edge we'd be handing them a huge bonus as they're now in the midst of the enemy who has a lot of his troops far away. If the all-reserves guy packs his models and goes home for having his reserves blocked surely the blocking guy will do the same if the other suddenly gets a huge advantage in Outflank for all his units?

A friendly game I'd just restart. A tournament with prizes? Let the time run out, or rather count points as if the time had run out. It's not the blocking player's fault that the rules don't say what happens to the other guy's reserves. Dock him Sportsmanship but the table is clearly his.

Personally I thought it made sense to count reserves destroyed if they couldn't come in - blocking everything isn't easy and coming from reserves is very good for certain units. Deepstriking carries a risk of mishapping, why shouldn't there be a risk of getting blocked with those that drive/walk on? The example biker army was in reserves precisely because it was so good for them. What's not to love about being able to turboboost on (prepared to Jink) with no chance of getting shot before you've moved?

Nos, the day you support your argument with facts is the day I will concur with your point. Which, I'd like to point out, I have done in the past. You, however, just stop posting when you know you're wrong, or you keep posting attacks on others' arguments when you have no factual support for your opinion.

I have not only cited the actual rules, I have support my argument within the rules. Your continued lack on supporting your own argument is nothing more than a concession on your part that you have no argument beyond you don't like the way it was handle. I have nothing against your opinion, I'm only pointing out that it is your opinion, nothing more.

SJ

So, since everyone appears to be just arguing past each other at this point, I think we're done here.