Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

On my blog, Chaos Wins!, I wrote about this topic and figured it would an interesting topic of discussion for me here.

While at the Broadside Bash 2010, I had a very poor experience with one opponent, that seemed to not know the rules. This lack of knowledge, combined with his own persistence that he did know the rules frustrated me to the point that I pretty much conceded the game. I know that I also have rules issues, at times, as did some of my other opponents. However, the one opponent was very abrasive and unwilling to accept they were wrong. As a result of this, I went back and made sure I refreshed my own knowledge of some rules, since I will sometimes forget or misplay a specific rules. As such, here is a list of questions that came up during the tournament.

Q: Do vehicles benefit from cover if the vehicle is more than 50% obscured, but the facing of the vehicle being targeted is not 50% obscured?

A: No, "at least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to be in cover." (page 62, BRB)

Q: Do vehicles benefit from cover if the vehicle is behind area terrain.

A: While this rule may be arguable, the intent is clearly no, "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area terrain. The 50% rule given above takes precedence." (page 62, BRB) While this does not specifically state that it includes vehicles behind area terrain, the intent is clear. The reason I indicate this is clear is because the question above already addresses the impacts of obscurement, and that vehicles need 50% of their facing to be hidden by intervening terrain, regardless of the type of terrain. Obviously, if the vehicle is in range of a Kustom Force Field or other piece of war gear that provides cover, then that cover applies.

Q: Once a vehicle has been assaulted, if a unit still has models in base to base contact with a vehicle in its assault phase on successive turns, can it attack it again?

A: Yes, "units that still have models in base contact with a vehicle in its assault phase may attack it again, just as in a normal ongoing combat (including all models that would count as engaged in a normal assault)." (page 63, BRB) This is actually an example of a rule that I was unaware of, just a demonstration that I am not perfect either.

Q: If a unit has gone to ground as the result of a failed pinning test and has also taken 25% casualties, does it still need to take a morale check for casualties at the end of the shooting phase?

A: Yes, "whilst [a unit] has gone to ground the unit may do nothing of its own volition, but will react normally if affected by enemy actions (for example, it will take morale tests as normal). If the unit has to fall back, it will return to normal immediately." (page 24, sidebar, BRB)

So the above included all of the major rule disputes I had during the tournament. I definitely had one of them wrong and I encourage all tournament players to evaluate any rule disputes after their games to improve their own knowledge and performance in their future games.

I am personally taking this as a challenge to myself to learn the rules better, I think I havea prety good grasp, but after playing TFG, I really want to make sure I am never TFG.

What rules have you had disputes over that made your gaming experience less fun?

I imagine perhaps that 40k is simpler than wfb in this respect. Our core rules are very simple whereas army specific rules are quite often misunderstood by those who are playing that army and are usually unknown or also misunderstood by people who don't research every army book.

Most of the complexities of 40k seem to be included in the core rules and thus everyone has access to them.

I definitely feel for you on unrelentingly wrong opponents. Often a swift smack upside the head with a hardbound rulebook and a page quoting why they are wrong will shut them up.

So did this chap that you "argued" with have the BRB quoted against him? It's kinda irrefutable evidence unless the wording is rules as interpreted.

AbsoluteBlue wrote:...While at the Broadside Bash 2010, I had a very poor experience with one opponent, that seemed to not know the rules. This lack of knowledge, combined with his own persistence that he did know the rules frustrated me...
What rules have you had disputes over that made your gaming experience less fun?

Absolute Blue,

I had the same experience at the broadside bash. I think the way they score the event really aggravates this as every round does 0-10 points sports and 0-10 points comp (a massacre was only worth 18 points a round). So if your opponent gets upset at all or a call goes against your opponent they take it out in your softscores. That's absolutely what happened to me after I had any rules disputes.

I got dinged for calling a judge at all. Is that really fair?

My issues were:

JOTWW affecting jump infantry
taking back moves after having moved a model
coming back to split fire capable units for a second shot after having fired some other unit

It's really irritating to have an issue, ask for an impartial ruling, have it ruled in your favor, and then know someone is going to ding your sports and comp in retaliation.

But then, that's why sports scores and un judged comp scores with no objective criteria are essentially bogus.

Up to 20 points in soft scores, each round!? Jeebus!

That's way over the top. I'm sorry, there's no reason to have actually winning the game count for less than how your opponent liked you or your army. It's nonsense. From a comp point of view; 40k is in a very good place as far as army balance (especially compared for WHFB), and if you're showing up to a national GT-level event, you should have nothing less than your A-game list and should expect no less from your opponents. A 0-10 comp score each round in a big 40k event like that is just silly.

Ok, moment over. Back on topic:

At my tournaments the rules that I see coming up as problem points are either 1. Minor rules points that probably get glossed over in casual play but which come up in a competitive event, like the 50% obscured rule for vehicle facings (that comes up a lot these days), and 2. army-specific stuff that has been errata'd or addressed in an FAQ, when one player is armed with that knowledge and the other isn't.

When I run events, I always give my tournament players a pre-round-1 speech where I warn them of the evils of calling a judge, since once you get to the point of calling me over to decide the outcome, it doesn't matter what I say. Neither player is going to be happy after that. The player I rule against is going to feel jilted, and the player I rule in favor of is going to expect his opponent to kneecap his sports, or comp, or both, and will probably be considering doing the same. And the downward spiral begins.

All of which, being immutable facts of life sometimes in tournament play, is another reason a 0-10 sports score is ludicrous.

For what it's worth, I always tell my players to really look hard at the book before they call me, and if they do call 'judge!' to expect that I will use and apply RAW in every situation if possible. At least with RAW it's right there in black-and-white, and not something as mercurial as how I think it should be.

-Dis.

disdainful wrote:For what it's worth, I always tell my players to really look hard at the book before they call me, and if they do call 'judge!' to expect that I will use and apply RAW in every situation if possible. At least with RAW it's right there in black-and-white, and not something as mercurial as how I think it should be.

There's always going to be an element of what you think it should be though. As it is your interpretation of the RAW that is applied, and as YMDC proves every day, different interpretations are probable even using RAW. there's always going to be subjectivity, else there would be no need for judging!

I had a few moments in the last tourney I was in. I just let the guy have it, because I couldn't remember where the rule was in the BRB. From now on I think I would just call a judge over to get there input. If my oponent can't understand that that's what a judge is for, and ding you for using them as a reference, then they are messed up in the head.

GG

I've been playing for about 4 years almost weekly and play with guys who know the rules well (they've been playing for 15+ yrs) and I find that I'm an idiot during tournaments. Just last month I asked the judge what the objective of a mission was and his reply was, "Read the next paragraph." His answer was perfectly fitting & polite and, yes, my question was asinine. Moral of the story for me is that while I read blogs & forums about painting & modeling, I need to take more time to prepare for tournaments. The latest offering from BOLS pointed out the "win by turn 3" practice routine. Never thought of that. Anyone else have good advice (yeah I know I should bring my own templates) for preparing for tournaments?

InquisitorMack wrote:I've been playing for about 4 years almost weekly and play with guys who know the rules well (they've been playing for 15+ yrs) and I find that I'm an idiot during tournaments. Just last month I asked the judge what the objective of a mission was and his reply was, "Read the next paragraph." His answer was perfectly fitting & polite and, yes, my question was asinine. Moral of the story for me is that while I read blogs & forums about painting & modeling, I need to take more time to prepare for tournaments. The latest offering from BOLS pointed out the "win by turn 3" practice routine. Never thought of that. Anyone else have good advice (yeah I know I should bring my own templates) for preparing for tournaments?

Play every game like it's a tournament game. You can bring a friendly list for a friendly game (and I've learned my lesson, I ask people if they want friendly or competetive first now ) but still go at your opponent hammer and tongs with that list. You don't need to be a douche to do this (as someone who I've played can hopefully attest ), you just need to always be in it to win, even if it's not going your way.

The worste problem I had in a tournamnet was a guy not understanding ATSKNF. He thought I was not allowed to move after the regroup. He read the first paragraph and said he was right. I said keep reading, his response was "No it says I am right there is no reason to keep reading." After trying to convince him that the next paragraph gave an exception to the rule, I finally yelled at him to keep Fing reading the GD book you fat ass.

I was not a local and it turned out no one liked him and they voted me best Sport.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

disdainful wrote:For what it's worth, I always tell my players to really look hard at the book before they call me, and if they do call 'judge!' to expect that I will use and apply RAW in every situation if possible. At least with RAW it's right there in black-and-white, and not something as mercurial as how I think it should be.

There's always going to be an element of what you think it should be though. As it is your interpretation of the RAW that is applied, and as YMDC proves every day, different interpretations are probable even using RAW. there's always going to be subjectivity, else there would be no need for judging!

Of course there's lots of room for subjectivity, but there has to be a benchmark. Using RAW at least makes some things easy; yeah, the Deff Rolla has a compelling case for it both working and not working on vehicles, both of which straight from the RAW in the books (and both of which used in FAQs for official events), but there's simply no room to argue something like the 50% obscured rule for vehicle facings, or that an assaulting unit's initiative drops to 1 if it had to take any kind of difficult or dangerous terrain test during their assault move, or that ICs must be in base contact to be able to fight in an assault. I run monthly tournaments, and I've had all of those things come up frequently enough to remember them off the top of my head.

There's no silver bullet since issues with the rules are always going to come up during tournament play, even in games between people I know, who know each other, and who play each other all the time. I choose RAW since I feel it's the best way to preserve integrity and impartiality on the part of the judge.

At this point I'm more interested in the details of the BSB scoring scheme. Is there a thread about that, or someone who went still have their tourney rules pack? I don't want to hijack the thread, so please direct me or PM me as necessary. Thanks!

-Dis.

We had a small local tournament a month or so back and our resident TFG (who is actually rarely correct about rules) was "helping" one of his friends in the tournament. From what I understand he was trying to tell his friend tactics and stuff but hiding it... poorly. To get back at him, the opponent of his friend told me to "watch out" in the friendly game I played with TFG after the tourny. TFG proceeded to go ballistic.

Sadly since the tournament was largely casual nothing really came of it, but I really want him to be put in his place sometimes lol.

I've only had a really serious issue with this once, but it combined with a couple of other factors to lead to one of the worst tournament experiences I've ever had. First, I stayed up all night getting some new models for my army ready to go...maybe an hour sleep. Left at 5 am to drive 3.5 hours for a big tournament. Almost died on stupid winding foggy mountain rounds en route. So after all that, my first round opponent was a guy I played every week, who slept in the back of my car for the 3.5 hour drive up. We requested different opponents, since they had already paired based on advance reservations, so since some people hadn't shown up they had to redo some pairings anyway. No reason they couldn't switch us up, right? Apparently not, and my first round was essentially a repeat of every Wednesday night back then. Fairly lame, especially since he beat me like a drum. I only killed one model in the game, and it stood back up (lousy Necrons).

So on to 2nd round. As I'm pulling out my army, I ask if he's familiar with what my units do so I can give him a rundown if he's not so sure on some stuff. Typical thing I do at tournaments. He tells me that he's played my army a long time (Eldar) and he's probably more familiar with my rules than I am. Ok. I'm very very familiar with the rules, but I take his word on it that he is as well. Apparently he is/was a redshirt for GW for some time in the past.

Well, to start things off, his deployment takes ages. (This was 4th edition where we alternated deploys.) He's just having this protracted conversation about all kinds of stuff with a local who was there to watch, and I spend long minutes just waiting for him to do something. He does the same thing during his first turn. He wasted an inordinate amount of time just talking. He wasn't actively being a male appendage, but it was a fairly irritating behavior.

Well, once we finally got the game underway, it turned out that he didn't know my rules better than me. In fact, not only did he not know many of the rules from my book, he didn't know a few from his own and didn't know quite a few of the regular 40k rules. And he was belligerent about it too. Every single time I did something he would tell me I did something wrong, I would correct him politely, he would tell me I'm wrong and he knows the rules, and I'd have to pull out my codex. Some of the things he was saying were true of the previous Eldar book (I'm familiar with that one too), like not being able to throw a Singing Spear and then use it in close combat the same turn. A random little rule from the previous Eldar book, one that was no longer the case, but he was belligerent about the point until I pulled it out for him to read, and then he responded as though I had somehow changed the rule or gotten my hands on an alternate codex.

When his allied Inquisitor tried to use a psychic power, he argued with me that Runes of Warding makes him roll three and drop the lowest rather than simply take the total on all 3. Understandable mistake, but when I showed him my book, AFTER he read the rule, he started asking his buddies at other tables how the rule was supposed to work, again as though he didn't believe my codex. He actually called a judge over on the point despite the fact that my codex was in his hands, where it was clearly laid out.

There were plenty of issues with core rules too...had to pull out the rulebook to show him Torrent of Fire (a common thing for people to miss in 4th edition, granted, but most people weren't anus-holes about it), Target Priority checks, area terrain, wrecked vehicles, it just went on and on.

This game was hopelessly one-sided, by the way. There was no point in which he really had a hope of coming back starting basically right from the get-go, and none of his rules arguments would have really affected the game in a hugely meaningful way. And I'm not saying we had disputes about vaguely-worded rules or RAW...I'm saying he straight up didn't know the rules, pompously declared at the beginning that he knows everything better than me, refused to believe me when I corrected him on straight-forward black-and-white rules issues, and acted repeatedly as though my codex and rulebook were somehow wrong or different from the rules he knew.

That game was so unpleasant that it led me to make some play mistakes the following round against an army I should have trounced easily. I still could have won despite the mistakes, but then a big argument came up (basically he claimed that a Falcon that still contained a unit was empty and an empty Falcon was occupied, and since I didn't have squad designations to match the rides at the time I didn't have anything but my word against his). After the previous round I was so fed up that I just let it go and went with his claims (though I knew I was right...he had only been halfway even paying attention to my turns, as he was busy chatting with his buddies). The results of that little difference coupled with the earlier mistakes cost me that game.

All in all, it was definitely the worst tournament experience of my life. I've seen some a-holes, and people who brazenly try to cheat and/or exploit or argue things to win. But I've never seen anyone who was so belligerently contrary about straight-forward, clearly written rules, or who was so wrong on so many rules while at the same time being so condescending about his superior rules knowledge

sirisaacnuton wrote:
There were plenty of issues with core rules too...had to pull out the rulebook to show him Torrent of Fire (a common thing for people to miss in 4th edition, granted, but most people weren't anus-holes about it), Target Priority checks, area terrain, wrecked vehicles, it just went on and on.

This game was hopelessly one-sided, by the way. There was no point in which he really had a hope of coming back starting basically right from the get-go, and none of his rules arguments would have really affected the game in a hugely meaningful way. And I'm not saying we had disputes about vaguely-worded rules or RAW...I'm saying he straight up didn't know the rules, pompously declared at the beginning that he knows everything better than me, refused to believe me when I corrected him on straight-forward black-and-white rules issues, and acted repeatedly as though my codex and rulebook were somehow wrong or different from the rules he knew.

I hate to say it, but this kind of stuff happens all the time. It's the ugly side of the hobby.

GG

disdainful wrote:Up to 20 points in soft scores, each round!? Jeebus!

Yes, jeebus indeed.

I want to be clear, I really enjoyed the broadside bash, I think it was well run, with awesome terrain and very friendly impartial volunteers who did a bang up job!

However, IMO the arbitrary theme and sports scoring made the final rankings completely meaningless.

Augustus wrote:

disdainful wrote:Up to 20 points in soft scores, each round!? Jeebus!

Yes, jeebus indeed.

I want to be clear, I really enjoyed the broadside bash, I think it was well run, with awesome terrain and very friendly impartial volunteers who did a bang up job!

However, IMO the arbitrary theme and sports scoring made the final rankings completely meaningless.

Putting that much emphasis on comp scores that are easily (and often) abused does not equal a well-run tournament, IMO.

Augustus wrote:I want to be clear, I really enjoyed the broadside bash, I think it was well run, with awesome terrain and very friendly impartial volunteers who did a bang up job!

However, IMO the arbitrary theme and sports scoring made the final rankings completely meaningless.

Of course; I'm not disparaging the Bash either, as a matter of fact I was a little bummed I had to miss it. I'm just scratching my head over those soft scores; I'm sure they had a rubric in place, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the numbers. There's a lot of wiggle room in those numbers, and such room usually ends up being exploited.

Back on topic, we used to have a huge problem around here with slow play. The worst it got was a guy who took 45 minutes in his second round taking his models out of his case. His opponent asked him, at the 40 minute mark, why his Lobbas were on the table beyond the deployment line, and the dude snapped back not to rush him!

This is both player's fault though, as far as I'm concerned. I added a section to my pre-event speech putting the impetus on the player who is suffering from slow-play, instead of the slow-player. Basically, if your opponent is slow playing, it's your responsibility to ask for him to speed up, or a judge to come over and observe the game.

The guy in the example above also supplied us with our other greatest hit: He tried to tell his opponent that, because his Bikerz have their 4+ 'exhaust cloud' cover save, that a Dreadnought assaulting them across open ground would have its initiative reduced to 1 for assaulting 'through cover'. I ruled against him when they brought it to me, but I was in the middle of something and I couldn't open the book right that moment, so they went back to the table. Moments later, his opponent blows up, cedes the game, and walks outside to cool off. Turns out the Ork guy called him a 'whiny little b*tch', twice!

-Dis.

I rarely get into disputes, because my first port of call when anything happens is to look it up in the rulebook. What amuses me is people who don't like that sort of behaviour, like I'm a rules lawyer or something. If it's still unclear, I'll listen to their argument, and if it's not unreasonable, I'll often go with it. Either that or 4+ it.

I've had irritating experiences though. I have played people who aggressively assume I'm cheating from the word go. That sort of annoys me. So I will offer to show them the relevant section in my codex or army book, and they'll say "No it's fine" in an aggrieved air. I hate that. The other one I hate is people being uber fussy about movement, asking to see every move again. I'm very careful and fastidious with my movement, but I play horde orks. If some guy at the back of the mob moves slightly over 6", it's not because I'm cheating. It's because I'm moving 120 dudes a turn. The front guys are ALWAYS carefully measured, but after that, there is always a degree of eyeballing.

I also absolutely despise players of small, elite armies who cannot finish a turn faster than my 166 model horde. Seriously. Speed it up, buddy. You've plenty of time to think during my turn!

my favorite are the guys like the one i played in a recent RTT that try advanced tactics but only get the rules right half the time yet scream bloody murder when you call them on it. i played this douche in the third round of the tourney and had to inform him that his tyrant guard had 2 wounds (he'd been playing them as 3 for the past two rounds). also, he tried to claim cover for a tyrant when, from the models perspective, only the base, feet, and one arm below the elbow were behind cover. the final kicker was when he tried to claim synapse fearlessness with his nids when around 18" away from the nearest synapse creature on my shooting turn. i knew the guy was going to be a problem because i played him in an apoc game months before and he tried to get an extra attack for his space wolf terminators because "models in terminator armor get an extra attack" on top of their stats. when i explained that this was true in 3rd edition and the PRIOR space wolf codex but not this one, he wouldn't budge despite not being able to find the "rule" he claimed in the new codex. lol, later he charged through difficult terrain when around 6" away from me while my opponent and i were not looking (we were involved in an assault on the other side of the table) and claimed he didn't have to make his difficult terrain test because ONE terminator out of 5 had a clear path. there are always these types of people in every town (not cheaters necessarily but ignorant yet belligerent types) and you sometimes have to deal with them. if i play in another tourney at the store (which is likely), i'll simply ask the organizer to not pair me against him.

Just FYI, for BSB it was 0-10 Sports, 0-6 Comp per Game, but still a lot

Its really nice to see I am not alone in these issues I knew I wasn't.

I know I was dinged on sportsmanship in two of my games for rule disputes. I know rule disputes come up, so I actually don't ding people on sportsman for having them even if TO is called. I do ding people for slow playing though.

@Augustus - whats funny is that I heard that discussion about the JOTWW while playing my game, which happened to be during my worst game of the event. The most amusing part was the person I was playing was the person that had the least grasp of the rules, but was commenting on the rulings for JOTWW against Jump Infantry, even standing up and starting to walk over to comment on it, but I asked him to please keep playing our game.

I actually didn't have any issues at the BSB. In fact twice either I had to correct and opponent or had an opponent correct me on the way something work to the detriment of the reminding player. Grimgob actually explained, to his detriment mind you, that I was playing against unique nobz the wrong way which hurt him.

It was a good experience for the people I played but I didn't like the heavy emphasis on soft scores or the way the painting was judged. I have a fully converted army fully painted to a decent table top standard and got an 11 out of 30. I had opponents with higher scores but unpainted figures in their army. Oh well, but 38% battle points and 62% soft scores is just crazy.

If we can't figure out what the right rule is, we roll a die. If it's odds, it goes one guy's way, evens it goes the other. I'm a pretty casual player though, so take that for what you will. I can imagine some RAW sticklers at a tournament wouldn't appreciate that.

Brother SRM wrote:If we can't figure out what the right rule is, we roll a die. If it's odds, it goes one guy's way, evens it goes the other. I'm a pretty casual player though, so take that for what you will. I can imagine some RAW sticklers at a tournament wouldn't appreciate that.

It's more than just RAW sticklers though, as people will take advantrage of that roll and hope that the 50% roll is in their favor, even when they know they are wrong.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:If we can't figure out what the right rule is, we roll a die. If it's odds, it goes one guy's way, evens it goes the other. I'm a pretty casual player though, so take that for what you will. I can imagine some RAW sticklers at a tournament wouldn't appreciate that.

It's more than just RAW sticklers though, as people will take advantrage of that roll and hope that the 50% roll is in their favor, even when they know they are wrong.

GG

It's still easier than arguing for half the match

AbsoluteBlue wrote:On my blog, Chaos Wins!, I wrote about this topic and figured it would an interesting topic of discussion for me here.

While at the Broadside Bash 2010, I had a very poor experience with one opponent,

What's his name?

I had a judge at a tournament interrupt one of my games without being asked to tell me that the multi-melta on my land raider wasn't twin linked due to Vulkan. I replied with yes it is. So did another judge. The two of them argued until the third became available. My game was stalled for half an hour because of their argument just for 2 of them to agree with me. He later interrupted a game to tell my opponent not to forget that his fast skimmers could move 12" and fire both weapons and got upset when I stopped him and showed him the page in the rule book showing him he was wrong. After the tournament he decided to start the argument with me again about the Vulkan thing. He didn't go away until I told him he wasn't fit to judge a tournament until he was able to read written english. Sadly they still let this guy be the main judge and he still claims Vulkan's chapter tactics don't apply to vehicles.

That is horrible absolutely!

G

@JohnHwangDD - Since you asked, Mario Acuna is his name. Would normally not drop names, but the experience was just that bad and wouldn't want anyone else to have to go through the same experience. (Also, his Sportsmanship score reflects such, so its sort of already published)

@AB: Thanks. Did you take this up with the BSB TO? Or other SoCal TOs? If there's a pattern, they can probably make good decisions for their events.

At a local tournament I played the ringer (who was also the TO) one round. He gave me the option of playing, and said I could get food/take break/whatever and the lowest I would get either way was a tie. I chose poorly and ended up playing his Guard Chimera spam. By turn 4 or 5 I had a Daemon Prince waiting to DS in and that was it. After a rules dispute on multi-charging and a few things (which I was later found out to be right on) he ended up only giving me 7 out of 10 on sportmanship, when both of my other opponent's gave me full. "But he was the ringer" you say, "and the game completely voluntary." I can honestly tell you I wasn't even a dick that game and I very rarely am. If it helps any I've had people from the local GW send noobs over to me at a different shop because they know I'm a good sportsman. I've yet to compete in another 40k event

Worst one? My buddy trying to argue he could use a second-edition codex in a game using the 5th-Ed ruleset. In the end, I let him use it and just settled for steamrolling him, up until he was sure he couldn't win and came up with an excuse to go home.

Good guy outside the game, but put him behind an army and he turns into a huge TFG, complete with disputing every single rule that pops up.