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.

I consider myself a friendly player with quite a good track record at local Tournaments and would like to know what would you do if in the following situation?

My opponent in the Tournament had e-mailed a query to the Organiser about fast skimmers being wrecked in the Opponent’s shooting phase after going flat out in their own movement. The TO answered his e-mail deciding that the passengers will be destroyed. (This is debated elsewhere on Dakka and not my query)

So my Dark Eldar Opponent knows this decision and no other Player in the Tournament does. I scout my Vendettas with Squads in due to terrain and scenario constraints. Result is all 3 went down in his shooting phase 1st turn (expected but was banking on flamers, demo's and shotguns getting to hit back or die taking the heat off my other Units). Squads auto die due to the Tournament ruling. So a chunk of Troop choices gone and cant then win the scenario conditions leads me to concede the game.

To add insult to injury he admitted he knew the correct rule and could quote the FAQ.

My question is would you in the same position tell your Opponent about this ruling at the start of the game or use this to gain an advantage?

My answer is that I would go through any specific Tournament rulings with my Opponent during the pre-game admin.

Please no answers concerning flat out skimmers rules or tactics just was it fair for my opponent to act the way he did?

Often times I consult our TO about rules I feel may come up and we touch base and go over proper procedure, faq's and what we feel is the best way to play it.

In this case I would gladly call the TO over and show him the hard rules against his "email decision"

First im a little confused as the TO countermanded the GW FAQ (and only on that specific point)...anyway

If there is a ruling that varies from or clarifies a rule it is the duty of the TO to inform the entire tournament. So while your opponent was a hole for not telling you and the using it to his advantage, it is the TOs fault for not informing the tournament as a whole of any changes to GWs rules for the event.

I would probably have said to the TO to mention it and any other rules alterations before people start playing so everyone is on the same page. In all honesty if the TO is making arbitrary decisions like that I'd probably ask for my money back.

While it is a bit underhanded, it is legit at the same time. He can not be held responsible for you not knowing the TO's ruling. This is why using a FAQ like the INAT is always a good idea.

Darkness wrote:While it is a bit underhanded, it is legit at the same time. He can not be held responsible for you not knowing the TO's ruling. This is why using a FAQ like the INAT is always a good idea.

Or in this case the GW FAQ which answered this question quite well, which most people use

Firstly thank you for the quick answers. I am only asking about my Opponents actions the rest can be debated elsewhere. I must admit this has annoyed me more than any other occurrence in my 40K gaming.

Its the fact he knew the TO's decision.
He knew nobody else knew.
He saw me load up my Vendettas
He saw me flat out move
He only mentioned it after the 1st wrecked result
and then he quoted the correct FAQ rule

I thought it weird when he did not flat out his transports and aimed everything at my Vendettas ( maybe his tactics but I had Hydras as well not even shot at!)

At the end of the day he was wrong...but only in the sense of violating the ethics/gentlemans agreement of the game. The rules are published for a reason, so that everyone is aware of them. You cannot be faulted for being unaware of an unpublished rule. But the TO is at fault for not making his private rulings general knowledge.

As to the other player:
he could have made the assumption that the TO told everyone his decision on the issue, and therefore belived that you knew and just thought you were being silly
or
he knew no one knew and was using to his advantage

The first is understandable, the second is poor sportsmanship

As to the other player:
he could have made the assumption that the TO told everyone his decision on the issue, and therefore belived that you knew and just thought you were being silly
or
he knew no one knew and was using to his advantage

Hopefully your first explanation is the correct one. If I keep with your idea that he thought I knew, then I will not have to play through gritted teeth in tomorrow's Day 2 of the Tournament .

Didn't know whether even to post the topic but some valid common sense answers have eased my annoyance.

I would talk to the TO and get my money back.

Actually I would have talked to the TO when it happened, and had his initial ruling reversed, since it goes against the FaQ. If not I would have gotten my money back the first day.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

In this case I would gladly call the TO over and show him the hard rules against his "email decision"

QFT. What the hell was this TO smoking? It sounds to me like the TO really had no idea and your opponent "convinced" him to rule this way. Which is in fact contradictory to the FAQ. Your opponent was a complete douche in my opinion.

This remonds me of the old Deffrolla days. Before GW FAQ, some tourneys allowed you to deffroll tanks, and some didn't You would always want to ask the TO beforehand how they planned to rule on it. If they said you could, then it was load up on rollers, if they said you couldn't then nob bikers.

Many times people were SUUUUUUUUUURE that deffrollas couldn't harm their tanks and played as such and then BAM, the ork player smashes the crap out of the tanks and a fight breaks out. And the TO then says 'Yep, i allow it.' usually the tactical misstep is enough to win the game and wound the opponent.

Is it unfair? If the opponent would have asked, the ork player would have been forced to say it, but I am not sure players have an obligation to make sure the opponent is aware of every wonky ruling the TO has. This is why I personally think well-run events have written documented FAQs as well as I ask for clarification for unclear rules I plan to use.

In this event, the TO misunderstood the GW FAQ because turn is clearly defined, and the event is poor because they didn't document any of their event rulings.

But if the rule was unclear with no clear GW FAQ and there were multiple valid interpretations, there is no obligation to make sure your opponent is aware beforehand, but it is a nice thing to do.

Wow, I don't know if I'd be more pissed at the player or the TO. I may have dropped the tourny right then and there.

Phiasco II wrote:Wow, I don't know if I'd be more pissed at the player or the TO. I may have dropped the tourny right then and there.

That's when you flip the table, smash the other guy's toys, and walk out over a board game. I honestly wouldn't blame you if you had wrecked that kid in the face with a sucker punch.

I am more curious on why a player, who is apparently adept at the rules, would 'email' the TO about a question such as this.

However, if all things are equal, I have no problem with the player emailing about rules questions in advance.

My experience in playing tournaments outside my own main gaming store has proven again and again...

Forewarned is forearmed.

He was better prepared. You weren't. Not meant to be offensive.

Your TO doesn't even know the rules. Show him the rule and get your money back.

juraigamer wrote:Your TO doesn't even know the rules.

And this surprises you? Hell, you can even know the rules very well and you still have to adjudicate some of the rules arbitrarily.

Making calls on very vague rules is one thing, saying something differently than how the BRB and FAQ's say it is another. This issue is the latter.

KilroyKiljoy wrote:
That's when you flip the table, smash the other guy's toys, and walk out over a board game. I honestly wouldn't blame you if you had wrecked that kid in the face with a sucker punch.

Or smash his face with his toys, which is really sublime. Shame there aren't going to be any more metal mini's; those old dreadnoughts packed quite a wallop.
But seriously, though this isn't technically cheating, the guy was manipulating the TO (who is obviously an idiot).
I'd go to the TO, show him the FAQ, and get your money back.
I'd also make sure that I gave your opponent a big fat 0 for sportsmanship if that's in your tourney.
And then spread evil rumors about him.
And so on...

juraigamer wrote:Making calls on very vague rules is one thing, saying something differently than how the BRB and FAQ's say it is another. This issue is the latter.

The latter would still refer to the TO, not the player. At least with the evidence that has been provided.

Perhaps the player in question had a similar experience at either the same venue or a different one?

The player was better prepared, at least with the evidence provided. The only problem I see here is with the TO.

If the TO isn't using GW FAQ rules, then he has every obligation to post these alternative rulings before the tournament. Conducting it as he did is completely unacceptable. Really he should be abiding by the FAQs, but if he doesn't, the very least he is obligated to do is to post these alternative rulings. What's to stop him from pulling whatever ruling he wants out of his ass to suit particular players?

You would have been justified in demanding your money back. You came for a 40k tournament, not a 40k-according-to-douchebag alternative rules tournament.

Sounds like the To thought he was following GW FAQ. The issue is this was a combination of two FAQs. The flat out destroyed and turn means player turn in the core rule book.

Basically the TO flubbed the definition of turn but was following the FAQ the way he thought. It was up to the player to show the TO where the definition of turn is in the rulebook.

If the TO knew something about Google, then there wouldn't be an issue. Nowadays, with everything online, and access to it anywhere you are, there's pretty much no excuse to not be able to find this information out. Which actually leads m to believe the TO might have been taking bribes. Though, that could be me overestimating the actions of an idiot.

So it appears that most folks are in agreement.

The issue is with the TO, not the player.

imweasel wrote:So it appears that most folks are in agreement.

The issue is with the TO, not the player.

More like the other way around, but it could have been different if the TO was competent/ wasn't corrupt.

The other player, while not the most sporting of fellows, isn't really in the wrong for not telling you. I would have if I was him because that ruling is a load of squiggoth feth, but that is just me.

The TO, however, is completely wrong. He ruled against the FAQ(he can do that, it is his tourney, after all) but failed to inform the players of the rule change. And that is a big change.

Show him the real rules and demand your money back.

-cgmckenzie

KilroyKiljoy wrote:

imweasel wrote:So it appears that most folks are in agreement.

The issue is with the TO, not the player.

More like the other way around, but it could have been different if the TO was competent/ wasn't corrupt.

You could make a point about competent.

You have no basis for the corruption claim/innuendo.

The player was, based on what was provided, looking for information. He is under no constraints to reveal that.

Hell the TO isn't really under any restrictions to reveal how he will rule or play the game.

Some folks honestly think that 40k is 'tournament focused'? Absurd.

imweasel wrote:So it appears that most folks are in agreement.

The issue is with the TO, not the player.

I'd say its both actually. The TO for not knowing the rules/making them up as he goes and the player for taking advantage of the rule that he and the TO made up together. It sounds like the player knew exactly what he was doing and influenced the TO into making a decision to his benefit.

bazookatooth wrote:I'd say its both actually. The TO for not knowing the rules/making them up as he goes and the player for taking advantage of the rule that he and the TO made up together. It sounds like the player knew exactly what he was doing and influenced the TO into making a decision to his benefit.

Yet another poster jumping to conclusions.

And of course, you have evidence of this? No? I didn't think so.

There are written rules so that any 2 people can get together and play the game. In a private game you can house rule however you want as the game goes. In a tournament setting everyone has to be on the same page, IE using the written rules of the game and any modifications made by the TO. If the TO does not inform the tournament of a change to the rules of the game and someone is screwed over for it...that falls on the TO. It is his event, it is his job to enforce the rules, and equal access to the rules is part of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To me it does not matter if he modified the rules or not....the fault lies in not divulging to the group as a whole that a change/clarification had been made...without that information players would assume that you were using the rules as they were written in the BRB and FAQ.