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.

Nos, as has been said, there is a viable method to avoid the situation presented here, it would just involve models other than bike mounted infantry, which is what that white scars player was using.

He had no vehicles, otherwise he could have tank shocked.

He had no skimmers or jump troops, otherwise he could have moved over the models.

As for this being a houserule, you're right. But we have clear precedent of GW's thoughts on the matter from various FAQs and Erratas from GW themselves, the most obvious being the Dark Eldar Webway portals (if blocked, units leaving are destroyed, but skimmers can fly out and over intervening models).

If there is a delay of the WS player from the Kroot, it's this...

Turn 1: Try to deploy: Fail. Next turn...
Turn 2: Try to deploy: Fail. Next turn...
Turn 3: Repeat first two steps until end of game.

Since nothing is moving, the whole resolution takes less than a minute, unless the kroot player moves, which he has no reason to.

It's a vague tactical move, but an interesting one that is perfectly viable and or legal. Remember, units coming from reserves act as moving. If they cannot make a legal move (staying 1" away from enemy models), they're screwed. And since you can't move through enemy models (impassable terrain), you're really screwed. A single rhino would have allowed his deployment to continue; a land raider would have done even better. The WS took a stacked and unbalanced list, and it probably worked very well for him in most games. This one it bit him in the rear. No fault of the Kroot player either, who I'd give points for ingenuity.

1) Oddly enough only Tanks can Tank shock, so not all vehicles would fit this bill.

2) How DARE the white scars player play a White Scars army! Oh the horror!

/sarcasm

I *fully understand* the ways around this - oddly enough I'm not a complete nub at this game! That does not alter that, as a tactic, it relies on a) a houserule to work, and b) an inordinate amount of abitrary "high" abstraction as to the playing surface and what it represents.

The point is that the edge of the board should not be the equivalent of a line marked on a playing field that your mere presence next to stops people from walking over. It is an abstraction, anda HUGELY silly one, to stop models moving on due to the edge having models stood at it jeering. It is as silly as LOS and range sniping, and those horrors were removed in 5th as 5th ed took a more, um, "sensible" view on these things. (removing some silly abstractions..)

And you have the turn sequence wrong - it is:

Turn 1: try to deploy but cannot. Must deploy but cannot. Must deploy but cannot. Must deploy but cannot......recurring.

You never reach past the start of the movement phase of turn 1, thus the game never ends. That is why, although the move is legal, it creates a "stalled game" - outside (of the Rules) intervention is required. In this the judge ruled in a very 3rd / 4th ed "high abstraction" way, which does not fit 5th ed at all.

Removing the 1" rule is a sensible and easy reconcile to this issue, as it a) follows the existing rules on removing unit special rules, just extending it to one rule in the main ruleset and b) removes the *STUPID* idea that someone stood next to the board edge stops models moving on - it is AS stupid as range / los sniping, engagement zone clearance, etc - all things that were got rid of in 5th for, if you read the design studio notes, they didnt fit the spirit or idea of the game.

If you really think that in a real war you stood next to the edge of the battle ground is enough to stop reserves moving, shoooting and / or assaulting you - well, good luck with that abstraction. I prefer the far less stupid one above.

Actually, that would happen in Turn 2. Since he's keeping his army in reserve until then. So Turn 1 would occur normally. (Unless they were playing Dawn of War)

Whether it is turn 1 or 2 doesnt matter hugely - I thought it was DoW hence starting at turn 1.

You still "stall" the game (2 conflicting imperitives with no way to reconcile them and continue) until an outside force intervenes.

How is LOS and Range Sniping stupid? "I can't see the other guys in that unit, so I'll shoot the guy I can!" Because I guess it makes more sense have guys that can't be seen be killed? Yeah, that makes sense (sarcasm).

Everything in 40k is an abstraction, and part of that abstraction is actually making it to the battlefield. Perhaps the White Scars, seeing the entire battlefield being possessed by an enemy, assumed that the sheer number of Tau forces was too great for them, and they left. Or! Since the Tau player was able to take so much ground, the abstraction would be to hold the battle in a totally different location, and in the scope of battle-time the White Scars would never be able to make it to their objectives. There are dozens of simple "fluff" reasons, but that has no bearing on the abstraction that is 40k.

White Scars player had access to all the same knowledge and rules that the Tau player did and still chose to not deploy a single model to prevent this situation. The Tau player, reasonably believing that he could at least force an advantage from the situation, if not a victory, seized the initiative and defeated the White Scars without firing a shot. There is nothing wrong with that.

I put forward that nosferatu1001 is grabbing at straws in defense of the poor decision of the White Scars player (in all seriousness, how could he NOT have seen this as a possibility?). The situation is abundantly clear. The argument that the Tau player was simply "stalling" has been chopped off at the knees time and again. A "house rule" that would cause far more complication than any solution in this case is highly undesirable. Why break a longstanding, reasonable rule as "don't try and hug your enemy, his armor might be spiky" and stay 1" away from him (except when assaulting) just to solve one very, very, very specific situation that is only outdone in it's level of specificness by the level of ease that it could have been avoided by the "victim."

nosferatu1001 wrote:Well, given that *whatever* way you work it you HAVE to make up new rules (thats the point - the rules dont cover this situation, and the game stalls) so why not make up a new rule that follows the system ALREADY in the book? Something that also removes the "low wall" issue which, frankly, makes no sense (and 5th ed is a lot about sense - hence no range or LOS sniping)

It doesnt interfere with "not moving through other models" at all....

Or why not use what GW has said to do in the past? That's what I don't get. You KNOW that GW has addressed this issue in the past. You KNOW what their answer was. Yet, for some reason, you think we should come up with some new solution. Why? Really, I don't get your adamant opposition to using the suggested GW solution. Just think about it.

As for the low wall, yep, it exists and it definitely affects the game. Falling back units that hit it are gone from the game. Blast markers that cross it disappear. Deep striking units that cross it have to test for mishap and are affected by that mishap. A unit just on the other side of it (ie in Reserves) can't be targeted or (as a general rule) affect what happens on table. And think about that one. A walking unit, the turn before it arrives, has to be within 6" of the edge of the world. Yet, as long as it's in Reserves, it can't be hurt. Even if I have a unit that can shoot 20'. This (the picket fence) is just one more game mechanic created by that same low wall, even if it does take a houserule (following GWs recommendation from times past) to put it into effect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
2) How DARE the white scars player play a White Scars army! Oh the horror!

I think the phrase you're really looking for is "How dare he play a White Scars army so stupidly.............."
Really, I have no sympathy for him. If, as has been mentioned, the Tau player warned him in advance, and he didn't bother to check with a judge on it, he deserves to lose.

Skinnattittar wrote:How is LOS and Range Sniping stupid? "I can't see the other guys in that unit, so I'll shoot the guy I can!" Because I guess it makes more sense have guys that can't be seen be killed? Yeah, that makes sense (sarcasm).

So all the troops stand aruond taking turns? Wonderful! Your arguments are getting better and better.

Skinnattittar wrote:White Scars player had access to all the same knowledge and rules that the Tau player did and still chose to not deploy a single model to prevent this situation. The Tau player, reasonably believing that he could at least force an advantage from the situation, if not a victory, seized the initiative and defeated the White Scars without firing a shot. There is nothing wrong with that.

Yet the Tau player knowingly caused a rulesbreak, and didnt get a ruling from a judge beforehand knowing this would happen. They are *both* guilty of this btw, still doesnt alter that it IS a rulesbreak.

Skinnattittar wrote:I put forward that nosferatu1001 is grabbing at straws in defense of the poor decision of the White Scars player (in all seriousness, how could he NOT have seen this as a possibility?). The situation is abundantly clear.

A poor decision to second guess a judge on exactly what houserule they would decide to play?

THinking that this is one of those undesirable abstractions is "clutching at straws"? I put it to you that you have yet to understand the argument, as evidenced by your next post...

Skinnattittar wrote:The argument that the Tau player was simply "stalling" has been chopped off at the knees time and again.

AS the above quote shows your knowledge of this interaction is lacking - the game HAS stalled and this argument has not been rebutted - certainly nto by you (saying it has doesnt actually make it so....) and neither have any of the posters before you. If you will look at Dons post you will see he *gasp* agrees with me that this requires a houserule to resolve.

The. Game. Stalls *until* an external force (a ---->houserule<-----, by definition) resolves it. *ANY* resolution requires a houserule. ANY.

Skinnattittar wrote:A "house rule" that would cause far more complication than any solution in this case is highly undesirable. Why break a longstanding, reasonable rule as "don't try and hug your enemy, his armor might be spiky" and stay 1" away from him (except when assaulting) just to solve one very, very, very specific situation that is only outdone in it's level of specificness by the level of ease that it could have been avoided by the "victim."

Why break a long standing rule that models with S&P have to test as they come onto the board, potentially not making it on? Oh wait, thats exactly what 5th ed did!

I've provoked enough (sorry everyone, it's in my nature, MEWAHAHAHA), so I'm going to let that lie. We also should not get too off topic talking about how "Line of Sniping" was perfectly reasonable, and was far less a broken abstraction then the current solution.

However; nofaratu1001, are you suggesting that instead of performing the action then getting a judge (which in all honesty was more something the White Scars player needed to do), thus causing a perceived "delay," the Tau player should have told the White Scars player (who should have asked a judge what would happen if his entire table edge was blocked and he couldn't come on from reserves) to wait, ask the judge, who should have told the Tau player the same thing, then perform his action post "delay?" It doesn't matter if you add 2 before or after you add 1, you're still adding two.

Despite that, the Tau player still did nothing wrong! I understand the argument quite well; was the Tau player being a jerk. The popular answer thus far has been "no, the Tau player did everything correctly and was perfectly permissible, the White Scars player lost fair and square, if only by a reasonable hole in the rules (where is simply doesn't explicitly state what happens in this instance)."

By the way, what is S&P? I don't think I'm familiar with that acronym.

Slow and Purposeful.
__________________________________

So...how about if we bend it and block off almost everything except a small opening in which the White scars player had to move on in a corner say?

Still poor sports score?

When i say "stall" I mean the game halts - not the usage in "stalling for time", i.e. one player slowing the game down.

The game halts until someone resolves the immovable object (cannot move within 1") vs irresistable force (MUST move on) issue.

BOTH players should have seen this issue coming a mile off and asked for a ruling from the judge before starting the game - in other words, is there an "auto lose" situation that you will impose to resolve the rules issue created if we both do X. The judge can then *before* it is a fait accompli on the part of the Tau player make a fair ruling so that both players know what happens.

I have maintained all along that *whatever* houserule is picked *before* the game is fine by me - as both players then have perfect knowledge. What I have a problem with is a houserule being created midgame that creates an autolose for one player. ("Auto" meaning the other player CANNOT win, as opposed to a situation where the opposing player could win if dice were lucky their way)

Sanctjud - nope, as they havent forced a break in the rules. Pretty sure I've mentioned this, oooh, a billion times now - it is creating a situation you *know* causes a break in the rules and esentially presenting it as a fait accompli to the judge that I find at fault. Sort it out before? Fine, *whatever* you then do isnt a problem. Dont create the break in the rules? Fine, dont have an issue (oddly enough)

Whether the tau player would want his essentially saveless, T3 models out in the open for a whole load of bikes to mow down - well, thats another story!

OT: current one is at least a consistent abstraction, i.e. everything affects a "unit" on a "unit" basis, and prevent someone moving rhinos "just so" the sarge is the only visible model. THAT was stupid, as it implies the sarge stands there while all this happens...which I hope you can see is NOT a sensible abstraction. Big issue with a turn based system is representing this "intra turn" movement that *would* be happening, and the removal of LOS/ /range sniping from within a unit DOES reflect this in a lot more realistic way that previously, as it shows that the unit is not static.

Well it sounds like the White Scars player should have checked on that before deciding on his tactics. Still not really a problem for the Tau player, if he had assumed wrong, he would have probably paid for it. Again, the main issue is on the White Scars player, not the Tau player, who has only done exactly what the rules allows him to, it is the White Scars player who is trying to do something that the rules have contention for.

Regardless of whose "fault" it was and how they could have absolved it, the White Scars player would have at best gotten a tie (if it were KP) and lost if it were anything else (as long as the Tau player sat a troop on an objective). So the White Scars player, before deciding to put his entire army in reserve, should have asked a judge what would have happened if he could not mount the table because his army was blocked by enemy models. Why? Because the Tau player did everything correctly and had no rules contention with the operation of his army and chosen tactics! Rules should not disallow tactics, only allow tactics, and currently the chosen tactic was not clearly resolved with the rules!

OT: Please stop trying to be Off-Topic, or at least start a different thread about that topic, rather than derailing the thread with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Sanctjud : Oh, dur! My thanks.

Both should have asked, neither did. It takes two to tango.

It's up to BOTH players to check each other really and for both players to resolve these issues.

Can't fault one or the other for being short sighted...actually to hell with this...

Who was there, as second hand information is less than ideal?
How do you (anyone) rate sportsmanship?
Shouldn't it be a culmination of things and not just a single move that 'stalls' the game?
Etc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

BOTH players should have seen this issue coming a mile off and asked for a ruling from the judge before starting the game - in other words, is there an "auto lose" situation that you will impose to resolve the rules issue created if we both do X. The judge can then *before* it is a fait accompli on the part of the Tau player make a fair ruling so that both players know what happens.

And supposedly, the Tau player warned the WS ahead of time (ie when WS said he was placing everything in Reserves, before the Kroot were infiltrated) on what he (Tau) was going to do, and gave him (WS) a chance to not reserve everything.........................
If at that point the WS player chooses to go ahead and place everything in reserves without asking the judge first..............

I've already said that was, if true, entirely stupid on the part of the WS player - however the onus is *still* on *both* players to ensure this is resolved beforehand. It is presenting a fait accompli that is that big issue here.

Skinna... you have your OOP incorrect - the WS player reserved everything THEN the Tau player caused the issue through the Infiltration.

ALso, you dont seem to get that *the game would not end* until an external force (houserule or timelimit) kicked in .

WS allowed it - so the WS player has some fault
Tau *actually* created it - so definitely shares some fault.

White Scars not only allowed the situation, he created the perfect environment FOR the situation with the motivation to do it, knowing full well (or should have) that the Tau player could do that. Whether or not the Tau player actually perpetrated the act leading to the result, the issue already existed.

Fact: Everything the Tau player did was entirely legitimate, that can't be denied. The White Scars player did everything legit as well, however it was his deployment method that ended up at this problem. In an abstract way, the Tau player shares some blame, but strictly in an aesthetic sense. The Tau player created nothing, he just used it, which he was perfectly within all his writes to do.

Also, this is less of a "time limit" issue than it is a "systems crash." If this were a computer program, it would have crashed, and required an external force (the Judge) to step in and correct the issue. In this case, I feel he made a legitimate call; White Scrars player's units are destroyed if they can not mount the table.

Now as far as Sportsmanship goes, the Tau player did everything correctly and fairly (and it sounds like he even warned his opponent, so +points there!), not breaking any rules or manipulating the situation; he stayed entirely within the realm of very common and accepted rules. The White Scars player, however, made a tactical decision that came around and bit him in the arse. Since the rules are unclear, and I'm guessing the White Scars player wasn't willing to simply concede the game, and the Tau player willing to "undo" the situation (they're in a Tournament, he doesn't have to, nor is he expected to within any good reason), they did the right thing and contacted a Judge. Judge decided; White Scars lose.

If a mech force deploys with their weak Rear Armor facing the opponent, and is tabled before his first turn, does he get to blame his opponent for this result?

@JohnHwangDD:

Your example is a poor one frankly.

It does not encounter a 'system crash'.

I would see him doing it, not say anything, and laugh like a maniac while I tank-shock onto the board.

I can't discount him for trying though, but I might subtract 1 from his sportsmanship score.

I only saw this done one other time, a guy with a scout army was up against nids with stealers, so he made a wall on both short edges, making it impossible for the nids to outflank their stealers until they dealt with some of the scouts. (nids still won though)

@Sanctjud: It's no more of a "system crash" than any other situation where the player can't make a compusory move (cf. Fallback).

GW shouldn't be in the business of protecting players from their own stupidity.

And in this particular situation, the Tau player was completely sporting, asking the WS player if he was sure he wanted to hold everything in Reserves.

If they can't make a fallback move within their corridor they are dead...
If the tanks are deployed on the board and they get killed first turn by enemy guns...the squad fails morale and runs away through the wreck...what's the problem?

Are you talking about tank shocking with rear armor and having them get destroyed 'off-the board' from a Death or Glory attack? Simple... you ignore Death or Glory.

Fallback says the models "must" move, but if they can't, game over.

If the tanks are deployed stupidly, so that the weak armor is exposed, that's the player's fault. Same as holding in Reserves. Player's should take responsibility for their actions.

I have maintained all along that *whatever* houserule is picked *before* the game is fine by me - as both players then have perfect knowledge. What I have a problem with is a houserule being created midgame that creates an autolose for one player. ("Auto" meaning the other player CANNOT win, as opposed to a situation where the opposing player could win if dice were lucky their way)

Whats wrong with an auto lose. Suppose I play tau, park my whole army in the back table corner, and decide not to shoot at all. There is nothing in the rules requiring me to shooting each turn. I would auto lose, as my opponent could either gun my guys down or just take objectives safely.

Sanctjud - nope, as they havent forced a break in the rules. Pretty sure I've mentioned this, oooh, a billion times now - it is creating a situation you *know* causes a break in the rules and esentially presenting it as a fait accompli to the judge that I find at fault. Sort it out before? Fine, *whatever* you then do isnt a problem. Dont create the break in the rules? Fine, dont have an issue (oddly enough)

I feel to see how it creates a rules issue.

To everyone speaking out against this, I ask them if they would be as angry at me for DARING, indeed having such sheer AUDACITY, as to load my Chimeras up with company command squads carrying plasma, KNOWING FULL WELL ahead of time that should I lose but two of them to "Get's Hot", that space and time themselves fold in and collapse all around the game as it can not possibly continue from that point on due to my pending (soon to be failed) leadership save. At least the infiltration crash requires the other guy to be a sucker. All I need is something to fire at and time.

I sure hope not. The rules aren't the perfect flawless pillars of wisdom and insight that people want to lawyer them as. I for one would applaud the guy and offer to buy him a beer in the time before the next game. I'd even applaud someone for pulling it off in a friendly game. Most of my friends would also find it hilarious as well.

"I can't see the other guys in that unit, so I'll shoot the guy I can!" Because I guess it makes more sense have guys that can't be seen be killed? Yeah, that makes sense (sarcasm).

Since we are using real life logic now, rather than GW logic, i disagree
You see a single person walking about, you know he is part of a unit and they are near by.
Most units would open fire on him and the immediate area around him knowing other unit members will be about.
It will either hit them (through a surface) or get thier attention and bring them out.



OT: To be honest, its down to how he acted, now the tactics he used.
WS player held in reserve to gain an advantage against a shooting army.
Tau blocked them out of the board to gain an advantage over them.
No harm done to be honest, both player were employing tactics to help them, it was just a case of one working on the basis of the other.

Now, if he didnt cause a problem with it, full score, if he started making comments and acting like a dick, you drop the score.
Tactics dont come into sportsmanship.

This is getting flamy and I daresay, surreal. As this issue comes up, well never, shutting down before it gets truly out of hand. Time for some much needed wiener dog commentary.