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.

First off, I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this question, if not, would the Mods please move it.

I recently played a game with someone where I used a psycannon to shoot at some turbo boosted marine bikers.  As I told him that because he turbo boosted, which made his armor save invulnerable, given the fact that the psycannon ignored armor saves, he will get no saves against wounds caused by the psycannon.

I know this rule to be true, and most players I play with have no problems with it.  He said he dosen't agree with that and wanted to roll off for it.

My question is what do you do in this situation?  Are you forced to give him a 50% chance to basically cheat?

He doesn't get the invulnerable save but would still get his regular armor save which is a 3+ anyway.  Psycannons are only AP4.

If this was a friendly setting, I'd show him the rule in the DH codex, and show him the rule in the BBB under 'invulnerable'.

If he's still insisting on d6ing it, and clearly talking any further is going to have no effect, then either a) end the game or b) finish playing and simply never play that person again (obviously more difficult if it's a friend). Feel free to insist on d6ing any rules you've decided are ambiguous that work to your benefit.

If this is a tournament, clarify with the judges in advance how they're going to treat psycannons and invl. saves, and when he pulls this argument, get a judge to back you up.

Posted By Lemartes on 02/01/2007 12:22 PM
He doesn't get the invulnerable save but would still get his regular armor save which is a 3+ anyway.  Psycannons are only AP4.

I don't have the BBB handy nor do I remember the exact wording, but whenever I've played with or against bikers turbo-boost is said to "make his save invulnerable."  As in, it replaces the turbo-boosting unit's armor save with an invulnerable save of the same value.  As in, psycannons ignore invulnerable saves, and as a turbo-booster only has an invulnerable save, they crash and burn with no saving roll to make.

Quote me something to make me wrong.

- Boss Salvage

I can understand this guy, because it's rather hard to imagine (aka very strange), but you're right, he doesn't get a save. An Invulnerable save is an invulnerable save is an invulnerable save...

Greets
Schepp himself

EDIT: Damn, DP-beating on Dakka...have you guys nothin better to do???

I dont think he gets a save at all, as his normal save is now an invulnerable save.
Its not 3+/3+I, its just 3+I

I dont think he can choose to use his normal save. Once a bike turbo boosts, it is now invulnerable.

If it's a friendly game, just D6 it and keep going.  At the end of the game, discuss it some more, show him threads here on Dakka, or just drop it.  If he really believes he's right, and he's not being a jerk about it, then I wouldn't worry about it.

(Also key here is that you have to be careful to not seem like a jerk either, which is easy to do unintentionally).

I think the question you have to ask yourself is, what would Dirty Harry do in this case. 

Once you're out on bail, you then have to ask yourself, does it really matter? Lets assume he's incorrect (isn't there a FAQ or something directly on point?). Further, lets assume there is an FAQ and it is directly on point, but disagrees even when you put it directly under his nose.  He's clearly wrong.

Then what?  Either quit the game in a huff or continue playing with the modicum that this is the only time you'll play it that way.

Either way it doesn't really matter. its just a game. unlike Chutes and Ladders, which is an adventure.

 

Does it say the model recieves an Invulnerable save or his save becomes Invulnerable (in which case the psycannone would allow no save)? Don't have the BGB handy. But you can have both an Inv and normal AS- look at termies.

It says his save becomes invulnerable.

It says his save becomes invulnerable


and yet youll find someone who says that doesnt say it replaces his normal armor save.. and i would be one of those people.

I have never agreed with that rule and yet when playing against dh i never go farther than 16 and 15/16 of an inch because at 17 its a turbo boost... so the dh player can deal with it

If it's a tournament, ask a judge.

If it's a friendly game, I'd go with what Iorek says, then next time you play him, decide ahead of time how you're going to play it and then decide if it's worth playing him or not.

I can see why the rule is a bit on the grey side, but that's a discussion for another forum.

...what do you do in this situation?  Are you forced to give him a 50% chance to basically cheat?

Find someone else to play, who likes playing by the rules.

Immediately; show them the rules, if they don't agree and can't provide any rules, pack up your stuff.

I'll come out and say this, dice offs are a complete cop out, the honorable course of action is to stick to your guns when you know your right, or concede a point if you're unsure.

I'd say that this rule lies in the realm of RAW where alot of folks who don't frequent internet fora would be a little suprised. I'd agree with the strict letter interpretation, however to avoid these sort of confustion, I'd point out before a game how you play it, so they know. How often can a player with bikes meet a player with psycannons? Yes, it sucks that there isn't a concrete set of rules, but the situation can be avoided before the game, even witha little joke. "haha, you'd better not turbo boost, or my magic cannons will destroy you." then, you can hash out how to work the rule before you play.

As for packing up and leaveing the game, am I the only one who thinks that's a little extreme? This guy wasn't fudging distances, making up LOS, or playing "hidden upgrade," AFAIK. He was suprised by a RAW situation that frankly doesn't make too much sense, and did what unfortunatly the rules tell him to do: roll off for it. That doesn't make him right, or you wrong. It means that there's no real reason to ruin an otherwise fun game because a guy get petulent over a ruling.

To answer the OP's question, Id' try to explain the RAW, as well as how I think it's silly, but "hey, it's the rules." If his insistance on rolling off seems to be based on genuine confusion, than screw it, roll off. If he seems to be trying to gain an advantage, than either wait for karma to punish him; or challenge every semi-questionable ruling you can from then on, insisting to roll it off.

Obviously, in an RTT, the judge has the final say.

The Rules As Written are pretty clear in this instance. However, it is a stupid rule. I'd be happy to D6 this one, and then come to a mutually acceptable agreement about the rule before the next game (if any).

Unless it's a tournament, in which case I'd call the A-Team to sort that guy. ("I pity the fool who don't know the rule!")

I agree with polobius and pariah press. Stupid RAW. I have never played it like that but I really am starting to hate the internet forums as before I came onto thses forums these problems nevr raised there ugly heads as most people played using common sence. I HATE RAW, especially when it does not make sence.

I personally would not have rolled for it if I felt I was correct but in this situation I would let him have taken his 3+ save

Thats a good row to hoe. Its just not that big an issue for the game, roll to let the dice gods decide, play as he sees it and look at it after the game, or just play and not care.

Man, Beef, your posting has dramatically improved!  I'd like to credit your time in the OT Zone.

Heh, I said "manbeef".

You also always have the option of backing down even though you know you're technically correct (the best kind of correct, if I recall my Futurama).  It doesn't REALLY hurt you, and makes it a more enjoyable experience for the other guy (gal?).  I do this a lot with my games, and we'll have a look at the real rules once the game is over (a beer never hurts either). 

I think that "not being a jerk" should be a basic rule for this game. 

My only reservation about it is that according to the GT packet posted by GW. At a GT if the players can not come to an agreement regarding a certain rule and a judge is called. The judge will only point out the relevant section in the rule book to both of the players, and if that still does not resolve an issue, the players are to dice for it.

I can imagine a scenario where you meet some jerk that is going to force you to roll for things that you know to be true. I don't know if I can take that. I know it's a game and its all for fun, but why should I be forced to play against someone that chooses to not play by the rules?

"You can't shoot your bikes at one unit and assault another!"

"That's not how I interperted the rules."

"Look at how it's written in the rule book."

"I still don't agree with it, lets roll for it."

I highly doubt the judges are going to stand by for that. Real interpretation differences are an exception, but that scenario is pretty black and white.

Posted By jfrazell on 02/02/2007 7:00 AM
I highly doubt the judges are going to stand by for that. Real interpretation differences are an exception, but that scenario is pretty black and white.

I think it depends on the quality of judges, which is why I'd get things clarified in advance if you're worried (not just on psycannons, but other sticky points depending on the army) and have those clarifications in writing. Adepticon's Faq is the right idea, and I'd just encourage my gaming group to stick to that, but what do I know?   

You know nothing!
You're being far to reasonable. Punch the guy in the face and TELL him that his marines get no save. If he still wants to dice for it shiv him when he ain't lokoin' and steal his smokes.

I generaly find rules disputes to be minor affairs that can usually be resolved by a careful re-reading of the rules.  The exception to this are serious RAW disputes that tend to take on the trappings of a half -assed legal battle.  There's the RAW and there's the interpretation of RAW.  When a player begins to pick apart the wording of a rule looking for advantageous loopholes, that is when I begin to worry about the kind of situation you are talking about.  If you and I can read the same sentance and get a completely different meaning from it, the next step to playing an enjoyable game is trying to meet halfway so that we can continue playing.  In a tournament setting there are judges, but in friendly play I believe the priority should be to have fun.  Right or wrong, if one player is willing to consistently bring the game to a screetching halt to force their opponent to agree (or dice off) with their interpretation - that is a signal to me that I wouldn't want to play that person regularly.

The other side of that is to respect the RAW enough to admit when it doesn't support a claim.  I find that if a quick breeze through the relevent sections of the rulebook does not provide clear refutation, then go with the other guy's interpretation.

My apologies in advance.

UNAVOIDABLE THREAD HIJACK

I cannot:

1. PM
2. reply to PM
3. Open a new thread - why I found an existing on in Dakka Discussions to use.

Every time I try I get a warning triangle with:

"A critical error has occured.
Input string was not in a correct format."

Can someone copy-paste this into a new topic please.

Back on topic...

Agreed. Polonius' suggestion is also a good one, and one I've used myself. If you see at the beginning of the game that your opponent is using bikes, and you have a psycannon (or vice versa), bring it up right at the start.

When you see the issue coming ahead of time you can avoid unpleasant suprises mid game. It's when this stuff pops up in the middle of a game, after people have made tactical decisions in part based on understanding the rules to work one way, that the discussion gets less friendly and comfortable.

I think the thing to do about these ambiguous rules is just to figure it out before the game starts because once the game begins, a lot of strategy depended on being able to do something that the opponent can't actually do, so it becomes a flawed game and no fun for either player.

 

This is a well known rule, but what do people do with less well known rules that really can have HUGE affects on the game.  I'll just name a couple...

 

1) Removing Casualties in CC - Not many people follow the strict rule that you MUST remove casualties as they occur to keep your unit within coherency if possible.  I see countless times when a marine player will leave one powerfist and another marine 6" from each other just so the fist will survive.  It's completely illegal, but this sounds so nitpicky, that I usually sound like the bad guy.

2) Separating IC's from squads - This can ONLY occur in the movement phase, but how many people have seen a shooting phase go bad and suddenly your enemy wants to split off their IC to engage two squads?  I know I have.  Again, completely illegal.

There are tons of little rules like this that massively effect the game.  How do people handle these in an every day setting?  Sure letting one rule go by here and there is ok, but don't some of you feel like your "friendly" games are less friendly because your opponent is just "slightly" abusing them at every turn?  Sure, leave one fist here and allow one IC split there, but eventually those small moves pile up and change the outcome of the game.

It doesn't seem fair to me what some of you are saying, "just let it go", when you play to have fun... AND to try to win. 

If it?s clearly against the rules I just don?t let them do it. I?m polite about it, but firm. Some folks out there are good at pretending that they don?t know better. You and I have played against one or two of them.
And players who genuinely don?t know the rules need to learn somehow.

Of course, if you insist on playing by the rules you're labled a 'rules lawyer' and a bad sport...

Granted, 'Rules Lawyer' just means someone with a different interpretation of the rules than I have that is actually correct by the rules.

Ya, I sort of have always have had the luxury of not playing people whom I didn't like to play against because you play by the rules and they get upset.  I think some people are in the situation though, where if they use the stern tone that mannahin was talking about, they (unfairly) become labeled a rules lawyer.

I dunno... I guess maybe the best thing to do in those cases is not to bring it up during the game (if it's a friendly game) and just ask to go over a few rules at the end.  That way, it's not frustrating anyone, and you'll both know better for next time.

 

...and that was me thinking out loud... I hope you all enjoyed it.

 

I think you mistake me slightly. I don't use a "firm tone". I use a very friendly and sympathetic tone.

I am very understanding towards their confusion, and I make clear that I can see exactly how they got that impression/were thinking of the previous edition/GW could have phrased it better/whatever excuse they are using or seems appropriate to not make them feel dumb.

Even if I know exactly what the rule is, I'm not going to slap them down over the table when they bust out a wrong rule. I'll say something like "I thought it worked like 'x', do you mind if we take a quick look in the rules?" I like to look when I have a question most of the time just so I can see what it says and remember better the next time. So I'm being totally sincere when I tell them so. On occasion it has come to pass that I manage to be wrong or misremember something, too, so it's always good to double-check.

In my experience you can definitely be nice while still playing by the rules, the vast majority of the time. In the rare cases in which the person is particularly obstinate and ignorant, I just get through the game as best I can while still being as nice as possible. Most of the folks who really don't understand the rules aren't good players anyway.

I've managed to win a couple of Sportsmanship awards while playing this way, so it's definitely possible.