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.

Okay folks, there is already a long thread dedicated to what the rules do and don't say on this matter.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/225523.page

Feel free to check it out, there are some good points on both sides.

The purpose of this thread is to determine what the ruling should be.

RB.94D.01 – Q: If there is no room for models to
move onto the table from Reserves without placing
them within 1” of an enemy model or on top of
friendly models, what happens?
A: Any models that cannot fit on the table play no further
part in the game and count as destroyed [rules change].

I bring to your attention that the INAT committee has stated that they are changing the rule for this. (What they are changing it from... is hard to determine, hence the pages long discussions.)

The question is, "Is this the best change for the 'Game'?"

The rules are clear
You *must* bring on units from reserves.
and
You *can't* get within 1" of an enemy model during movement.

Clearly, you can't do both. So we get to decide what should happen.

Options (as I see them)

1) Since you "must" bring them on, for this move only, you can move them 'over' the blocking models
2) Since the unit is using the outflanking rule, and using that rule may cause them to not get on the board, they don't use that rule and come on using the player board edge.
3) The Blocking models are moved just enough to create space for the arriving models, since they must come on.
4) Since you "must" bring them on, you can use a different board edge. (Either the opposite, or the player board edge)
5) They must come on, but can't, so they are held in reserve. If they never get on, they count as destroyed.
6) They must come on, but can't, so they count as destroyed immediately.


I don't really like 1-3. Don't seem to match the rest of the game very well.

Destroying the incoming unit, however, seems very harsh; and can all but win the game against some army lists. I don't feel one tactic should be an auto win.

To me, 5) is the best choice. It gives the blocking player an advantage for a daring move, without being quite so devastating as destroying entire units. Can you imagine a tactic that could just make 1/3 of all drop pods just be destroyed. (And the other 2/3 get placed way out of position.)

I see no reason to allow people to come on if it's blocked. Them's just the rules. I have a same problem playing my daemons vs fast horde armies. If my opponent goes 1st, he can effectively cover most of the board to force me to make deepstike mishap rolls on that chart. Is it sporting? Not to me, but it is legal. Nobody is forcing that player to use outflank at all. If he comes on with outflank and it's blocked, his gambit for a special rule got countered is all.

coredump wrote:
Destroying the incoming unit, however, seems very harsh; and can all but win the game against some army lists. I don't feel one tactic should be an auto win.

The lists that are being destroyed by this tactic are awfully one-tactic ponies, themselves.

Destroyed.

Live by Outflank, Die by Outflank.

Destroyed.

Destroyed makes more sense... His opponent closed all avenues for a flank attack and the outflankers were trapped or destroyed.

Nob bikes can block both flanks rather easily. Each base is 3" long, with a 2" space between you can effectively block off 57" of board edge with one unit.

In a dawn of war mission they could block both edges on turn one. Any other mission would be turn 2.

Not saying that should change the ruling, just saying that one of the top rated armies has no trouble pulling it off. So be aware!

Wouldn't a poll have made alot more sense?

Either way I'm in support of 5, anything off the board at the end of the game is considered destroyed, and you can't walk on if it's blocked. But nothing in the rules say that your units are instantly destroyed if they can't move on from reserves.

I see no reason to allow people to come on if it's blocked. Them's just the rules

That is my point, those are *not* the rules. There are no rules covering this, so we need to determine what is the best for the game to go on.

If he comes on with outflank and it's blocked, his gambit for a special rule got countered is all.

Agreed. But making them stay in reserves is also a counter for that tactic. How many other counters are there that will result in multiple units being destroyed. The consequences do not seem to match.

The lists that are being destroyed by this tactic are awfully one-tactic ponies, themselves.

Some, maybe. But having 2-3 outflanking units is not one-tactic; any more than having 2-3 DSing units.

Destroyed makes more sense... His opponent closed all avenues for a flank attack and the outflankers were trapped or destroyed.

When a webway portal is blocked, the units stay in reserve. When Necron warriors don't have a monolith available, they stay in reserve. Staying in reserve until an opening exists also seems to 'make sense.'



I keep coming back to comparing this to a tactic that will cause Drop pods to become (almost) useless. Imagine that you have 3 pods, and on turn 1 your opponent can make it so that one of them just dies, and the other two end up far from the battle. I can't see folks being okay with that.
Blocking off one side of the board just isn't that difficult for some armies; and can drastically alter the game.

coredump wrote:When a webway portal is blocked, the units stay in reserve. When Necron warriors don't have a monolith available, they stay in reserve. Staying in reserve until an opening exists also seems to 'make sense.'

I hadn't considered those, I would definitely take them as precedent and go that way then.

I hope the decision is made with no bias. Sure players that regularly field armies that can close down a table edge would probably be inclined to say destroyed while those that use out flankers would probably be inclined to say not destroyed.

G

coredump wrote:

Destroyed makes more sense... His opponent closed all avenues for a flank attack and the outflankers were trapped or destroyed.

When a webway portal is blocked, the units stay in reserve. When Necron warriors don't have a monolith available, they stay in reserve. Staying in reserve until an opening exists also seems to 'make sense.'

Once a Monolith is on the table, Necron warriors must enter through it, and are destroyed if the door is blocked. That seems a more relevant comparison - it's not that the table edge isn't available, it's just blocked.

I keep coming back to comparing this to a tactic that will cause Drop pods to become (almost) useless. Imagine that you have 3 pods, and on turn 1 your opponent can make it so that one of them just dies, and the other two end up far from the battle. I can't see folks being okay with that.
Blocking off one side of the board just isn't that difficult for some armies; and can drastically alter the game.

Moral: if your opponent can block a whole board edge, don't outflank? No units are forced to outflank; you have to choose to go that route.

Drunkspleen wrote:

coredump wrote:When a webway portal is blocked, the units stay in reserve. When Necron warriors don't have a monolith available, they stay in reserve. Staying in reserve until an opening exists also seems to 'make sense.'

I hadn't considered those, I would definitely take them as precedent and go that way then.

Except both of those explicitly state that the unit can be held in reserve. Outflank does no such thing.

My vote: Destroyed.

don_mondo wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

coredump wrote:When a webway portal is blocked, the units stay in reserve. When Necron warriors don't have a monolith available, they stay in reserve. Staying in reserve until an opening exists also seems to 'make sense.'

I hadn't considered those, I would definitely take them as precedent and go that way then.

Except both of those explicitly state that the unit can be held in reserve. Outflank does no such thing.

My vote: Destroyed.

Outflank also doesn't explicitly state the unit is destroyed, I don't understand how you can require specifics for one ruling to be valid but not for another?

Janthkin wrote:Once a Monolith is on the table, Necron warriors must enter through it, and are destroyed if the door is blocked. That seems a more relevant comparison - it's not that the table edge isn't available, it's just blocked.

The reason they would be so definitively destroyed in this situation is because it tells you that they come in through the portal just like they were disembarking from a vehicle, so they could presumably perform an emergency disembark to land anywhere within 2" of the monolith if the portal was blocked.

5... just destroying them seems cheap.
5 is also what GW support advocates.

usernamesareannoying wrote:
5 is also what GW support advocates.

Where?

Also, if 2-3 units are outflanking, trust me, your opponent isn't sacrificing the movement of a ton of his army to close off the board sides, they're concentrating on the rest of the army and staying away from the flanks. Any tournament army is going to have, what, 8-10 units at a minimum?

#5 Seems the most fair to me.

#5 is the option I advocate.

G

usernamesareannoying wrote:5... just destroying them seems cheap.
5 is also what GW support advocates.

Depends on who you talk to at GW........

askyour question guy says 5. Last time I asked (Baltimore Games Day 2008) studio staff said destroyed (same as space puppy scouts). It was one of my list of questions in preparation for judging at the Balt GD RTT.

Did you in any way to try to influence the judge's decision?

G

cervidal wrote:

usernamesareannoying wrote:
5 is also what GW support advocates.

Where?

the new email customer service rep "rulez boyz"
everyone complained before that they gave out inconsistent answer and now that they give consistent answer everyone still complains. guess everyone just likes to complain...

As far as the gamesday question is concerned those guys are no different than you or I answering a question. i would at least hope that the email service uses something to generate consistent answers.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Did you in any way to try to influence the judge's decision?

G

?? I was the judge.................... So yeah, I probably influenced myself.

And yes, we (tourney judges) are no different than you, that's why I always try to corner the studio guests on Friday night before the tourney and ask them rules questions. Kinda fun to sit and talk 40K rules over beer with Jervis or whoever. And I do try to phrase the questions in as non-biased a manner as possible, altho I'm sure that my biases do show through on occassion. Just silly of me, I suppose, but I actually take my responsibility as a tourney judge seriously and try to do a good job, whether it's a small local event or a large event such as Games Day. They have given me answers I disagree with, but those are the answers I use.

That is funny... you are advocating a ruling you yourself made. Sounds a bit corrupted to me.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:That is funny... you are advocating a ruling you yourself made. Sounds a bit corrupted to me.

G

Funny, I thought I was advocating a ruling that I got from the GW studio guys............... I just happen to agree with it.

usernamesareannoying wrote:
the new email customer service rep "rulez boyz"

New, old, if it's not the equivilent of a confirmable, academic source - printed word, sustained website, etc., it holds little water.

I vote destroyed immediately. Flanking is a random thing correct? If an opponent blocks one side of a board completely that's a 66% chance the flanking unit survives. Its a pretty big risk to picket the board edges and should have a payoff. Blocking both sides is going to require:

A. The units be moved into place on both board edges and NOT assaulted or otherwise displaced.

B: The reserves that are outflanking come in while they are in that position.

It's a pretty untenable position to maintain for the hope of an opponent losing a unit or even a few units. One casualty to shooting breaks unit coherence and requires moving, one assault will suck the unit away from it's picket line formation. Also while the unit is in picket line formation it is NOT assaulting another unit nor is it in optimal firing position.

Agreed. Same with the rulings we've made for Games Day tourneys and the US 2008 GTs, they are NOT official. I am not saying that I've got the only answer. Tho I do think it's the best answer, given what we've got to work with. But we all know what an A**hat I am, right.................?

don_mondo wrote: But we all know what an A**hat I am, right.................?

You're clearly not an a** hat... you agree with me.

Ahhh, just proves you don't know me!!

G