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 played a game in which a Callidus assassin was used as described and was looking for some feedback.

A player asked their opponent if terrain piece X (part of the fortress of redemption) counted as difficult terrain. It was agreed it was, and it was asked if moving a vehicle onto it counted as difficult terrain. It once again was agreed to be the case.

After deployment, the player moved their opponents LR 6" so it ended up in this difficult terrain. The opposing player then rolled a dice to determine if the move had immobilized the LR. A '1' showed itself on the die, and the LR was immobilized. The players owning the LR then disagreed that they needed to take a dangerous terrain test to enter the terrain.

1 - Does the Callidus move require difficult terrain when a vehicle enters it? It is called a 'move' in the WH Codex.

2 - Regardless of if this point can be debated, if the player owning the LR rolls a dice without protest, do they 'defacto' accept this interpretation of the rules?

Thanks in advance, I did some searching on this topic at length and there appear to be a good amount of disagreement over it.

The Callidus Assassin can legally place that LR into difficult terrain so long as it is within 6" of where it was formerly and so long as it is still within the player's deployment zone. No test need be taken. It has simply been "redeployed".

Now, start the game as normal. The first time the LR moves, it must take a dangerous terrain test. If it rolls a '1', so be it, it is immobilised. Otherwise, it moves as normal.

I agree with puma713's answer for the rest, that redeployment isn't movement, so I'll respond to the other point.

calypso2ts wrote:2 - Regardless of if this point can be debated, if the player owning the LR rolls a dice without protest, do they 'de facto' accept this interpretation of the rules?

No, there is no consent demonstrated by going along with the rules interpretation before objecting to it. If I ask you to do something, there are situations in which you will start to do it, and possibly just do it, before thinking through the consequences.

solkan wrote:I agree with puma713's answer for the rest, that redeployment isn't movement, so I'll respond to the other point.

calypso2ts wrote:2 - Regardless of if this point can be debated, if the player owning the LR rolls a dice without protest, do they 'de facto' accept this interpretation of the rules?

No, there is no consent demonstrated by going along with the rules interpretation before objecting to it. If I ask you to do something, there are situations in which you will start to do it, and possibly just do it, before thinking through the consequences.

True, but the dissension came when the 1 showed its ugly face. The LR owner probably said, "Sure whatever." Rolled the dice, got a '1' and suddenly felt like contesting the rule. That's not how it works. You don't roll, then decide if you want the roll or not. That's like rolling dice just for the sake of rolling, then saying, "Oh look! Four sixes! I was shooting just then!"

So, I would say that while Solkan is right about simply going along with interpretation is not agreeing to it, I think the other part of it is a little more tricky. That '1' showing up made the LR player say, "Hey wait a minute, can we take a second look at that rule please?" I would say that we've all done that. Gotten a bad result and wondered, "Wait, is that really how that works?" But, I think it would be better practice to ask for the ruling or the interpretation before the dice are rolled. That makes it much more objective, I think. And, if you're playing in tournaments, asking before a situation is "resolved" is better than asking after, as it may lessen damage to your soft scores.

Sure, it's better to object to something which you think is wrong before you start going through the motions or whatever.

For the implied consent issue, you also have the counter argument that the one player could have been going along with other player for any number of reasons, whether it was out of a good faith assumption that the other player knew the rules, an assumption that it was unlikely to make a difference (it was only a 1 in 6 chance of mattering, after all), or the fact that one player was being pushy about the matter.

Then again, I might just be over reacting to someone misspelling de facto and attributing the error to an attempt to justify potential bullying.

Just as a clarification, I checked the Callidus rules (if it makes a difference), and they state the move occurs:

'After deployment, but before the game starts.'

Edit: Scout moves and AWYE moves occur at the same time, and I believe Scout moves require terrain tests.

@Solkan: I agree that sometimes it is better to say 'Let's see if this makes a difference, if it does, then we can try to sort this out.' I also agree that when a unique rule like AWIYE is used, it needs to be clear what is happening. What happened was:

Deployment - Opponent informed about AWIYE, told it is a move made before the game starts.

Before Move - Asked if a transport could drive into the adjacent terrain feature, it was agreed it could drive up part of the side of it.

During Move - The LR was moved. Opponent objected multiple times to moving it, the distance of the move, the direction of the move, moving into the terrain feature.

After Move - Opponent asked to take terrain. Opponent said it was not difficult, pointed out it was difficult and he said it was before. Rolls a d6, it pops a 1.

Gets angry, tells other player if this is not the rule that he/she will 'forfeit the game' that 'now I am not going to take it easy on you,' and other assorted threats.

An offer was also made to simply dice it off, opponent disagrees. He disappears then reappears (not asking for a copy of the rules). Says a judge told him he did not need to make the test so it did not count (although the judge never came to the table).

Regardless, (if this fits into YMDC) what is the best approach in general to handle this situation?

calypso2ts wrote:Just as a clarification, I checked the Callidus rules (if it makes a difference), and they state the move occurs:

'After deployment, but before the game starts.'

@Solkan: I agree that sometimes it is better to say 'Let's see if this makes a difference, if it does, then we can try to sort this out.' I also agree that when a unique rule like AWIYE is used, it needs to be clear what is happening. What happened was:

Deployment - Opponent informed about AWIYE, told it is a move made before the game starts.

Before Move - Asked if a transport could drive into the adjacent terrain feature, it was agreed it could drive up part of the side of it.

During Move - The LR was moved. Opponent objected multiple times to moving it, the distance of the move, the direction of the move, moving into the terrain feature.

After Move - Opponent asked to take terrain. Opponent said it was not difficult, pointed out it was difficult and he said it was before. Rolls a d6, it pops a 1.

Gets angry, tells other player if this is not the rule that he/she will 'forfeit the game' that 'now I am not going to take it easy on you,' and other assorted threats.

An offer was also made to simply dice it off, opponent disagrees. He disappears then reappears (not asking for a copy of the rules). Says a judge told him he did not need to make the test so it did not count (although the judge never came to the table).

Wow...

I hate tourneys...

Friendly games FTW

Tell me about it, after he left I figured forget it because we were already 20 minutes into the round and I knew I was 'out of the money.'

I felt obligated to play, but made some terrible tactical blunders and did not catch some other rules mistakes (rerolling LC attacks on armor for example) until after the game.

calypso2ts wrote:Just as a clarification, I checked the Callidus rules (if it makes a difference), and they state the move occurs:

'After deployment, but before the game starts.'

Edit: Scout moves and AWYE moves occur at the same time, and I believe Scout moves require terrain tests.

@Solkan: I agree that sometimes it is better to say 'Let's see if this makes a difference, if it does, then we can try to sort this out.' I also agree that when a unique rule like AWIYE is used, it needs to be clear what is happening. What happened was:

Deployment - Opponent informed about AWIYE, told it is a move made before the game starts.

Before Move - Asked if a transport could drive into the adjacent terrain feature, it was agreed it could drive up part of the side of it.

During Move - The LR was moved. Opponent objected multiple times to moving it, the distance of the move, the direction of the move, moving into the terrain feature.

After Move - Opponent asked to take terrain. Opponent said it was not difficult, pointed out it was difficult and he said it was before. Rolls a d6, it pops a 1.

Gets angry, tells other player if this is not the rule that he/she will 'forfeit the game' that 'now I am not going to take it easy on you,' and other assorted threats.

An offer was also made to simply dice it off, opponent disagrees. He disappears then reappears (not asking for a copy of the rules). Says a judge told him he did not need to make the test so it did not count (although the judge never came to the table).

Regardless, (if this fits into YMDC) what is the best approach in general to handle this situation?

First of all, that is a poorly organized tournament if the judge does not come to the table. Secondly, if the judge does not come to the table, you cease play until you see him. When someone stomps off in a rage, you know what happens? They spill a story to the judge about how this and this happened and how it shouldn't be played that way. The judge, with a hundred other things on his mind, agrees and the guy comes back, grinning smugly, and tells you that you're wrong. Sorry bucko - I want to hear the judge myself. Go get him. If he won't - you go get him. Point is, you don't continue play until it has been resolved to both partys' liking.

While I still don't think the guy needs to take a test, the way that he handled himself was horrible. He was obviously looking for an edge in the game (saying terrain is not difficult when he said it was prior, contesting every part of moving the vehicle, etc.). I play in a lot of tournaments and luckily, we don't have many of these guys, but when they do show their head, they ruin the game for everyone they play.

I had to play against a team like that in a team tournament. They won every game, but they didn't win the tournament. Why? Soft scores. I don't know if the tournament you were playing in had soft scores, but if someone treats you poorly or makes the game more of a hassle than a good time, destroy their soft scores. It's a game. It is supposed to be fun. If you sap all the fun out of it because you're dying to win, I'll make sure you don't.

Thanks for the feedback Puma, in the future I am going to handle the situation as you described. I was a bit taken aback by the whole thing, I mean I was playing with a pair of Penitent Engines, come on! I knocked him where appropriate, but it was only 3 or 4 total battle points out of the 12 for sportsmanship.

The tournament itself had a much larger turnout than expected (roughly twice as many) and the TO's did a good job dealing with it and even provided a free lunch for everyone.

Agreed on both points.

I believe 'A Word in Your Ear' movement does require you to take dangerous/difficult terrain tests as normal, in the same way that scout moves require the same tests.

Most people would agree that, before rolling anything, you make sure you know exactly what and why you're rolling. I can definitely understand your frustration with the other player when it only became an issue once he had gotten a bad result. That's not how you should play, tournament or otherwise, and you were right to be annoyed.

It never fails to amaze me at the sheer variety of dice shenanigans, however. There was a fellow at our FLGS who would roll a handful of dice for shooting, then, once he had seen the large amount of 1's and 2's, declare didn't measure range first so those "didn't count" and he would repeat the whole process (naturally shooting a lot better the second time around). Needless to say, if most of those dice were 5's and 6's he would quickly measure and keep the results.

Everyone wants to win, not everyone has to be a jerk about it!

DoW

I disagree with the assesment that rolling THEN contesting is sketchy behavior.

think about it from his point of view, it bothered him to begin with, but there was a 5-1 odds that it wouldnt have mattered, and you could have gone on with the game without an arguement or getting a judge and slowing the whole game (not to mention him losing out on soft scores)

it turns out he was right, (and someone above mentioned scout moves need to make terrrain tests... they dont) so he gambled the odds to save time and avoid an arguement, I think he was being nice, then contested because of a fluke circumstance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I cant even tell you the number of arguements I've had over inquisitors choosing to pass a leadership test in CC ala pretty-boy-calgars god of war ability, which was FAQed to result in "No Retreat" wounds, arguements that were made moot by the opposing player just rolling a few successful saves then moving on. If he had failed the saves then we would have gone on to get a judge.

Rolling it just to see if the rule debate makes a difference is just smart gameplay IMO.

Demogerg wrote:I disagree with the assesment that rolling THEN contesting is sketchy behavior.

I agree but I preface rolls with 'Okay I am not sure on this, let's roll it to see if it is even worth debating

Demogerg wrote:
...(and someone above mentioned scout moves need to make terrrain tests... they dont)...

They do need to take dangerous terrain tests. BRB page 76 scouts "...This (move) is done exactly as in their Movement phase..." so if they take terrain in their Movement phase, they take it on their scout move.

Also, I am still unconvinced that they do not need to take terrain. The Assassin entry states "The player with the Callidus assassin can move one enemy unit up to 6" after both sides have deployed but before the first turn starts." It is not called a redeployment, it is called a move. It occurs after infiltrators and at the same time as other pregame moves, like scout moves.

calypso2ts wrote:

Demogerg wrote:I disagree with the assesment that rolling THEN contesting is sketchy behavior.

I agree but I preface rolls with 'Okay I am not sure on this, let's roll it to see if it is even worth debating

Demogerg wrote:
...(and someone above mentioned scout moves need to make terrrain tests... they dont)...

They do need to take dangerous terrain tests. BRB page 76 scouts "...This (move) is done exactly as in their Movement phase..." so if they take terrain in their Movement phase, they take it on their scout move.

Also, I am still unconvinced that they do not need to take terrain. The Assassin entry states "The player with the Callidus assassin can move one enemy unit up to 6" after both sides have deployed but before the first turn starts." It is not called a redeployment, it is called a move. It occurs after infiltrators and at the same time as other pregame moves, like scout moves.

From the GW FQ:

"Q. Is a Callidus Assassin’s ‘A Word in your Ear. .
.’ used before or after Scout moves are made?

A. The redeployment move and the Scouts move
are both described as happening after
deployment but before the first turn. In such
cases the best way to proceed is to dice off for
which takes priority."

when is awiye used? before or after infiltration and scout moves?

Natfka wrote:when is awiye used? before or after infiltration and scout moves?

After infiltration and at the same time as Scout.

puma713 wrote:
"Q. Is a Callidus Assassin’s ‘A Word in your Ear. .
.’ used before or after Scout moves are made?

A. The redeployment move and the Scouts move
are both described as happening after
deployment but before the first turn. In such
cases the best way to proceed is to dice off for
which takes priority."

Exactly. It is a redeployment move not just a redeployment like Eldrad. Similar to a 'Scout Move', 'Assault Move' or 'Run Move' which all follow the standard rules for movement and occur outside of normal deployment.

calypso2ts wrote:

puma713 wrote:
"Q. Is a Callidus Assassin’s ‘A Word in your Ear. .
.’ used before or after Scout moves are made?

A. The redeployment move and the Scouts move
are both described as happening after
deployment but before the first turn. In such
cases the best way to proceed is to dice off for
which takes priority."

Exactly. It is a redeployment move not just a redeployment like Eldrad. Similar to a 'Scout Move', 'Assault Move' or 'Run Move' which all follow the standard rules for movement and occur outside of normal deployment.

Redeployment, to me, indicates "deploying again". You never have to test for difficult terrain while you're deploying (deep striking aside). If you want to deploy inside difficult terrain, you don't have to test for it. If you're forced to "deploy again", why would you test for it when you didn't test the first time? I think where we're getting hung up is the definition of "move". While the two definitions we're using are similar, there are some distinct differences:

Your definition may look something like this (from Dictionary.com):

move   /muv/ Show Spelled [moov] Show IPA verb,moved, mov·ing, noun
–noun
an act or instance of moving; movement.

So, the way that the passage would be read would be: "This redeployment movement (or instance of moving). . .etc."



Whereas my defintion reads:

move   /muv/ Show Spelled [moov] Show IPA verb,moved, mov·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
to change from one place or position to another.

So, the way the passage reads to me would be: "This redeployment repositioning. . .etc."



You see, it's not the redeployment that we're stumbling on, its our difference in the definition of movement. Just because something has been moved, doesn't mean it has been committing the act of moving. It could simply mean that is has been repositioned or replaced, like if you picked up your keys in the living room and set them down in the kitchen. The keys didn't move themselves. You "moved" them - you "replaced" or "repositioned" them.

I'm a regular user of the Callidus and have never suggested that my opponent take a Dangerous Terrain test due to my moving the unit into terrain. It's called a redeployemnt and that's good enough for me, even if they did tag the word move onto it.

I think you hit the nail on the head in where we are interpreting the rule differently Puma and until INAT or GW specify one way or another, it is going to be a question to ask the TO or dice off with my opponent. I will probably not include a Callidus next time, between AWIYE, Polymorphine and her other rules I had to spend a lot of time explaining. Add to that explaining the Faith system, how PE's take damage results and constantly remiding people they are opened topped it is more hassle than it is worth!

calypso2ts wrote:I think you hit the nail on the head in where we are interpreting the rule differently Puma and until INAT or GW specify one way or another, it is going to be a question to ask the TO or dice off with my opponent. I will probably not include a Callidus next time, between AWIYE, Polymorphine and her other rules I had to spend a lot of time explaining. Add to that explaining the Faith system, how PE's take damage results and constantly remiding people they are opened topped it is more hassle than it is worth!

Add a PBS or two and she'll be worth every headache.