GT Chicago Battle Report @ my blog

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.

**General Hobbs**

Posted By skyth on 08/10/2007 8:22 AM
All the wounding hits...Not all the failed saves.

All wounding hits affect one model. So if the effect that will affect one model is a failed save, then you take 1 model.

**dornsfist**

???

How can a save that is failed be assigned to a hit that cannot be assigned to a single model, skyth? Please clarify.

P1: When a unit suffers wounding hits, each will affect a different model-you cannot claim that all the hits strike a single model.

C1: You can not remove a multi-wound model before removing single wound models.

Game application: Two genestealers would be removed and 1 wound assigned to the broodlord.

The only reason to remove the broodlord is to give the genestealer brood the ability to fleet, which is an advantage, as it extends the assault range by cutting the anchor (lord).

However, the only thing that matters is that Bill's opponent didn't balk at the tactic. It was their game and both players have the ability to judge that game with soft scores. It seems that they have history with each other, it should remain between them. But it would be good to clarify in a seperate thread on YMTC. The arguement doesn't belong here. This should be a celebration of the Bill's victory. Congrats!

@ mauleed

10 or 0, your perogitive, but very black and white. Depending on the severity and impact on the outcome of the game, a zero can be absolutely justified. IMO, it would take something egregious to assign a zero (thankfully, something I have never had to do so far). But I am not argueing your ethics and/or code. I generally subtract one level for each "offense" from sportsmanship. i.e., my pet peeve, when hth armies measure from the front of the base, then place the models beyond the tip of the ruler extending their range by 1-3" depending on the base. This would downgrade a great game (8) to an average game (6) IMO. I agree with you on the chipmunking issue. People that do that are weak. Anything lower than an average game (6) would be chipmunking if unjustified, and should not be done.

**mauleed**

well, I've got a simple scale: show up and be polite, follow all the rules, or at least be flexible on issues you aren't sure about, get a perfect score.

But have an attitude, particularly if something doesn't go your way, break a rule intentionally, or play an ambiguous rule to your benefit, and get a zero.

I don't make a big deal out of it, but I do let the person know when I give them the zero. I've only handed out a few, and one one was ever strictly for attitude. All the rest were for rules issues. (and I include moving illegally as a rule issue).

And again, the person has to be inflexible in their BS for me to give out the zero. If I point out something that's illegal, or remind someone about tightening up their movement, and they either want to argue or ignore, then they get it. If they make an adjustment and play goes on, or have a pleasant discussion even if they don't agree about the rule, then they'll get a perfect. It's only the cheaters and hardheaded that get a zero.

I think I've handed out 3 or 4 over in 5 or so years.

**Green Bloater**

It really helps to make for a fun game when both players are flexible.

- G

**Inquisitor_Malice**

Posted By dornsfist on 08/10/2007 9:13 AM

However, the only thing that matters is that Bill's opponent didn't balk at the tactic. It was their game and both players have the ability to judge that game with soft scores. It seems that they have history with each other, it should remain between them. But it would be good to clarify in a seperate thread on YMTC. The arguement doesn't belong here. This should be a celebration of the Bill's victory. Congrats

FYI, there was a cordial discussion about the rule before the game and a judge did rule on it. So both Mike and Bill played the game as was ruled by the judge.

I think a YMTC would be a good discussion and is the appropriate method for coming to a resolution that is appropriate.

**Centurian99**

I do not agree with P1. You can not know that the context is 'the entire page'. The context, when read most literally, applies to nothing but that single sentence.
Without that premise, your entire argument is invalid.
And in fact, without that premise, the text that says (the text that is NOT in that paragraph) "When a unit suffers wounding hits, each will affect a different model - you can not claim that all of the hit strike a single model." clearly shows that pulling the broodlord is illegal.
What we have here Bill is an independent paragraph that clearly says that it's not legal, and your claim is that a phrase in an earlier one somehow applies to the entire page, despite no verbage to say so.
And again, even if it is ambiguous what the context of the phrase is, you can't pick the context that suits your position and then just claim it true.

Your're right in a way, that I'm concluding that the rest of the rules follow from that statement. But lets look at the whole sentence:

"Assuming that the mdels in the unit have one wound each, one model is removed for each wound inflicted." That's followed by some irrelevant fluff justifications for casualties, and then the next paragraph, which basically says the same thing: "When a unit suffers wounding hits, each will affect a different model - you cannot claim that all the hits affect a single model." However, if you take that statement absolutely, a multi-wound model in a squad of single wound models could not take multiple wounds from a single units firing. If you accept that as nonsense, then you have to conclude that the "you cannot claim that all the hits affect a single model" statement does not apply to units with a single multi-wound model.

Your position is wrong

A. You treat multi wound models as single wound models....page 27.

Nope. As I stated earlier, you treat multi-wound models as single-wound models for the purposes of taking armor saves, as per page 27. To quote, "Creatures with multiple wound take their armor saves just like ordinary troops with only one wound. If they make their save they suffer no damage and..." The rule says nothing about casualty removal, just armor saves, which is an entirely different thing by the rules. Since your entire idea is based on the idea the armor saves = casualty removal, your entire argument is faulty.

**Centurian99**

FYI, there was a cordial discussion about the rule before the game and a judge did rule on it. So both Mike and Bill played the game as was ruled by the judge.
I think a YMTC would be a good discussion and is the appropriate method for coming to a resolution that is appropriate.

FYI, the judge agreed with me but also agreed that the rule was somewhat vague, so the compromise that satisfied everyone was if the squad took enough wounds to remove the broodlord outright, then the broodlord could be removed as the casualty. If only two wounds were taken, I would have pulled stealers. That's how I played it all weekend.

**Centurian99**

I forgot to mention, bravo on your play. I've been using that little trick for years, and it really seems to drive people nuts. Which only encourages me.
40k has lots of tactical flexibility, if only you've got the nuggets to use it all.

Thanks. It proved especially helpful against the Godzilla armies, since while the tables had lots of area terrain, most of it (by player agreement) ended up being Lvl 2 or or Lvl 1. But hitting carnfexes with stealers created a nice, lvl 3 assault that did the job nicely.

Most people just don't understand what tactics is, or fixate on just killing enemy models as the end-all, be-all of tactics. The trick to tactics in 40K is that its about preserving your own options while limiting your opponents.

**mauleed**

Well Bill, I remain unconvinced at all of your rules position, but regardless I applaud your victory!

**General Hobbs**

Yes, congrats. Are you going to Baltimore?

**Centurian99**

Yes, congrats. Are you going to Baltimore?

No...can't justify the travel expenses at this time. I can drive to Chicago and stay with family down there...flying to Baltimore and paying for a hotel room would be...unresponsible at this time. Plus I don't have a ticket.

Also, final parts of the GT Batrep are now posted on my Blog.

**skyth**

Posted By dornsfist on 08/10/2007 9:13 AM

@ mauleed

10 or 0, your perogitive, but very black and white. Depending on the severity and impact on the outcome of the game, a zero can be absolutely justified. IMO, it would take something egregious to assign a zero (thankfully, something I have never had to do so far). But I am not argueing your ethics and/or code. I generally subtract one level for each "offense" from sportsmanship. i.e., my pet peeve, when hth armies measure from the front of the base, then place the models beyond the tip of the ruler extending their range by 1-3" depending on the base. This would downgrade a great game (8) to an average game (6) IMO. I agree with you on the chipmunking issue. People that do that are weak. Anything lower than an average game (6) would be chipmunking if unjustified, and should not be done.

You have to turn it around also. Anything higher than an average game (6) would be chipmunking if unjustified, and should not be done.

In other words, giving out 0 or 10 only on sportsmanship is plain cheating.

**dornsfist**

Chipmunking is generally considered hurting the opponent in an unjustified fashion by giving a low score vindictively. How is giving an 8 or 10 chipmunking, exactly?

**skyth**

Not following the scoring guidelines is cheating regardless whether you score high or score low.

**dornsfist**

Not to belabor the point, but how am I chipmunking someone if I give them an 8 or 10, exactly? Or cheating? Or is your response intended for mauleed.

**skyth**

Mostly to Mauleed. But still, not following the scoring guidelines is cheating. If the scoring guidelines say a 10 is 'best game ever, I'd drive 1000 miles to play him again', then unless it was that sort of game then if you give someone a 10, you are cheating.

Personally, I almost always give mid-range scores unless there is something exceptional one way or another.

**skkipper**

I give low scores if i lose because if you beat me you probally cheated.

the uk has the only good sportsman ship I have seen.
be a jerk get a yellow card be a jerk twice get the hell out.

example
you ask judge for ruling. he makes one (right or wrong) you don't agree and lip off to him. you get yellow card. do it again you are gone.
any of the staff can give yellow cards for anything they find objectionable.

that being said a junky with all proxy army never was asked to leave and he was not a good sport

**Stu-Rat**

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 08/10/2007 7:14 AM
Stu-Rat, you're mistaken. Pg. 20: "Models engaged or locked in close combat block lime of sight through them up to the height of the participating models."

Yes, I should have said locked as well, apologies. Makes no difference though, as it is only the models that block line of sight. Thus he should have been able to fire through the gaps or overhead.

**don_mondo**

Re the removal of the Broodlord, I'm also going to disagree with you being able to do so. Page 26 is clear, one wound per model, no stacking. This can be superceded by the rule for multiple-wound models, but that rule requires "several multiple-wound models" to be in the affected unit before it comes into play. Only one multiple-wound model? Then you are not required nor allowed to make use of that rule. Yes, the defending player gets to choose casualties, but he cannot do so in contravention of the rules.
And it doesn't explicitly say you can't??? C'mon, what you fall back to is that if it doesn't say you can, then you cannot. The judge was wrong (we're human too).

**Centurian99**

[quoteYes, I should have said locked as well, apologies. Makes no difference though, as it is only the models that block line of sight. Thus he should have been able to fire through the gaps or overhead.

**don_mondo**

Page 26 is clear, one wound per model, no stacking. This can be superceded by the rule for multiple-wound models, but that rule requires "several multiple-wound models" to be in the affected unit before it comes into play. Only one multiple-wound model? Then you are not required nor allowed to make use of that rule. Yes, the defending player gets to choose casualties, but he cannot do so in contravention of the rules.
And it doesn't explicitly say you can't??? C'mon, what you fall back to is that if it doesn't say you can, then you cannot. The judge was wrong (we're human too).

Wrong. You're not reading the part where it says, "Assuming that the models in the unit have one wound each." As I said earlier, there could be a question of whether that statement applies to the "each affects a different model" statement...but if you say that it does, then the logical extension of that is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to kill off a squad that includes a single multi-wound model from a single unit's shooting.

And I'm most definitely not using the "rules don't say I can't" argument. What I'm saying is that there is a general rule (casualties are removed at the owning player's discretion) that is not superceded by any more specific rules, since the specific rules deal with squads comprised entirely of single-wound models, or squads that have multiple multi-wound models. A squad with a single multi-wound model is simply not addressed specifically in the rules, so it defaults to the general rule.

So far the closest I've seen as a logical argument against my position is Ed's, that the "assuming that the models in the unit have one wound each" does not apply to the "each will affect a different model - you cannot claim that all hits strike a single model" clause. But if you accept that argument, then the following situations occur:

Situation 1 - Squad of 4 Orks + nob take 20 wounds after saves. All regular boyz die, and the nob takes one wound, because each hit has to affect a different model.

Situation 2 - 1 Thousand Son + sorcerer take 3 plasma gun wounds. Thousand son remains standing, because each model can only be hit once.

So you're claiming that the line in the previous paragraph saying "Assuming that the models have one wound each, one model is removed for each wound inflicted." overrides the requirement for each wound to affecty a different model?
Ummmm, no. I don't buy it. I agree with Ed, the default rule applies unless something specifically overrides it, such as the Creatures with more than one wound paragraph.
As for your two examples, nope. Once a model is dead, as it is after it's been taken as a casualty, you cannot assign further wounds to it. This is pretty much spelled out on pages 26 and 27 under the example.
Bottom line, if someone had tried this at Games Day Baltimore where I was the head judge, I'd have ruled against them.

**Centurian99**

So you're claiming that the line in the previous paragraph saying "Assuming that the models have one wound each, one model is removed for each wound inflicted." overrides the requirement for each wound to affecty a different model?

Exactly.

I agree with Ed, the default rule applies unless something specifically overrides it, such as the Creatures with more than one wound paragraph.

I agree with that principle as well. But we disagree as to what the general rule is.

As for your two examples, nope. Once a model is dead, as it is after it's been taken as a casualty, you cannot assign further wounds to it. This is pretty much spelled out on pages 26 and 27 under the example.
Bottom line, if someone had tried this at Games Day Baltimore where I was the head judge, I'd have ruled against them.

I'd agree too. And the default is that the owning player assigns casualties.

You're missing my point, Mondo. The simple fact is this. If you try and argue that the "each hit must affect a different model" phrase is NOT part of the "Assuming that the unit consists entirely of one wound model" clause, then because there is no SPECIFIC exception for units with a single multi-wound model, it is impossible to wipe out such a unit with a single unit's shooting, because in order to do so, you MUST assign two wounds to a single model. Doing so would contradict the "each hit must affect a different model" rule.

Now, nobody plays, or tries to play it this way. But if you want to justify doing so by the rules, you have to conclude that the rule is invalid when it comes to a lone multi-wound model in a unit. If that's so, then you default to the only general rule: that the owning player assigns casualties at his/her discretion.

**don_mondo**

Posted By Centurian99 on 08/12/2007 9:07 PM

So you're claiming that the line in the previous paragraph saying "Assuming that the models have one wound each, one model is removed for each wound inflicted." overrides the requirement for each wound to affecty a different model?

Exactly.

I agree with Ed, the default rule applies unless something specifically overrides it, such as the Creatures with more than one wound paragraph.

I agree with that principle as well. But we disagree as to what the general rule is.

As for your two examples, nope. Once a model is dead, as it is after it's been taken as a casualty, you cannot assign further wounds to it. This is pretty much spelled out on pages 26 and 27 under the example.
Bottom line, if someone had tried this at Games Day Baltimore where I was the head judge, I'd have ruled against them.

I'd agree too. And the default is that the owning player assigns casualties.

You're missing my point, Mondo. The simple fact is this. If you try and argue that the "each hit must affect a different model" phrase is NOT part of the "Assuming that the unit consists entirely of one wound model" clause, then because there is no SPECIFIC exception for units with a single multi-wound model, it is impossible to wipe out such a unit with a single unit's shooting, because in order to do so, you MUST assign two wounds to a single model. Doing so would contradict the "each hit must affect a different model" rule.

Now, nobody plays, or tries to play it this way. But if you want to justify doing so by the rules, you have to conclude that the rule is invalid when it comes to a lone multi-wound model in a unit. If that's so, then you default to the only general rule: that the owning player assigns casualties at his/her discretion.

I agree that the owning player assigns casualties... within the framework of the existing rules. Those rules say that you cannot put a second wound on a model UNTIL every model in the unit has taken a wound. That takes care of your single multiple-wound model complaint.

**Centurian99**

I agree that the owning player assigns casualties... within the framework of the existing rules. Those rules say that you cannot put a second wound on a model UNTIL every model in the unit has taken a wound. That takes care of your single multiple-wound model complaint.

Please show me the rules where it says that.

**Green Bloater**

You know it is ashamed to see all this fussing when Bill's acheivement was so awesome. A judge was there and made a ruling... that is that.

One thing to note is that the head judge at LA was the same one at Chicago and at the beginning of the LA RTT he made a public announcement not to move any of the terrain.

- G

**mauleed**

Posted By skyth on 08/10/2007 3:21 PM

You have to turn it around also. Anything higher than an average game (6) would be chipmunking if unjustified, and should not be done.

In other words, giving out 0 or 10 only on sportsmanship is plain cheating.

So be it. It's not in conflict with my own personal ethics to ignore the sports score scale.

**Green Bloater**

If you think about it metagaming is restricted to localized regions.

- G

**Centurian99**

One thing to note is that the head judge at LA was the same one at Chicago and at the beginning of the LA RTT he made a public announcement not to move any of the terrain.

That's amusing, because the rules packet they put out says the exact opposite.

B

**Green Bloater**

My philosophy is to always ask ahead if there is a doubt. I know that some will go ahead and beg forgiveness later.

- G

**skyth**

Posted By mauleed on 08/13/2007 10:25 AM

Posted By skyth on 08/10/2007 3:21 PM

You have to turn it around also. Anything higher than an average game (6) would be chipmunking if unjustified, and should not be done.

In other words, giving out 0 or 10 only on sportsmanship is plain cheating.

So be it. It's not in conflict with my own personal ethics to ignore the sports score scale.

Cheating is never ethical.