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.

Did you let them know you had the Assassin's and their ability? Or did you just 'spring' it on them in the last turn?

If they were aware of the problem, and didn't attempt to counter it, then they're being TFG

If they didn't know what they were facing, and you didn't explain it to them, or if you hid your models and surprised them, you're being TFG

mikhaila wrote:And, their opponents were either ignorant of the rules, or not paying attention. Having 1 model within 1" from the tunnel blocks it off. Who the hell is playing Apoc and leaving nothing on the objectives? Holding objectives is how you win the game.

I can easily see why it might not happen on a board. For one thing, holding objectives usually means you commit a large portion of your troops to doing nothing for the first 1-2 turns, which in Apocalypse can take anywhere up to three hours. It also entails standing on giant bullseye for any bombardment assets the opponents might have, which makes it even more boring to do, so aggressive deployment is very common. Nobody wants to stand around, then scoop up their models by the dozen when Scheduled Bombardment comes.

Sometimes I feel like TFG because I roll incredibly, insanely well...consistently.

For example: my Tyranids vs. new space wolf book last week. 5 Devourer Warrirors shot 20 times at 3 Wolf Rider guys. 17 hits, 14 wounds. it's pretty much always like that too.

Cane wrote:As legitimate as it may be, its still a dick move although how your opponents reacted is more dick-ish. However were you acting in any way where you come off across as a d-bag, smug, or any other negative quality other than your strategy? That bit about allowing to continue the game for another turn could've been also taken as an insult depending on how you addressed it; for some people that act alone after your tactic would seem insulting. Large games generally take a while to play so that might also have something to do with it and the fact that they're young.

But yea that tactic was a dick move to pull at the end of the game even though its legitimate and strategically smart --- like camping in a respawn room on a first person shooter...sure the game rules let you do it but you're going to get your ass banned if you keep using such tactics.

How can you possibly see the tactic as such? All the defending player needed to do was to have something guarding the objective. If you're not guarding an objective, you deserve to lose it, no matter what game you are playing. Its like leaving your King in the open, undefended, and getting pissy when your opponent easily checkmates you.

blue loki wrote:All the defending player needed to do was to have something guarding the objective.

They actually don't even need to do this against that move, they simply need to not leave 24"+ gaps anywhere on the table, something quite easy to achieve in Apocalypse.

Ha! I love this move. Totally stealing it.

The move is legal, so it can't be a TFG move.
So when my Legendary Formation for my Deathwing says to hold back 8 squads of termies and a Chaplin/Librarian, and then deep strike them all at once, and claim an exrta capture point without telling ANYONE (even my team mates), that makes me a TFG?
Secrecy is all part of the game, just as much as tactics and dice rolling. If they didn't notice the Assassins in your reserve area, or remember when you declared your reserves that you had assassins in reserve, that's their fault.

And in terms of age difference, that should not matter when it comes down to the game. Going easy on someone because they are a kid is not only hurting their learning process, but down right disrespectful. The only thing that matters is that you help them as much as possible to learn what they did wrong and what you did right, as opposed to gloating about beating the kid.

yeah,

Armies and records
3000 pts W:15 L:2 T:3
7000 pts W:342 L: 224 T: 121
15000 pts W:626 L: 234 T: 18
3000 pts W:132 L: 62 T: 9
25000 points of imperial might 5th ed record 207w 57l 33

this is a total record of
Win 1322 (63.4%)
Loss 579 (27.7%)
Draw 184 (8.8%)
Thats Awesome!!! you da man, I just wish I could win that many games.

I like seeing win results recorded, I did it my self, but lost count at about 30...
The fact you've recorded this many results shows results mean alot to you... probabily too much, to the extent of pulling tricks like this. I think they should have played the rest of the game and then made clear that they were unhappy, because they believed they lost to a Dick move that ruined their enjoyment of the game.

I have a good idea how you thought it was a good idea, I can also see how they thought you'd wasted their time with a secret last minute grab (using a datasheet special rule?) for the win. It was a Dick move IMO...

Panic...

Mekboy wrote:

daedalus wrote:Having all this been said, you're playing children. Did you expect them to react in any other way?

Well, I'm 14 and as I said in my previous post, I wouldn't mind. What the OP was doing was perfectly valid and legal, and a clever way of using that strategem. Sweeping generalisations are all well and good until you realise we're not all like that.

My apologies; I meant no offense. Judging from the quality of your posts (and the fact that you actually bother with such "trivial" things as punctuation and grammar), I'm guessing you're a cut far above the norm. I suppose I do not know the parties involved, however, if I found myself in the same situation, I would be considering who I am dealing with and frankly, not be surprised.

*EDIT* I just noticed the 's' in generalisations. Checked and saw the UK flag. I think that explains it.

ArbitorIan wrote:Did you let them know you had the Assassin's and their ability? Or did you just 'spring' it on them in the last turn?

If they were aware of the problem, and didn't attempt to counter it, then they're being TFG

If they didn't know what they were facing, and you didn't explain it to them, or if you hid your models and surprised them, you're being TFG

Yes I let them know I had that move as well as Flank march, they chose to pour more units into the meat grinder instead of defending 2 objectives.

The assassins were litteraly sitting ontop of a bastion which at the time had a fair number of troops around it, but not so much that I didnt have a 12" corridor to get an assassin (the formation counts as 6 seprate units each with flank march and stratigic redeploy) through. There was about a 26" hole in their lines from some baneblade and stormlord full of marines shooting into a unit of boyz and wipeing it out.

They knew the assassins were there after they wiped out 6 termies on the second (gotta love sheild breaker round on an ap 2 sniper rifle) and had made it a point to shake the bunker they were in on the first turn.

My teams offer to play out the next turn was polite and my decision to do the redeploy when I did was to give the other side a turn to counter the move. and probly would have resulted in a win for their side if they had gone through with it.

They could have easily killed all 4 assassins holding the objectives with the stompas supa gattla. and my other 2 assassins contesting the objective on my side of the table with the 10 mega nobs and ghazkull which were well within charge range. leaving us a turn to get across the table and/or kill the 10 meka nobs and ghazkull on the objective on our side.

only reason im asking the is this a TFG move is I plan on droping this formation again and using the tactic if the opertunity arises a second time. and perhaps adding another formation of flank marching eversor assassins.

Yeah,
Your first post

ManwithIronHands wrote:We would sit and defend the objectives in our deployment zone, and on the last turn I would use my officio assassinorium exicution force's strategic redployment to grab the undefended objectives in hte oposing deployment zone. on what we beleived to be the last turn I exicuted my redeployment...

conflicts with your last...

ManwithIronHands wrote:My teams offer to play out the next turn was polite and my decision to do the redeploy when I did was to give the other side a turn to counter the move...

First you knew you were playing a dick move!
Now your saying you wanted to give them a chance? that was mighty nice of you.

Panic...

@OP: Good one, and well-deserved win!

I'm still confused that the other side left a 24" corridor, along with a 24" bubble around the objective that allowed you to strategically redeploy there. that's not just sloppy, that's terrible game play on the other side.

Assuming you were actually legal in your move and in allowing assassins to capture objectives, then it was a good move. Looking at the lists, I'm guessing what happened was they spend the game pounding your lines, got decimated, but felt they were doing ok because you weren't taking the objective. After the assassins came in, they just gave up because they were getting beat up too bad.

Polonius wrote:Looking at the lists, I'm guessing what happened was they spend the game pounding your lines, got decimated, but felt they were doing ok because you weren't taking the objective. After the assassins came in, they just gave up because they were getting beat up too bad.

Basicly thats what happened.

Panic wrote:Yeah,
Your first post

ManwithIronHands wrote:
We would sit and defend the objectives in our deployment zone, and on the last turn I would use my officio assassinorium exicution force's strategic redployment to grab the undefended objectives in hte oposing deployment zone. on what we beleived to be the last turn I exicuted my redeployment...

conflicts with your last...

ManwithIronHands wrote:
My teams offer to play out the next turn was polite and my decision to do the redeploy when I did was to give the other side a turn to counter the move...


First you knew you were playing a dick move!
Now your saying you wanted to give them a chance? that was mighty nice of you.

Panic...

Planed plan vs exicuted plan. Plans never stay the same after turn 1 and change mid game. I saw how bad they were getting hit, and decided to give them a chance to play to at worst a draw. They decided to forfit.

yeah,
pesky kids...
Panic.

While you saw the board and we didn't, if they had no units within 12" of your assassins, they're trying to shoot up a bunch of assassins that can go to ground without fear. I'm not saying they shouldn't have tried, but I'm guessing the odds weren't in their favor.

Ill try and make some pics when I get home. but it was the Rolling thunder lucky 13th campaign mission and the board we had was quite similar to the pic they had there for the terrain setup.

Cane wrote:As legitimate as it may be, its still a dick move although how your opponents reacted is more dick-ish. However were you acting in any way where you come off across as a d-bag, smug, or any other negative quality other than your strategy? That bit about allowing to continue the game for another turn could've been also taken as an insult depending on how you addressed it; for some people that act alone after your tactic would seem insulting. Large games generally take a while to play so that might also have something to do with it and the fact that they're young.

But yea that tactic was a dick move to pull at the end of the game even though its legitimate and strategically smart --- like camping in a respawn room on a first person shooter...sure the game rules let you do it but you're going to get your ass banned if you keep using such tactics.

I disagree.

FPS games don't have rules, they have programmed physical limitations, which include the ability to camp the spawn points.

The convention that spawn camping is lame has grown up socially from the realisation that it selfishly spoils the fun of the other players, who have no way to defend against it.

The use of a legitimate and common ruse of war, which is easily defended against by a half-competent player, is a completely different thing. There is no social convention among wargamers against it. The other side were just bad losers.

ManwithIronHands wrote:About the assassins being able to hold objectives I was wrong about but the game organiser stated that only infantry and calvary can capture objectives which assasins are. due to this they had a special dispensation to be able to hold those objectives.

I have to question this "special dispensation" on the part of the game organizer. It sounds like it was designed to allow your 11th hour surprise. I will again point out that the Codexes your assassins come out of specifically prohibit them from claiming objectives.

@KK: Isn't that why players respawn at random locations and are invulnerable for some time after they spawn?
____

@GG: Apoc isn't regular 40k, and the game organizer made a ruling, so that's how it goes.

The Green Git wrote:

ManwithIronHands wrote:About the assassins being able to hold objectives I was wrong about but the game organiser stated that only infantry and calvary can capture objectives which assasins are. due to this they had a special dispensation to be able to hold those objectives.

I have to question this "special dispensation" on the part of the game organizer. It sounds like it was designed to allow your 11th hour surprise. I will again point out that the Codexes your assassins come out of specifically prohibit them from claiming objectives.

This is not uncommon for Apoc. The couple games I've played in were the same way. Also, I don't know how far he redeployed, but it's no worse in my mind that a bunch of jetbikes going flat out across the table to barely grab an objective last round, which is, also in my mind, a completely acceptable strategy. Sheesh, its in the rules set for that game. Next thing you know, people will be angry because you're attacking them. "All my army wanted to do was play in the roses and give hugs and you shot them up!"

Sounds like to me that your tactic did exactly what it should have done: Scare the crap out of your opponent.

And they were pissed at themselves for folding so easily.

Just little boys playing a big boys game.

yeah,
It's the not the same thing, Jetbikes are a valid objective claiming unit. Assassins via their own rules can never claim objectives... the same goes for nurglings etc...

Panic...

Nurglings are Swarms, not Infantry or Cavalry.

Assassins are Infantry.

RxGhost wrote:Sometimes I feel like TFG because I roll incredibly, insanely well...consistently.

For example: my Tyranids vs. new space wolf book last week. 5 Devourer Warrirors shot 20 times at 3 Wolf Rider guys. 17 hits, 14 wounds. it's pretty much always like that too.

Come to Vegas with me! We'll split the craps winnings!

JohnHwangDD wrote:@KK: Isn't that why players respawn at random locations and are invulnerable for some time after they spawn?
____

@GG: Apoc isn't regular 40k, and the game organizer made a ruling, so that's how it goes.

Different games have various mechanisms.

Cane's basic point is correct. There is a social convention among FPS players that spawn camping is bad sportsmanship. Even then there are exceptions -- in Team Fortress 2, invading the enemy's base to set up a sentry gun outside his locker room door is accepted play. It is a team game, and offers various counter-tactics.

There isn't a social convention among tabletop players that flank marches, ambushes or the use of paratroops, for instance, is bad sportsmanship. It is considered a proper part of the game.

ManwithIronHands wrote:Im 21, it was 5v5 i had 4 other 13-16 yr olds on my team nad there was at least 1 20+ on the other team. I'm jsut the only person htere with any fraction of leadership and tactical forethought, like first turn I had a heriophaunt rampaging through my line, charged it with my GK GM and managed to wound and kill it with his force weapon on the first turn to big fits of force weapons can only deal d3 wounds to it.

Emporers Faithful wrote:On a related note, one of my friends in an Apoc match used the sewer tunnels strategy. He told us that he was using it, and we could see where they were (or so we thought). In the last turn, he shows us that one of the markers is in fact inside and intact building (which we agreed models could go into) and was conveniantly placed right next to the objective. He proceeded to rush out with his vets and claim it...winning the game. Tell me, was he being TFG becuase we had NO idea that there was a marker UNDER the freaking building.

If he didnt point out the marker under the building at the start, and it wasnt clearly visible I'd call it a TFG move but if you didn't ask or watch him place his markers or forgot the one that was out of sight, then its probly your own fault.

He told us he was using the strategy (but we were out of the rooms before he placed them). He said that the green markers were the entry points. He didn't point out where, but we could see pretty much all of them. (except that one).

As it is, I think that you played a completely legal move, in a legal game. If they had someone on thier side that was the same age as you then they really can't blame you for winning. (After all, someone had to)

What exactly is the rule for redeploying the assassin? The only one I am currently aware of is Whisper in your Ear for the Callidus.

If you made your opponents aware that you could redeploy these units prior to the start of the game then they obviously should have taken steps to prevent this from happening. You said you did so I'll take your word for it. On the other hand if you didn't then I can understand that they might be unhappy.... You spend all that time playing the game then lose due to what they considered to be a cheap trick; I can see how that would make the other side view the game as rather pointless and a waste of their time.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nurglings are Swarms, not Infantry or Cavalry.

Assassins are Infantry.

Unless I'm mistaken, Swarms is not a unit type, merely a special rule for some units. So, Nurglings are swarms and infantry.

Based off what Manwithironhands said (that the organizer said that infantry was scoring) I see no reason why the Vindicaires rule that they don't score would no longer be in effect. If the organizer didn't make that clear before the game, I would definitely have a sour taste in my mouth if at the end of the game the other team was like "Surprise, the organizer changed the rules and we win!" According to Manwithironhands, they were playing ROLLING THUNDER (since GW apparently caught on that caps lock is cruise control for cool), but I don't see anything in the ROLLING THUNDER brief about non-scoring units magically scoring (course, it also says that you give Strategems as normal, so maybe this was a case of organizer gone mad with power).

Cane wrote:But yea that tactic was a dick move to pull at the end of the game even though its legitimate and strategically smart --- like camping in a respawn room on a first person shooter...sure the game rules let you do it but you're going to get your ass banned if you keep using such tactics.

Here, I'll summarize what you're trying to say.

That tactic was a dick move because it was a good idea and it won you the game. You won. THAT'S A DICK MOVE BUDDY. If you keep using tactics in a tactical game like that and you'll be certain to get your ass banned. I'll make sure of it, trust me. I remember when my FLGS had a guy who used TH/SS Termies in his Salamanders army. We made sure he never came back. Serves you right for using a fluff army that can be competitive. That's a pretty dick move if you ask me.