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.

In the original pic, the tau guy has such a deuscthy smile on, that I find the whole thing ridiculous. Congrats, you found a baby seal and you clubbed the snot out of it. Then you took a pic and rubbed it in his face.
I for one would have liked it if he went outside and found someone had taken a piss on his car's door handles. Then posted a pic with that same smile.

So much for sportsmanship, if you'd rather win like that then actually play the game.

Have to agree there.

I've had this happen to me a grand total of once (before i'd seen the pic ) and considered it a dick move then.

I've also been quakeshunted out of a game in tournaments a few times, which i consider even dickier, as there was no way for me to deploy at all (rather than me making a tactical error aside from that of bringing Daemons to a tournament), granting an autowin regardless.

In a friendly game you can always say 'You win, congrats , can we play an actual game now? ' but in tournaments, with money on the line, you'll be sitting the round out as a 0 score, watching the other games.

Not to mention the w***er who wins tells everyone he tabled you on the very first player turn and every sees your score, and pisses themselves laughing

Luide wrote:In friendly game, it's pretty obvious that the "fair" way to go would have been for the White Scars player to just say: "Ok, I lost. Let's do another game." But in tournament, losing is losing.

Losing is losing... when both players are playing by the same rules. That's not what happened here.

The Kroot player forced the game into a situation that the rules didn't cover, and the judge awarded him a win for it. Would people be just as ok with the ruling if he had then walked over to the next table, tapped one guy on the shoulder and said 'Hey, new rule, you win. Oh, and you over there in the green shirt, there's a new rule that the guy in the green shirt automatically wins the tournament. Congratulations, thanks for coming everyone!'

If both players had been made aware before the game started that this was how the ruling would go, then it would have been the marine players own fault for winding up in that situation. But without a rule in place to cover the situation, 'fair' is not awarding the game to one player without a game being played.

copper.talos wrote:There is no loop hole. If you can't move within 1" of your opponent, then in this case you can't move at all.

And then what...?

The loophole is that the models coming from reserve must move on, but can't. Until GW clarified the situation, there was no clear way within the rules to resolve it. GW chose to go with 'models that can't move on are destroyed'. They could as easily have gone with 'must trumps may not, and so models can move on anyway so long as there is sufficient room between the blocking models.'

Just out of curiosity here. Lets say the Kroot player set up all his guys 7" away from the table edge and the WS player had all his guys come on the table, shoot the kroot, assault them and the Kroot player looses would you be applauding the WS player for this tactic or calling it a cheesy move because he used a legal tactic and beat the Kroot player.

I've never seen this as bad sportsmanship on the Kroot player rather it was idiocy on the WS player. IMO it was the right call at the time.

In the last DEX I ran a DE wych cult and played an IG player with 3 Basis once. He went first and on turn one made one Web Way Portal squad run off the table and pinned the other one who fled on turn 2 when they were shot again. Would you have required that game to be replayed if you were running the tourney and it happened or would you have said if was my fault for putting my Raiders in reserve? (note I said LAST DEX when Raiders could come out of a WWP)

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Just out of curiosity here. Lets say the Kroot player set up all his guys 7" away from the table edge and the WS player had all his guys come on the table, shoot the kroot, assault them and the Kroot player looses would you be applauding the WS player for this tactic or calling it a cheesy move because he used a legal tactic and beat the Kroot player.

Legal tactics are not the problem.

The problem is a player winning based on a non-existent rule that the judge made up on the spot.

Guess I just have issues with folks calling it a Dick move or cheesy when the army the Kroot player was facing had the capabilty to roll him with no problems.

All he had to do was start one single unit on the table and the Kroot would have been in for a bad day as they were facing a bike army.

insaniak, even without the FAQ, he would clearly win the game. The SM player couldn't move his units ever. So, even if the judge ruled that they just stay in reserves, the Tau player would win the moment the game ended.

The only thing the judge could have done was to allow the SM player to fight using units OFF the board, but that opens up all sorts of loopholes.



And, to people saying you would table your opponent first turn, that's false. You only destroy the units when they come on from reserve. As long as they stay in reserve, they're totally alive.

And, even if they all do get destroyed, you still don't win until the end of the final turn. Destroying your opponent's entire army doesn't immediately win the game for you. Having them be destroyed at the end of the game wins the game for you.

@insaniak What do you mean and then what? If the reserves can't move into the table then
1. you count them as destroyed, or
2. you let them stay in reserves and then when the game ends in turn 5-7, then count them as destroyed.

Anyway both the judge and GW made the logical decision. The only wrong decision was made by the WS player that didn't actually care to think how he would get his units on the table when the enemy has so many infiltrators

I don't feel bad what so ever for the WS player. There was a slim chance the kroot player was winning the match anyways. The WS player made a choice to reserve his army. Stupid move in the first place. The kroot player saw the weakness and exposed it. Written rule or not it was a hilarious move and worthy of the win just to see the dumb looks on everyone's face. +1 to that Tau player, sure it's a dick move but I don't care, that's priceless.

I find it interesting that it is being called a dick move on the assumption that the judge just turned to the Kroot player and said, "You win."

The judge could have just easily said,

"The rules do not allow you to move within 1" of an enemy model so your models will remain in reserve until they an opportunity arises that they can move on the board."

Which means units not on the board at the END of the game are considered destroyed, and the Kroot player wins based on a judges cal with an expedited turn process to end the game with the WS army off the baord.

To sit there and give the White Scars player a mulligan to start the game over penalizes the Kroot player with absolutely zero justification. Fine and dandy in friendly games, but not in a tournament.

Grakmar wrote:insaniak, even without the FAQ, he would clearly win the game. The SM player couldn't move his units ever. So, even if the judge ruled that they just stay in reserves, the Tau player would win the moment the game ended.

The marine player didn't have the option to not move his units. Hence the loophole. You're ina situation where you have to do something, but can't... and prior to the FAQ there was nothing that gave a 'correct' way to resolve that situation.

The only thing the judge could have done was to allow the SM player to fight using units OFF the board, but that opens up all sorts of loopholes.

Or, as I said, have decided that they had hit an unintentional loophole, and told them to start over.

And, to people saying you would table your opponent first turn, that's false. You only destroy the units when they come on from reserve. As long as they stay in reserve, they're totally alive.

Again, they don't have the option to stay in reserve.

copper.talos wrote:@insaniak What do you mean and then what? If the reserves can't move into the table then
1. you count them as destroyed, or
2. you let them stay in reserves and then when the game ends in turn 5-7, then count them as destroyed.

Find a rule in the rulebook that tells you to do either of those things.

That's the point. It's only since the FAQ came along that this situation was covered. At the time that picture was taken, there was no way within the rules to resolve the situation.

insaniak wrote:

Grakmar wrote:insaniak, even without the FAQ, he would clearly win the game. The SM player couldn't move his units ever. So, even if the judge ruled that they just stay in reserves, the Tau player would win the moment the game ended.

The marine player didn't have the option to not move his units. Hence the loophole. You're ina situation where you have to do something, but can't... and prior to the FAQ there was nothing that gave a 'correct' way to resolve that situation.

The only thing the judge could have done was to allow the SM player to fight using units OFF the board, but that opens up all sorts of loopholes.

Or, as I said, have decided that they had hit an unintentional loophole, and told them to start over.

And, to people saying you would table your opponent first turn, that's false. You only destroy the units when they come on from reserve. As long as they stay in reserve, they're totally alive.

Again, they don't have the option to stay in reserve.

copper.talos wrote:@insaniak What do you mean and then what? If the reserves can't move into the table then
1. you count them as destroyed, or
2. you let them stay in reserves and then when the game ends in turn 5-7, then count them as destroyed.

Find a rule in the rulebook that tells you to do either of those things.

That's the point. It's only since the FAQ came along that this situation was covered. At the time that picture was taken, there was no way within the rules to resolve the situation.

Which forced the judge to make a call that did not penalize the Kroot player and keeping with the integrity of the tournament. You can't just give the WS player a mulligan without forcing a penalty on the Kroot player (he did not break a rule) and keeping the integrity of the tournament ("oh that is the WS player got a free do over because he couldn't come in from reserve the whole game").

Brother Ramses wrote:Which forced the judge to make a call that did not penalize the Kroot player and keeping with the integrity of the tournament. You can't just give the WS player a mulligan without forcing a penalty on the Kroot player (he did not break a rule) and keeping the integrity of the tournament ("oh that is the WS player got a free do over because he couldn't come in from reserve the whole game").

So why is it ok to penalise the Marine player and not the Kroot player?

He's not getting a free do-over because he didn't move on for the whole game... The whole game doesn't happen because it's fallen into a black hole where one player has to do something but is unable to do so. He can't just keep everything in reserve... you have to move on as soon as a unit is available.

Reserves say that when the units arrive you place them right outside the table edge and then you move them as normal. Moving as normal within 1" of the enemy is forbidden. So the units stay out off the table. This happens in 2 occasions, when the units get destroyed or are in reserves, Take your pick...

Copper - no, you MUST move onto the table. You have no choice. You cannot move onto the table, you have no choice.

The game doesnt progress becasue you cannot move past this halting point. The game stalls.

insaniak wrote:

puma713 wrote:Sure, but the judge made the exact same decision that GW did. So, in that, wouldn't you say he made the perfect decision?

No. It would have been the right decision if it was in a published FAQ for the event before anybody put miniatures on the table.

Wait. .what? So, the judge didn't make the right decision until after a higher power confirmed it was the correct decision? That doesn't make any sense. Also, not only that, but everyone keeps talking about being fair, so it is more fair now that it is has been spelled out for people?

Cheexsta wrote:Gotta say that I agree with Insaniak. At the time, the rules simply didn't address the situation, so it would not have been fair to expect the White Scars player to know it could happen.

Of course, after the FAQ the player would have no excuse.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why is it more fair now than before? When you look at that picture, you know who else wasn't privy to the rules addressing the situation? The Tau player. He had just as much information as the White Scars player did. It's not like he pulled a fast one on the White Scars player because he had more rules information than he did. He didn't have an advanced version of the FAQ or something.

The White Scars player made a stupid move. The Tau player didn't find a "loophole" - if it was a loophole, then GW would've ruled against it - he played by the rules and the judge awarded him for it. Later, the judge was confirmed to be correct.

I completely disagree Insaniak. If the Tau player had an edge because he knew something the White Scars player didn't then sure, the ruling was unfair. But they both had the same rulebook. They had an equal opportunity to use/exploit this rule. No remorse. Next time, don't leave Khan at home or reserve your entire army when you see your opponent has 60 or so Infiltrators.

Edit: Makes me wonder - did the White Scars player just stand there with a dumb look on his face while his opponent was setting up that line of Kroot, not asking any questions, not wondering what was going on?

More then likely the WS player won the roll to pick sides and deploy first and told the Tau player he was going to Reserve everything and Outflank. Kroot player then set-up.

Brother Ramses wrote:More then likely the WS player won the roll to pick sides and deploy first and told the Tau player he was going to Reserve everything and Outflank. Kroot player then set-up.

Yes, I understand that. And then what? The White Scars player didn't stop him and say anything? The White Scars player sat there reading his Codex or something? He didn't think for a sec, Hm, maybe I should say something.

"Hey, would it be okay if I deployed one unit?"

I agree with puma. It's not like the Kroot appeared by magic. So the WS player got caught by a tactic he hadn't seen before. It sucked for him that it happened at a tournament, but you don't get to call a good move that catches you by surprise a dick move.

Edit: Of course my opinion is prejudiced because I haven't been playing that long so my playing experience still consists almost entirely of getting caught with my pants down by a good move.

kmdl1066 wrote:I agree with puma. It's not like the Kroot appeared by magic. So the WS player got caught by a tactic he hadn't seen before. It sucked for him that it happened at a tournament, but you don't get to call a good move that catches you by surprise a dick move.

But it was not a "Good Move" as there were no rules governing it at the time.

I agree with insaniak.

Deploying like that is a great way to not have a game.

This kind of situation cropped up many times prior to the FAQ. The way I always saw and heard about it being ruled was exactly this way. Blocking off a table edge wholly or in part has been in use for many years. Heck, it used to be darn near essential in 3rd for shooty armies to defend against Wolf Scouts, and then it saw a resurgence in popularity in 4th ed to defend against Snikrot.

In practice whenever I saw it happen the units got stopped and couldn't move on the table. If and when it actually stopped a whole army (which usually didn't happen until 5th, with voluntary Reserves, but used to happen with some regularity with old-rules-Webway Dark Eldar if you killed for portal bearer/s), it was common practice in tournaments to record the win then play a second game for pure fun.

racta wrote:In the original pic, the tau guy has such a deuscthy smile on, that I find the whole thing ridiculous. Congrats, you found a baby seal and you clubbed the snot out of it. Then you took a pic and rubbed it in his face.
I for one would have liked it if he went outside and found someone had taken a piss on his car's door handles. Then posted a pic with that same smile.

So much for sportsmanship, if you'd rather win like that then actually play the game.

Please bear in mind, that famous photo is staged. The situation actually did happen with those guys, and that judge (at the European Team Championships a couple of years ago), but they posed for that photo AFTER the decision had been rendered and someone decided to immortalize the occasion. The Tau player (from what I heard) is not a dick; he's mugging for the camera because they all agreed to make it a better photo. The opponent and judge were fine with it and posed with the rulebook.

DeathReaper wrote:

kmdl1066 wrote:I agree with puma. It's not like the Kroot appeared by magic. So the WS player got caught by a tactic he hadn't seen before. It sucked for him that it happened at a tournament, but you don't get to call a good move that catches you by surprise a dick move.

But it was not a "Good Move" as there were no rules governing it at the time.

I agree with insaniak.

Deploying like that is a great way to not have a game.

There is a matter of perception obviously.

You ass-end your walkers into contact with vehicles you're assaulting so that if the vehicle is destroyed or doesn't move your rear armor is protected. Many would consider that a dick move. I think it's awesomely smart even though I probably won't do it myself.

If I was the Marine player I'd probably hurt someone. That's such a dick move it's unbelievable.

puma713 wrote:Wait. .what? So, the judge didn't make the right decision until after a higher power confirmed it was the correct decision? That doesn't make any sense.

That's because it's not what I said.

It wasn't a good decision because it was ridiculously unfair to one player.

After the FAQ was published it wouldn't have been an issue. Both players could be expected to be aware that it was a potential issue, and would have been aware of how it would be ruled. But before that FAQ, unless they had discussed it prior to the game, there was no reasonable expectation for the marine player to expect that his opponent would force a situation that was not covered by the rules, and that the judge would subsequently hand the game to the kroot player on a platter.


If a judge rules that, say, Marines can fire 3 shots with their bolters if they stand still when you're in the middle of a game against a Marine player is that a good call? Does it become a good call retroactively if a new codex is released 3 weeks later that gives Marines that ability?

This is ultimately no different. The judge made up a rule that was drastically unfair to one player. The fact that GW subsequently ruled the same way doesn't make it any more fair at the time when it was pulled out of a hat with no prior warning.

Also, not only that, but everyone keeps talking about being fair, so it is more fair now that it is has been spelled out for people?

Yes. The key is that both players should be using the same rules from the start. If a hole is found in the rules mid game, finding an equitable solution is going to result in a better game for both players than just awarding the game to one of them for being clever enough to break the game.

if it was a loophole, then GW would've ruled against it -

It was a loophole because the rules didn't cover it. The way GW later choose to rule on it doesn't change that.

I completely disagree Insaniak. If the Tau player had an edge because he knew something the White Scars player didn't then sure, the ruling was unfair.

It doesn't matter whether the Tau player knew what he was doing. Handing the game to one player based on a rule that didn't exist when they game began is unfair no matter what the motivations of the players might be.

For the record, at no point have I suggested that the Tau player did anything dodgy. All he's guilty of is bringing the game to a grinding halt. The only person at fault here is the judge, for choosing to just hand him the game.

Next time, don't leave Khan at home or reserve your entire army when you see your opponent has 60 or so Infiltrators.

Next time it wouldn't be an issue, since the loophole has been closed...

Eh what has most of the last dozen or so posts have to do with the OP, the question is answered and you are fighting over a call in a game from years ago.

Just out of curiosity here. I ran a tourney right after the Necron DEX was released and ran into a situation where a Necron player wanted to conga line his scarabs. I ruled no that they had to be deployed in coherency with the scarabs that we're all ready on the table. That night the FAQ came out stating the same thing I ruled on. By your line of reasoning Insaniak II screwed over the Necron player as there was no FAQ out at the time.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Just out of curiosity here. I ran a tourney right after the Necron DEX was released and ran into a situation where a Necron player wanted to conga line his scarabs. I ruled no that they had to be deployed in coherency with the scarabs that we're all ready on the table. That night the FAQ came out stating the same thing I ruled on. By your line of reasoning Insaniak II screwed over the Necron player as there was no FAQ out at the time.

That's not my line of reasoning at all. I don't have a problem with judges making judgement calls on unclear rules. That's a very large part of their function. And there are quite a few shades between 'ruling against' and 'screwing over'...

The issue here was just one of degrees. Your ruling on the Scarabs isn't likely to have brought the game to a sudden screeching end, awarding the win to the other player. Ruling that the WS player's army was destroyed might have been the 'right' way to rule it, purely going by RAW and precedence from other rules on deployment... but it was the wrong call to make for a game already in progress, because it introduced a new rule that the players were not aware of when the SM player took actions that lost him the game solely because of that ruling.

If your ruling for the Necron player had instead been 'The moment you create a scarab swarm you lose the game' right after he had created a swarm, that would have been screwing the player over in a similar fashion to what happened here.


Again, the fact that the FAQ ruled the same way is largely irrelevant. It's the severity of the impact of a ruling made mid-game that is the sole bone of contention on this.

Yeah the better statement would be:

"Now the game can not be finished correctly. So please give me a correct game and start again from the very beginning."

Another call could be the choice 0:0 or start again, but if its at the ETC where we have a team fight and the game would have the same value as a draw, this call wouldnt be correct as well.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Yeah the better statement would be:

"Now the game can not be finished correctly. So please give me a correct game and start again from the very beginning."

To me, this is just as unfair as calling the game for the Tau player. And what if they started over and the White Scars player beat him, then the FAQ was released - who is being treated unfairly then?

That's like saying, "Oh, you screwed up your deployment that would most probably give your opponent the game? Oh, well - DO OVER!"

There are no "do overs". The player got caught with his pants down, the judge made the right call (completely enforced by Games Workshop) and the White Scars player was a good enough sport to have a mock photo taken afterwards. Not only that, but the White Scars player learned something from the experience and the cunning Tau player advanced in the tournament.

It is my opinion that this entire situation played out exactly as it should have.