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.

Hi Guys,

Last night I was involved in a small tournament. A situation I would call "unfair" arose during one of my games.

I was playing with my Black Templars against Eldar. During the game I popped smoke on one of my Rhinos. Now in the BT Codex the smoke launcher entry says "hits downgraded to glancing hits only". I know that this rule is outdated, so when my opponent shot at my Rhino, after some debate I conceeded that the best I would get was a 4+ cover save, but this was mostly due to the insistance of the TO that he was correct.

Later in the game (at a very crucial point), my LRC dumped assault terminators after a 12 inch move, ready to assault an Avatar/Striking scorpions. My opponent complained that I was forbidden from doing this in my Codex. Now while RAW he was correct, I objected to this on the grounds that I had to suffer the "downgraded" smoke launchers earlier in the game, and that if we were playing "modernized rules", terminators CAN assault out of a cruising speed LRC. Again, the TO sided with my opponent, and I was disqualified for trying to make an "illegal manouvre.

Now RAW I can see I was 50% wrong in this scenario, but I find it unfair that there was large inconsistency going on here. What would have been a fair way to resolve this situation? Id be keen to see the opinions of fellow Dakkaites on this one!

It's an inconsistency but that inconsistency is generated by the rules themselves. In your situation, I would have clarified with the TO before the tournament how to play outdated rules; either as per codex entry or as per new rules. But yes, you are correct in that since you had already substituted new rules for the outdated codex entry for smoke, one would have expected your opponent to honour that trend for other entries.

It is a simply a case of your opponent wanting to pick and choose rules depending on how they benefit him and that is unfair whichever way you look at it.

Maybe time to use your BT as vanilla marines until such time as a new BT codex arrives?

Suck it up. you don't get it with an old codex.

as for the cruising speed thingo
If you DMB'd in the assault phase, illegal. if you DMB'd in the movement phase, legal.

HOWEVER:

Your codex doesn't give you this rule. there is a difference between C:SM And C:T

You have to use the rules as they are printed in their codex. If you think there will be a problem talk to the TO before hand about it. It may have been a bit heavy handed to disqualify you, but you were in the wrong.

So in the meantime it's acceptable for me to not have my better smoke launchers?

Unless explicitly stated otherwise in an official GW errata or FAQ, the codex always supercedes the core rulebook, and you can't swap one codex for another mid-game.

So BT smoke launchers downgrade to glancing hits, BT Terminators cannot assault from a cruising Land Raider, Inquisitorial Stormtroopers still have Hellguns, and CSM Terminators can assault after firing heavy weapons but do NOT have Relentless.

Unbalanced? Maybe. But that's how it works.

So in the first instance, he was wrong. In the second, you were wrong.

As the poster above me suggested, if you really want an upgrade to V5 rules, use the vanilla Marine codex until BT gets theirs updated.

I do agree that there are no rules in the BT codex which allow my Terminators to assault out of a LRC once it has moved past cruising speed.

HOWEVER, the point to this thread was to ascertain if I was wrong to do so after having a 5th Ed rule forced on my army.

They shouldn't have allowed the first one, but it was still wrong to try to claim a second breach of your codex's rules.

Well the TO was "wrong", as it even states in the smoke launchers rule in the BRB that the codex rule, if different, supercedes the BRB.

However as the TO they can decide anything at all, however I would suggest showing them the BRB rule next time.

AS for your last point - if memory serves BT land raiders lack the "assault vehicle" rule, which allows you to assault after disembarking from a moving, non open topped vehicle. This means that no, strictly, you cannot assault after moving your LR at all, including -pivoting. This is a hang over from when the land raiders exemption was written in the BRB

That's the frustrating thing - I know two "wrongs" don't make a right, but I felt I was entitled to make that move considering my opponent was so insistent on having my smoke launchers operate via 5th ed rules.

Regarding smoke launchers, you always use the rule in your codex, so you were actually right. The rulebook even specifically states this at the bottom of p62.

BT Land Raiders have an "Assault Ramp" special rule which actually does nothing, as it was present in the 4th edition rulebook but not the 5th edition one. So, just like the references to Target Priority tests in the Tau Codex and Sustained Assault for Daemonhunters (amongst other things), the rule technically does nothing. By RAW, your opponents were right.

Seems a bit harsh to disqualify you for trying it, though, but we don't know the whole story...

@Cheexsta - I was disqualified because this was my "second" attempt at a rule breach in the same game - as per the rules of that particular tournament that was it - two strikes and you're out.

I'd go back and ask for my money back, then, as the TO was simply wrong in his rules reading. But then, most tournaments do have the proviso that the TO has the final say in all matters, so it probably won't work...

Well that's the key, isn't it? It wasn't your second attempt at a rule breach - it was your first. The first one was actually a rule breach on the part of the other player. The TO can't technically break the rules, as the TO essentially makes the rules, but in this case, the TO was going against RAW.

don't let it get you down - as soon as your the one breaking the law, you get it to the ninth degree.

was it the same opponent in both cases? if an opponent ever asks you again to "modernize" the rules in his favor (like in the smoke launcher case), say "sure, as long as the rest of my stuff is modernized for this game too." then proceed to list the stuff like 3+ storm shields, assault vehicle land raiders, drop pod rules with drop pod assault rules, etc. that should get them to stop asking.

liam0404 wrote:That's the frustrating thing - I know two "wrongs" don't make a right, but I felt I was entitled to make that move considering my opponent was so insistent on having my smoke launchers operate via 5th ed rules.

Here's your problem right here- you feel *entitled* to something because you got a bad ruling. Not how it works- sometimes you get a bad break. You still have to follow the rules, not try to balance it out by bending them because you don't feel it's "fair".

Disagree with the TO twice and get DQ'd?
And the TO's rulings are unreliable?

Sounds like lots of fun.

jmurph wrote:

liam0404 wrote:That's the frustrating thing - I know two "wrongs" don't make a right, but I felt I was entitled to make that move considering my opponent was so insistent on having my smoke launchers operate via 5th ed rules.

Here's your problem right here- you feel *entitled* to something because you got a bad ruling. Not how it works- sometimes you get a bad break. You still have to follow the rules, not try to balance it out by bending them because you don't feel it's "fair".

But the 5th edition smoke launchers was a breaking of the rules in opponents favor. As stated before, Codex Rules supersede BRB.

Black Templar Codex says that Smoke Launchers make any hits glancing.

Then, when it seemed like they were following 5th edition rules for anything that would be different, the opponent threw a hissy fit when Liam assumed (Wrongfully, but he still had a good point) that they would be going all 5th edition, which would give him a benefit with his LR. Looks like the TO was biased in this situation. TO altering rules like this, he might as well just say "Oh yeah and the Eldar weapons are S 10 AP 1 10 shot range 72 for this Tournament. Deal with it." If the TO can go against RAW, when does it stop?

The only thing for it is to announce the TO name and say 'this guy is crap, dont go to his tournaments.'

Was he mates with your opponent by any chance?

wow, i didn't catch that you were DQed for this. the whole point of calling a TO over is to resolve a rules issue. unless you were belligerent/rude/loud/an ass while disagreeing with the ruling, you shouldn't be disqualified if after it was clear that the TO decided you stopped arguing. were you/did you?

If there were sponsers of the event (I think GW provides prize support) I'd email the sponsors and complain to them. The TO was wrong on the first account and, as I see it, should have allowed you to assault from the land raider because he had modernised the rules.

I know you only have my word to go on, but I honestly did not kick off. The TO essentially came up to the table when my oppinent asked him to. I explained what I was doing, and he just said that it was my second strike and thus I forfeit the match.

The tournament was at my local gaming club, but the top prize was £300 GW vouchers, so I wanted to win. I honestly don't know the name of the TO, but id recognise him.

If the TO can go against RAW, when does it stop?

Whilst the TO in this instance appears to be in the wrong, all TOs break RaW. I'm yet to even hear of a TO that has forced everyone to start their entire armies in reserve for instance...

Though I'm with jmurph on this. The first ruling whilst harsh and incorrect didn't entitle you to switch to the new rules or mean you were entitled to breakk the rules in your favour later in the game. If you felt it did you should have clarified at that point.

Black Templars CAN assault from their LRCs, since the German errata (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2530040_Errata_Codex-Black_Templars.pdf) says so and specifically mentions that it applies for the English codex. Yes, it's stretching it a bit, but it's RAW...

I can't believe the OP isn't getting any sympathy on this one. It's a little messed up that the TO can walk up to your table and Nerf you army. I feel for you man. But no use crying over spilled milk.

Make sure to clarify the details w/ the TO next time and best of luck to you in future tournaments.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Black Templars CAN assault from their LRCs, since the German errata (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2530040_Errata_Codex-Black_Templars.pdf) says so and specifically mentions that it applies for the English codex. Yes, it's stretching it a bit, but it's RAW...

I don't see anyone in the US or the UK being expected to have read the German errata. The English errata do not say anything of the sort. This is GW at fault on this one - they should have issued the same errata in English, but for whatever reason, did not.

Personally I work from the English FAQs and errata. If it's not in there, how can I be expected to know it? Does GW want me to keep copies of every single errata in every single language? I think not.

Thaylen wrote:I can't believe the OP isn't getting any sympathy on this one. It's a little messed up that the TO can walk up to your table and Nerf you army. I feel for you man. But no use crying over spilled milk.

Make sure to clarify the details w/ the TO next time and best of luck to you in future tournaments.

YMDC is no place for sympathy, that's what Discussion is there for.

OP wanted a literal interpretation of the RAW, and that's what we gave him.

SaintHazard wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Black Templars CAN assault from their LRCs, since the German errata (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2530040_Errata_Codex-Black_Templars.pdf) says so and specifically mentions that it applies for the English codex. Yes, it's stretching it a bit, but it's RAW...

I don't see anyone in the US or the UK being expected to have read the German errata. The English errata do not say anything of the sort. This is GW at fault on this one - they should have issued the same errata in English, but for whatever reason, did not.

Personally I work from the English FAQs and errata. If it's not in there, how can I be expected to know it? Does GW want me to keep copies of every single errata in every single language? I think not.

Yes, it's GW who's at a fault. RAW, however, Templars CAN assault out of their land raider and land raider crusaders. Anything else is blatantly ignoring RAW.

Any chance of a translation of that line in the German errata?

Pika_power wrote:Any chance of a translation of that line in the German errata?

"Modelle, die das Fahrzeug durch irgendeine seiner Zugangsluken verlassen, duerfen im Speilzeug des Aussteigens noch angriefen."

Apologies if I get this wrong, my German is a tad rusty, but:

"Models that disembark by any of the vehicle(referencing the Land Raider)'s access points may in the game turn they disembark also assault."

Did I miss anything?