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.

Gwar! wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Do your Devilfishes come supplied with that stand?

The flying stand is not part of the Base

Very true.

I find it hugely ironic that Option 1 and Option 3 are the exact same thing

Gwar! wrote:I find it hugely ironic that Option 1 and Option 3 are the exact same thing

Shhhhh... you don't want to disturb them...

This whole thread is LOL.

I know how I am going to play it at tourneys... As Written.

Demogerg wrote:This whole thread is LOL.

I know how I am going to play it at tourneys... As Written.

Are you going to say that beforehand or just surprise your opponent? If discussed beforehand what if your opponent Says play it as if 2in off the ground. If a surprise or no agreement are you prepared to get a 0 in sportsmanship?

I still don't understand how playing by the rules = 0 In sportsmanship

Demogerg wrote:This whole thread is LOL.

I know how I am going to play it at tourneys... As Written.

At tournaments, I'll play as the Tourney Organiser interprets.
Hopefully they will publish a FAQ before the event, so there are no surprises half-way through a game.

1. Playing by your interpretation of the rules GWAR.
2. I'd bet good money your average IG player is not going to have a clue what the argument is, because they have not been proven to 15 page plus discussions on it. You pop this to such a player then A. the TO wil likely rule its a skimmer and play in similar manner to every other skim height etc. B. You will now be marked as TFG, trying to take advantage of a loop hole to hammer your opponent.

Again, I don't have any Valks. I don't currently play guard. While I disagree with the reasoning on this issue I can see the argument and also and easy way to address prior to the game.

But having said all that, I can see how this would go down with extreme clarity. You might as well brand stick a flashing TFG guy on your forehead unless you are amenable to agreement before the game starts.


Edit, as a TO I'd say play it an agreed upon height. the IG player wanted to play it at 2in I'd agree to that. If you objected you would be shunned as TFG.

Frazzled wrote:
Are you going to say that beforehand or just surprise your opponent? If discussed beforehand what if your opponent Says play it as if 2in off the ground. If a surprise or no agreement are you prepared to get a 0 in sportsmanship?

Playing by the rules should never be a surprise, especially at a tournament. If someone gives a 0 in sportsmanship for insisting on playing the rules as they are written then they are abusing the system and should probably be brought to the attention of the TO, just like any other cheater.

I can say that in the only tournament i have played so far, a small local tourney, the TO looked at me like I was crazy as did all of my opponents that I felt this even needed to be discussed.

Thier response.

Of course you can deploy, just use the base if there is any question. And they all had said that anyone who would try to argue for playing it that you could not would have been looked at as TFG in the extreme.

This is really one of those things were its painfully clear how it should be played by the designers intent. I do agree that the rules can be interpreted that you can not, but that is an interpretation that can be argued against reasonably. With that and the very clear intent that they shoudl be able to be used at regular transports ( and no that does not mean only being able to deploy on raised terrain) I do not think this will come up in anything but very isolated tourneys run by TOs who has some kind of problem with IG or the Valk model.

Danny Internets wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Are you going to say that beforehand or just surprise your opponent? If discussed beforehand what if your opponent Says play it as if 2in off the ground. If a surprise or no agreement are you prepared to get a 0 in sportsmanship?

Playing by the rules should never be a surprise, especially at a tournament. If someone gives a 0 in sportsmanship for insisting on playing the rules as they are written then they are abusing the system and should probably be brought to the attention of the TO, just like any other cheater.

See, here's where the screaming starts. I am sure if you pulled this out of your butt at a tournament the TO would be extremely aware quickly. I think the first "You're full of !" would probably alert the rest of tournament players to your maneuver.

And they can indeed give you a "0." Its not cheating. Its sportsmanship and they would be viewing you as a poor sport.

Danny Internets wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Are you going to say that beforehand or just surprise your opponent? If discussed beforehand what if your opponent Says play it as if 2in off the ground. If a surprise or no agreement are you prepared to get a 0 in sportsmanship?

Playing by the rules should never be a surprise, especially at a tournament. If someone gives a 0 in sportsmanship for insisting on playing the rules as they are written then they are abusing the system and should probably be brought to the attention of the TO, just like any other cheater.

This makes me laugh. This isn't exactly a core rule that's being exploited for unfair play by an IG player. Odds are, he simply never though about it, and would quite fairly be totally surprised if half way through a game was told he can't deploy from his transport. Like it or not, it is unsportsmanlike to sandbag that sort of rules argument. Sportsmanship isn't the following of rules (that much is assumed), but rather gentelmanly and honourable play that shows respect for the opponent. Given that it seems that there is a small but vocal minority here that seems to be 100% certain that the Valks are played one way, while most people are very much unsure, I would expect this to be a matter of confusion.

Now, if a player knocks another down after there is a pre-game discussion in which the TO rules on the issue against the IG player, that's a big more petty, as at least the IG player can utilize his army in another way. IN a few months, when tournies figure out house rules for the thing, there will be less of a surprise factor.

If nothing else, part of sportsmanship is the elusive "would you want to play against this person again." If a player tried to invalidate my valks in a tourny, then no, I would not want to play them again, because the RAI is clear, and if and when a FAQ comes out it will allow deployment/disembarking.

Exactly.
EDIT: Now if Gwar started prior to the game and said "little Jimmy, please quit making pew pew noises and concentrate for a minute. There's an LOS height issue with Valks (explains potential issue). how do you want to handle it?"

If I were little Jimmy not only would we come to a quick agreement but I'd score you HIGHER on sportsmanship as a result for having the foresight to deal with issues and not try to spring them on me. Then I would go back to making pew pew noises.

Polonius wrote:

This makes me laugh. This isn't exactly a core rule that's being exploited for unfair play by an IG player. Odds are, he simply never though about it, and would quite fairly be totally surprised if half way through a game was told he can't deploy from his transport. Like it or not, it is unsportsmanlike to sandbag that sort of rules argument. Sportsmanship isn't the following of rules (that much is assumed), but rather gentelmanly and honourable play that shows respect for the opponent. Given that it seems that there is a small but vocal minority here that seems to be 100% certain that the Valks are played one way, while most people are very much unsure, I would expect this to be a matter of confusion.

Now, if a player knocks another down after there is a pre-game discussion in which the TO rules on the issue against the IG player, that's a big more petty, as at least the IG player can utilize his army in another way. IN a few months, when tournies figure out house rules for the thing, there will be less of a surprise factor.

If nothing else, part of sportsmanship is the elusive "would you want to play against this person again." If a player tried to invalidate my valks in a tourny, then no, I would not want to play them again, because the RAI is clear, and if and when a FAQ comes out it will allow deployment/disembarking.

Measuring from base of dismbarking model to access point is indeed a core rule, as is measuring to and from the hull of a vehicle.

He may have never thought about it. He probably hasn't thought about a lot of things, but that's hardly the failing of the person insisting on enforcement of those rules.

Sure, it sucks, but knowing the rules is part of the game. I personally wouldn't surprise someone with the information (I would let them know about the proper way to play it when they inform me that a unit is inside), but I don't fault people for telling me about rules which I am not familiar with during a game.

And they can indeed give you a "0." Its not cheating. Its sportsmanship and they would be viewing you as a poor sport.

Sure, and I can give you a "0" when you insist your bolters are S4. Just because you CAN do it, doesn't mean you aren't abusing the system.

1. As you're in the minority, its predicate on you to prove the argument. As there is strong disagreement on the argument, you yourself could be the "cheater" as you like to state.

2. That will be cold counsel when the rest of your opponents now think of you as TFG. Again, discuss beforehand = smooth move. Springing this on an opponent mid game screams TFG.

Frazzled wrote:1. As you're in the minority, its predicate on you to prove the argument. As there is strong disagreement on the argument, you yourself could be the "cheater" as you like to state.

2. That will be cold counsel when the rest of your opponents now think of you as TFG. Again, discuss beforehand = smooth move. Springing this on an opponent mid game screams TFG.

Of what am I in the minority? I share the position originally posited by others in this thread, and which has withstood dozens of half-baked arguments. I don't even see any remaining arguments to the contrary. Do you have one that's founded in the rules and not personal opinion?

What he is saying is, it does not matter if you are right, it matters what others think of you.

The US legal system proves that. You can be as right as rain but if the opponent has more money (the backing of all the other players) you will lose, no two ways about it.

Gwar! wrote:What he is saying is, it does not matter if you are right, it matters what others think of you.

The US legal system proves that. You can be as right as rain but if the opponent has more money (the backing of all the other players) you will lose, no two ways about it.

Indeed.

Frankly you've argued with about four people. You've not won anything. I do find it interesting that you're so quick to call people who disagree with your interpretation to be cheaters. As with all non-mathmatical arguments, there is no absolute right way. Its all interpretation.

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:What he is saying is, it does not matter if you are right, it matters what others think of you.

The US legal system proves that. You can be as right as rain but if the opponent has more money (the backing of all the other players) you will lose, no two ways about it.

Indeed.

Frankly you've argued with about four people. You've not won anything. I do find it interesting that you're so quick to call people who disagree with your interpretation to be cheaters. As with all non-mathmatical arguments, there is no absolute right way. Its all interpretation.

Speaking of being quick to jump to conclusions, if you re-read my post you'll note that the only people I called cheaters are those who abuse the sportsmanship system.

And that's your interpretation of the sportsmanship rules. As I think I demonstrated quite well, not discussing the rules before hand is poor sports. Discussing it before hand is fine, but odds are it will require a TO ruling.

If a player is a jerk, then many players don't want to play them again. I know, I know, you just want to play by the rules. But one of the rules of life is that people that are jerks don't see themselves as jerks, just "principled." Let me give you a heads up: insisting on this will lead to a high percentage of people thinking you're a jerk. I dont' mean offense, but given the posting patterns of yourself and Gwar, I think it's safe to say that you're comfortable with that social position.

Polonius wrote:And that's your interpretation of the sportsmanship rules. As I think I demonstrated quite well, not discussing the rules before hand is poor sports. Discussing it before hand is fine, but odds are it will require a TO ruling.

If a player is a jerk, then many players don't want to play them again. I know, I know, you just want to play by the rules. But one of the rules of life is that people that are jerks don't see themselves as jerks, just "principled." Let me give you a heads up: insisting on this will lead to a high percentage of people thinking you're a jerk. I dont' mean offense, but given the posting patterns of yourself and Gwar, I think it's safe to say that you're comfortable with that social position.

Again, said more succinctly, and politely than I could do.
The Danny Internets interpretation may even be more the more correct RAW interpretation. But I "my way or the highway" approach to an interesting interpretation that would single out IG players, especially when the direct codex infers the opposite, is a no bueno approach to tournament uber domination.

Polonius wrote:And that's your interpretation of the sportsmanship rules. As I think I demonstrated quite well, not discussing the rules before hand is poor sports. Discussing it before hand is fine, but odds are it will require a TO ruling.

If a player is a jerk, then many players don't want to play them again. I know, I know, you just want to play by the rules. But one of the rules of life is that people that are jerks don't see themselves as jerks, just "principled." Let me give you a heads up: insisting on this will lead to a high percentage of people thinking you're a jerk. I dont' mean offense, but given the posting patterns of yourself and Gwar, I think it's safe to say that you're comfortable with that social position.

Interesting that you equate strict rules adherence with being a jerk. Perhaps locally it's just much more tolerated because we understand that this is a game of rules and that playing by those rules is the only way to guarantee fairness through consistent application.

Either way, no offense taken. I've won enough "Best Sportsman" and "Favorite Opponent" awards at local tournaments to discount contrary personal opinions from people I don't even know. If that's the social position being myself puts me in, then, so be it.

Danny Internets wrote:

Polonius wrote:And that's your interpretation of the sportsmanship rules. As I think I demonstrated quite well, not discussing the rules before hand is poor sports. Discussing it before hand is fine, but odds are it will require a TO ruling.

If a player is a jerk, then many players don't want to play them again. I know, I know, you just want to play by the rules. But one of the rules of life is that people that are jerks don't see themselves as jerks, just "principled." Let me give you a heads up: insisting on this will lead to a high percentage of people thinking you're a jerk. I dont' mean offense, but given the posting patterns of yourself and Gwar, I think it's safe to say that you're comfortable with that social position.

Interesting that you equate strict rules adherence with being a jerk. Perhaps locally it's just much more tolerated because we understand that this is a game of rules and that playing by those rules is the only way to guarantee fairness through consistent application.

Either way, no offense taken. I've won enough "Best Sportsman" and "Favorite Opponent" awards at local tournaments to discount contrary personal opinions from people I don't even know. If that's the social position being myself puts me in, then, so be it.

I'm not saying you're a jerk, I"m saying you can't be shocked that somebody would find your behavior to be jerk like, and therefor unsportsmanlike. Yes, when playing at your local odds are your view point holds a lot more sway. If you played at a another store, and they game differently, they might find your position to be unsporting.

Also, not to denigrate your achievements, but if your local RTTs are like mine, "Best Sports" means you had the highest battle points of the people that scored max sports, often by playing some combination of friends and people that just max everybody out. It's a nice attaboy, but at a lot of shops it's a highly unofficial third place trophy.

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:What he is saying is, it does not matter if you are right, it matters what others think of you.

The US legal system proves that. You can be as right as rain but if the opponent has more money (the backing of all the other players) you will lose, no two ways about it.

Indeed.

Frankly you've argued with about four people. You've not won anything. I do find it interesting that you're so quick to call people who disagree with your interpretation to be cheaters. As with all non-mathmatical arguments, there is no absolute right way. Its all interpretation.

Actually, it is a mathematical argument because it basically hinges on numerical measurements.

If: > 2" from access point, then: cannot disembark

If: >3" from hull, then: cannot capture/contest

Then the only argument becomes that Warhammer is a 2d game, not 3d, but several examples in the book (on page 83) and the fact that it's played with 3D LoS, 3D terrain, and 3D models does not support that hypothesis. Yes, the diagram for disembarking does appear in 2D... but really, how else could they show it, and the rule still simply says "within 2" of an access point." Not, "2 inches of an access point as perceived in a 2d plane from the top of the vehicle."

Q.E.D.

I think what Frazz is trying to say is that all the numbers and Q.E.D in the world will not help you if you are painted out to be TFG and thus do not have the support of the "room"

I realize that, I was just countering his "non-mathematical argument" idea.

Of course, many people do not understand math, or choose not to (I don't mean you Frazzled) so you can explain things to them and they just don't get it.

Well, there's a difference between being right and being a tool about being right. Yes, everybody who pointed out that terminators didn't have terminator armor was right, but anybody that enforced that was a tool. Likewise, there is both enough genuine ability to read 40k as 2d with 3d add ons to to:
1) make the claim that RAW is 100% clear difficult, and
2) make pushing that claim forward in game a move of shaky sportsmanship.

I think that RAW is pretty clear, and it's becoming more and more apparent that 40k is 3d, but there are huge areas where it's 2d, and simply ignoring that in favor of reaching a conclusion is a bit premature, particularly given both the RAI and the custom of play.

Edit on Math: And that's the central core: you are using the axiom that all measurments are in 3d. That's fine, but it's still an axiom, not a rule.

well, the codex says that the troops can bail out via repelling lines, so I think that troops near a building (at the right hight) can get out near the hatches or by the base, as several insertion options are usually available for helicopters and such.

Polonius wrote:Well, there's a difference between being right and being a tool about being right. Yes, everybody who pointed out that terminators didn't have terminator armor was right, but anybody that enforced that was a tool. Likewise, there is both enough genuine ability to read 40k as 2d with 3d add ons to to:
1) make the claim that RAW is 100% clear difficult, and
2) make pushing that claim forward in game a move of shaky sportsmanship.

I think that RAW is pretty clear, and it's becoming more and more apparent that 40k is 3d, but there are huge areas where it's 2d, and simply ignoring that in favor of reaching a conclusion is a bit premature, particularly given both the RAI and the custom of play.

Edit on Math: And that's the central core: you are using the axiom that all measurments are in 3d. That's fine, but it's still an axiom, not a rule.

I wouldn't say that there are "huge areas" where the game is played as 2D. The only time that I can think of that you are specifically told to only take two dimensions into account is when resolving the number of hits caused by blast and template weapons. Given the amount of the game that must be played in three dimensions, I think that you would need an exception in the rules to measure something in two.

Most measurements, in order to satisfy the rules for measuring, must be made in three dimensions. Most of the time, measuring from the base of one model to the base of another model will be made on a plane, but if there are any differences in the elevation between two models (assume one is on a hill) if you are not measuring at a diagonal angle, you are not measuring from the base of one model to the base of the other model, but you are measuring from "the base of one model to the area above the base of the other model" which is not what the rules tell us to do.

Ok, let me amend: there are huge areas in which the rules are silent enough on the issue to make it difficult to tell if the rules are truly 3d or only 3d where they say so.