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.

So yesterday i was in a local doubles tournament. In every game i had an issue come up where someone misremembered the rules. i was able to find the page in the rulebook within 30 seconds that would prove them wrong but they still wouldn't believe it. i asked the TO to come over and he said "put the rulebook away. what do you think [to each person at the table]?" one opponent agreed with the rules and the other opponent and my ally said that they didn't. the TO then said roll a dice. 4+ you abide by the rules.

So is it just me or is the "roll a dice" method encourage cheating? if we are in a tournament and i say some completely ridiculous rule, i can make us play by that stupid rule just by winning a roll off. a 50/50 chance that allows someone to cheat just feels like it can be severely abused.

what does everyone else think?

I think it would, if your TO rules that way. I think that's stupid though, and I'd consider anyone that used it the way you described an idiot.

Read first,then roll when you can't find anything in the book.

Wha...? I thought that method only applied to disagreements about stuff that isn't printed? Surely if you can show a precedent in either the rulebook or a codex, that's the de facto ruling?

That's like saying "All my guns are S10 AP1 100" range. Oh, you disagree? I just rolled a 6. My word goes."

Cerebrium wrote:Wha...? I thought that method only applied to disagreements about stuff that isn't printed? Surely if you can show a precedent in either the rulebook or a codex, that's the de facto ruling?

That's like saying "All my guns are S10 AP1 100" range. Oh, you disagree? I just rolled a 6. My word goes."

this is exactly how i feel. it should apply only to things that aren't clear not to everything.

Hellstorm wrote:So is it just me or is the "roll a dice" method encourage cheating?

It's not just you. It does.
"Dicing off" should only ever be used when there are valid rules arguments on both sides that have basis in the rulebook/codexes, and if the judges cannot come to a consensus.

Sounds like a bad TO wait in the parking lot with baseball bats. Roll dice method is used only for grey areas the rules do not cover, not for clearly covered situations.

What was the rule that your opponent "misremembered"?

Also, the 4+ rule is really only appropriate when there is nobody there to make a judgment call (referee, TO, etc) and you are trying to decide between just you and your opponent.

Melkhiordarkblade wrote:Read first,then roll when you can't find anything in the book.

Agreed. You can figure the specifics out later, after the game. But during, move your ass is how we play it

LIke the other said, if it's clearly in the rules, you d6 it. One thing we also use a d6 roll at my gaming group is LoS when it's hard to tell.

The rules really are the rules!!! I suppose if no rules can be found for the thing you are looking for, then a roll off maybe the answer! In tournaments this should never be the case though!!!

Xarian wrote:What was the rule that your opponent "misremembered"?

whether or not you can beat up a vehicle you assaulted last turn. the vehicle was immobilized so i was still touching it but they all said i can't because i am "never locked in combat with a vehicle".

Thery were right. You can't be locked in combat with a vehicle, however if you remain in base contact you can still attack it (page 63 BRB) or you can just move an inch back in the movement phase and charge it again.

So they were right in that you can't be locked in combat, but wrong that you can't keep punching it.

if you maintain contact you get to hit it again, its right in the assaulting a vehicle rules.

Yes, or as ChrisWWII said, you can back off an inch and charge again for bonus attacks, except with grenades.