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 last year I heard a rumor that with the high amount of beasts, bikes, and other units that can't go up onto higher floor of buildings, only ground floor. There would be a FAQ stating this.

I have people telling me this is fact. I ask for hard copy of FAQ and no one knows where it is. Some say BRB in ruins section, others say FAQ. So with that in mind...

Is this the rule via FAQ or just an unjustified rumor? If rule, where is it located.

currently rumor; unless you want to read the restriction against placing the objectives in immpassable terrain to mean: "impassable to any units"; as opposed to just what is classed as impassable in total.

it could be argued either way:

Against: To bikes/beasts/etc, above ground level is impassable; therefore counter placement is invalid.

For: to infantry,/ jump infantry/etc, above ground is merely difficult; therefore counter placement is valid.

It is completely legal to place the marker on the top floor of a ruin/building. In fact, in one of the GW site scenarios, the objective was to have the model that was higher than all the rest, so on top of ruins or mountains of rubble. Bikes couldn't climb but were still included in the scenario.

Look up the 'rise of da mangler' campaign on their site.

-cgmckenzie

absolutely leagal if a bit sketchy to do against an all beast or bike army

Absolutely legal. This is one of the few disadvantages of Bikes and Cavalry.

Thanks

I can put this rumor to rest.

Indeed, it seems to be legal to put it on any level of a ruin. Locally, we've ruled that objectives can't be placed any higher than the level above ground level, simply because we have some very tall ruins that would make for a very boring game, spending several turns trying to climb it.

Legal but very poor sportsmanship if is gives an advantage to one side (i.e making it totaly impossible for one player to get the objective.).

News just in it's poor sportsmanship to use stratagy

Paul wrote:Legal but very poor sportsmanship if is gives an advantage to one side (i.e making it totaly impossible for one player to get the objective.).

It's no more poor sportmanship to put the objective off the ground than it is to put your units on a higher level to keep them from being reached by Bikes, Beasts, and other things that can't be forced to climb stairs.

Paul wrote:Legal but very poor sportsmanship if is gives an advantage to one side (i.e making it totaly impossible for one player to get the objective.).

Incredible, how is good strategy poor sportsmanship?

If you take an all bike / beast etc army, you know you are leaving yourself in trouble in certain missions. Why are you expecting your opponent to make up for your decisions not being optimal in all games?

Some people have NO idea what the phrase "poor sportsmanship" means

It is poor sportmanship if your goal is to play a game with your opponent for fun, but your action based on his matchup means your opponent can not win said game.

Example, you are playing your buddy for fun who wants to play his all bike ravenwing. You then grab lots of tall ruins, place the objectives where he can never, ever get to them, and force your friend to have no chance of winning ever.

Bad sportsmanship.

Example, you are playing in a tourney, and notice that your opponent took a bike heavy list. The terrain the tourney set up included a tall ruin. You put one of your objectives up high, forcing your opponent to either shoot you off it or focus on getting more of the other objectives.

Not bad sportsmanship.

Your opponent CAN win the game, by tabling you. You know, that condition that lets you win ANY game?

If you hide on the top of ruins where he can not see or go, then tabling will be mighty hard dont you think?

So you dont bring any ranged weapons at all with any range? There's nowhere on the board you can go?

Again nos, the situation is that you picked ruins with the intention that your friendly opponent cant win the game.

So no, there is nowhere your opponent can go to gain LOS, as terrain was chosen that makes bikes unable to win.

Which is bad sportsmanship... stop defending it?

It still isnt bad sportsmanship - perhaps its showing the opponent a limit to the game they werent aware of?

It's also not a "friendly" game then, is it?

Regardless - the claim that it is ALWAYS bad sportsmanship is demonstrably false, which was the real point, no?

The bad sportsmanship part comes in when you pick all the high ruins AND you place all of the objectives. That's poor sportsmanship. Anyway aren't you supposed to alternate deployment of objectives anyway?

Just because YOU picked terrain with lots of tall ruins does not mean the bike/cavalry player has to place HIS objectives on the upper floors.
He can place his 1-3 objectives on the ground floor (or even out in the open for last turn turbo-grabbing...would that also be "bad sportsmanship"?), hold his while gunning you down from yours.
For fun games you can also just do KPs. Or the old table-quarters. And since its a "fun game" you can allow bikes to go up floors or have troops on upper floors roll dangerous checks every turn (the floor gives out under your weight and you fall to your doom).

In a Tourny environment then its all strategy. While your Khan bike army can give someone fits as you set everything to outflanking in a KP mission, at some point your going to get hosed on an objective missions in ruins.
Kinda like the all TH/SS Deathwing Army getting matched up against foot-Orks with 5 objectives.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Paul wrote:Legal but very poor sportsmanship if is gives an advantage to one side (i.e making it totaly impossible for one player to get the objective.).

Incredible, how is good strategy poor sportsmanship?

If you take an all bike / beast etc army, you know you are leaving yourself in trouble in certain missions. Why are you expecting your opponent to make up for your decisions not being optimal in all games?

Some people have NO idea what the phrase "poor sportsmanship" means

"Sportsmanship is an aspiration or ethos that a sport or activity will be enjoyed for its own sake, with proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors."

And making it impossible to win (by normal means) is poor sportsmanship. Unfortunatly 40k is full of bad sportsmanship...

So:

Fairness - yep, it was equally fair as the player with the biker army knew this situation was possible, as it is in the rules

Ethics - is it ethical of you to expect your opponent, in a tournament, to not use the best strategy they have?

Respect - you place the objectives, point out they cannot win, you both realise this and play a game for fun. Bopth players win in this instance, as the biker army player realises a weakness of their army

Fellowship - nothing about this negates fellowship

Nope, none of that makes for a poor sports. Now, if you behvaiour in playing is poor, then thats a different matter -but exploiting tactical errors in list construction is NOT poor sports in and of itself.

Should a GK player who has actually taken SS and paid waaaay too much not cast Warpquake against a daemon army?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your opponent CAN win the game, by tabling you. You know, that condition that lets you win ANY game?

Actually not entirely true. In RTTs I run, and has been picked up by a few other TOs in this area, you must still be able to meet mission objectives for the battle points. ie if you sacrifice all your troop units in tabling your opponent then you can not claim the objective as you have nothing left to claim it with. Or if you table your opponent on turn 5 and still have troops left but the primary objective is 24" away from the nearest troop unit and you do not have enough movement distance left vice the number of turns remaining to claim it you would not get the win as you didn't meet the primary objective.

This makes players think about what they are doing.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Actually not entirely true. In RTTs I run, and has been picked up by a few other TOs in this area, you must still be able to meet mission objectives for the battle points.

They were talking about casual games.

Even in casual games I don't see anything in the rulebook that says tabling an opponent results in a win. You still have to meet the criteria in the mission for a win. You can table an opponent with 5 KPs in his army but if you loose 6 in doing it you still loose.

Check page 90, main rules, under WIPEOUT!

If your opponent has no models on the table at the end of the game, you win.

-cgmckenzie

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Even in casual games I don't see anything in the rulebook that says tabling an opponent results in a win. You still have to meet the criteria in the mission for a win. You can table an opponent with 5 KPs in his army but if you loose 6 in doing it you still loose.

Wipeout, page 90, has everything you need.

Additionally if you create bespoke missions that do not have the Wipeout! rule then my statement about "base" 40k games cant really apply