don_mondo wrote:visavismeyou wrote:
No, actually, we dont have a stalemate, we have one player who made a completely legitimate and unarguably valid move of reserving his army... The other one was trying to abuse a loophole in the rules and would have been banned from ever playing the game or had other punitive action taken against him if we were talking about Magic the Gathering
But we're not talking about some card game, are we? We're talking about
40K.
Good job at completely missing a point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sliggoth wrote:@ Visa Certainly hope that your MTG rulings were better than the idea you propose for 40k. Banning someone from every playing again because they block a table edge?
No, I wouldn't ban someone because they blocked a table edge, I would ban someone for attempting to >USE< a judge to win a game... games work like this, players obey previously accepted upon rules moving towards a previously accepted upon objective(s), whomever achieves the objective(s) wins, every game works this way. Nowhere in a game can you abuse outside sources like this player did and the player in my analogy did. The player in my analogy attempted to win, not by playing the game, but by using a judge to manipulate rules, his opponent and me. He knew exactly what to say and I had seen charlatans like him before. They read the judge guidelines beforehand and had a script and a poker face that would put Vegas out of business.
Without direct knowledge of the
WH 40k interaction I can only surmise from the scant information from you guys that the guy who blocked the table edge had a similar modus operandi. A good way to destroy an outflanking army is to abuse the judges, put them in a position to hand you the game all the while seeming to be just an honest player who just thought up this great idea of blocking a table edge on the spot... You notice nothing in this strategy said anything about the actual game? Infiltrate onto Objectives and hold them by skillful responses to the outflanking army's movement; play a psychological battle by feigning an attack, then withdrawing and trapping your enemy... Etc...
Is it possible the blockading player was innocent and just thought the idea up? Yep, completely possible, however, I've been in multiple gaming communities and cheaters are ubiquitous,
WH40K is not free of them and I think it is much more likely this guy was as cheaty face as they come.
Sliggoth wrote:If a player decides to keep his army fully in reserve he is doing that in order to gain an advantage,
Again, you are mixing up the word strategy with the word cheating.
Sliggoth wrote:While destroying any reserve units that cannot be deployed that turn (and is not the option I would use locally) it certainly is a valid ruling by the TO, it does have some (old) precedent. It certainly is the harshest ruling for the reserving player, but it is a valid choice for the TO.
Sliggoth
Wrong, it is just as invalid as the rest... The only "Valid" option is to do the following... "Your game has gone into an infinite regress loop, stand here for the rest of the time allotted, you are not allowed to make any further moves this game because the rules do not cover how to resolve this situation, once time has expired, calculate the outcome of the game and that is the end of it."
Please remember that he word "Valid" means, "Follows from the true evidence so that no contradictions occur" Thus, if he made any decision it would not be valid, the only valid application of the rules is to do nothing...
This is obviously not consistent with the purpose of having judges... The whole point of having judges is to resolve cases that the rules do not cover and resolve cases where the players do not know/understand/remember the rules and to prevent and punish cheating; they are the enforcer of the rules; the proxy of
GW.
Thus, the judge is to step in and use his critical reasoning and, as the rulebook says over and over again, keep the game moving. The judge in this case made a very poor decision, he did not "keep the game moving" and thus violated the ethos of the judge... He ended the game because a hole in the rules. Again, breaking the fewest rules possible while keeping the game moving while taking the least drastic steps to carry out the ethos of the judge is the default in cases where the rules present us with a hole.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Drunkspleen wrote:It taught me the important lesson that when the results are important you shouldn't trust anyone in a competitive environment, I can still trust people, but I'm atleast more aware that, the other guy would oftentimes do anything to win.
QFT
Automatically Appended Next Post:
time wizard wrote:Suppose the Tau player had deployed his kroot so that there was a small "corridor" 2" wide by 8" long. Then 2 bikes out of a (presumed) 5 bike unit would have room to move onto the board.
What about the rest of the bike unit? Destroyed? Put back in reserve?
Would you then expect the TO to tell the Tau player, "No fair! You have to re-position your kroot to allow room for the entire bike unit to come on"?
The WS player used the rules to deny the Tau player the first two turns of shooting.
The Tau player responded by using the rules to deny the WS player a board edge to bring his reserves on.
Point. Set. Match.
Wrong, the
WS player applied the rules as allowed him, the Tau player abused a judge's decision and a hole in the rules, please stop saying that the Tau player obeyed the rules or used the rules... He did not, the
WS player did, the Tau player did not... I really dont understand why this is not obvious to everyone.
Let me bring up a severe example to make this obvious point, you're familiar with chess, so lets say that I take my queen and move it like a knight moves (in an L) this is obviously against the rules, then, while we are arguing about whether I broke a rule or not, a friend of mine pulls a fire alarm at the time he and I conspired about earlier... When we get back 2 hours later, no one remembers that I just moved the queen illegally and we continue the game and I win... On the score card, I have a W BUT I STILL CHEATED.
It is difficult to make a completely applicable analogy to chess because chess's rules are so simplistic (and inane
IMO) that there are no holes... There is even a rule which covers the unlikely occasion when the only two pieces on the board are the two kings... If the same moves are made in repetition 3 times... Its a draw... But my point still stands, cheating is cheating now matter how inanely you paint it.
The contrived situations you are bringing up further demonstrate that the rules need some response to this situation; your situations DO NOT speak to the issue of what the judge should have done to the Tau-cheating player, your contrived situations do not demonstrate that the
WS player "Deserved it" or any other inane thing, because in all of the contrived and irrelevant alternatives (Allow enough room for one unit, allow for a corridor etc. et. al.) are still missing the point that there is no rule to determine the outcome... if a player abuses a hole in the rules... he is cheating... cheating is cheating no matter what modulation
"Oh he was just only mildly cheating" STILL CHEATING.
"But he left enough room for 3/4 of a squad to come on and the last 1/4 is still in the rules hole" STILL CHEATING
"But he left enough room for one squad to come on but the second squad will be in the rules hole" STILL CHEATING
Again, please stop confusing "but but but the
WS player denied the Tau player 2 rounds of shooting" with CHEATING!... If you've ever been a judge and you've been put in a position wherein a very experienced player is attempting to beat the rules over the head of a newb you'd know where I'm coming from. Being used as an instrument of winning is quite obvious when it happens to a judge; we are trained to see it quickly and punish it severely; it is malicious, it is unsportsmanlike, it is antithetical to the game, and it is unequivocally wrong; at least
MTG judges were trained to see it, not sure how
WH40K judges are trained.
