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.

nostromo wrote:By the way the gamerules doesn't break if you block entry points, nor are the units destroyed if they can't enter, they simply try again next turn, fail again until end of game is reached and points tallied up.

That's how I'd play it but there's no rules to support that.

Brother SRM wrote:I love the story behind this one! The image of the smug mofo who pulled it off is even better:



I'm afraid the story is old hat, but I'd probably give the guy a 1 for sportsmanship. Then again, your fault for doing an all-infiltrating gimmick.

HA an Actual use for Kroot.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Don - people who were there stated it was decided upon in the game, so it as much a "fact" as anything else wher eyou are not present to witness it.

Edit: a "sort it out" rule wouldnt be too difficult - use an extension of the "any special rule of the unit that would prevent it (or could) from coming on is ignored" (badly paraphrased) to resolve it - so the 1" rule would be omitted.

I hold this "tactic" in about as much contempt as range / LOS sniping in 4th, and at least in 4th it was backed up by actual Rules.

Fair enough, first hand reports from someone that witenessed the event.

As for sorting it out, why not just use what GW has previously said on the issue? Sure, it was a previous edition but the situation is almost exactly the same. It's not like it's hard to prevent someone doing this to you, all it takes is deploying one unit normally and pretty much your entire board edge or side edge if outflanking is safe from being blocked by infiltrators. So you have to sacrifice one unit so that the rest can safely enter from Reserves.

On dakka thats full sports.

In real life its a douche move. Why, because he broke the game before turn 1 even began.

If he did that to me with a smart arse attitude he would get full sports but find his car door locks superglued..

haha.

All the white scars player had to do was not reserve his entire army to not lose the first turn of the game.

This incident has nothing to do with how the players treated each other and anyone would would mark down sportsmanship to either player because of it is simply bitter and a poor letting their feelings on what happened affect their judgment.

As to whether or not the models are destroyed, it doesnt matter. The WS player would lose even if they were not destroyed because he would never be able to to enter onto the table to claim any primary/secondary objectives.

All the WS player had to do was put 1 unit on the table to stop this and he didnt.

This event rarely comes up in any game or tourney and when it does honestly if you put your entire army in reserve you should be aware that you are losing not only command but any control over the battlefield and accept what happens, including never being able to arrive on the battlefield table because you failed to establish an initial presence on the battlefield.

I see nothing unsportsmanlike in eithers conduct, just a gamble the WS player took poorly and felt the sting of what happens when someone is able to counter it.

Regardless of how he might have acted he gets an automatic 10 for that grin.

Shaman wrote:In real life its a douche move. Why, because he broke the game before turn 1 even began.

If he did that to me with a smart arse attitude he would get full sports but find his car door locks superglued..

You're wrong. Whitescar boy decided to hold everything in reserve, Mr. Kroot just took advantage of a very very stupid move. If you cry like a bitch every time someone whoops your ass for doing something stupid wargaming is not for you.

Exactly. If the WS player placed a single model in the middel of his board edge, he would have guaranteed himself a 3-foot-wide entry corridor.

If anybody's the dick, it's the Russian for placing everything in Reserves to deny the Tau player his first 2 shooting phases.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Exactly. If the WS player placed a single model in the middel of his board edge, he would have guaranteed himself a 3-foot-wide entry corridor.

IF the player had known that this HOUSERULE was in effect, then yes,m agreed.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If anybody's the dick, it's the Russian for placing everything in Reserves to deny the Tau player his first 2 shooting phases.

Uh, no. Thats in the rules of the game, and the WS is risking his army coming on in dribs and drabs and easier to pick off. Hardly a dick move by any stretch of the imagination.

A player only deserves a 1 imo, if he/she is arrogant, bragger, show off. Basically, all around bad personality.

What that player did, was exploit your weakness. You wanna deepstrike your army, we'll these are the things you'll deal with. Dont get confused with bad gamer, to a gamer who stragigizes, even if it is as severe as what happened to you.

There are just some games, we have our asses handed to us.

Your sportsmanship is in question here OP. You should be looking at your list and learning from this. Shake the dudes hand and say thanks. He taught ya a good lesson there.

The rules of the game say pretty clearly that you can't come within 1" of an enemy model when moving, and there's no exception to that given here.

Perhaps you can clearly explain why denying one's opponent the critical part of their game is such a good thing, and then explain why turnabout isn't fair play?

But don't worry, I'm sure 6th Edition will clearly state that models unable to move onto the board from Reserves are automatically Destroyed.

I would not dock any Sportsmanship points for pulling off that move.

I would however dock you points for a smug arsed pose in a photo while I was still conversing with the judge to make sure it was legal.

Oh, come on - he isn't even posing "thumbs up"...

Sorry, but if you try holding an entire army in reserve to gain an advantage and this happens, you deserved it.

Tactics VS tactics, and the best ones won.


I'd give a full score for it.

I prefer checklist sportsmanship scores, and the checklist that I would use would net this gentleman 12/12 points assuming he had all required materials, he was on time, courteous, etc.

Not very sporting...but definitely smart...and taking advantage of this was in fact intelligent.

How can anyone besides those there that witnessed it come up with any value?

Anyway, the Sportsmanship score for me would depend on how he acted during the whole ordeal, and not the choices they made in game.

As for the Reserves vs. Line Up...guys you play to win at Tourneys...the White Scars player gave the Tau player free reign on board control KNOWING he had kroot as it is an open list environment with complete information available.

Sanctjud wrote:Anyway, the Sportsmanship score for me would depend on how he acted during the whole ordeal, and not the choices they made in game.

This.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The rules of the game say pretty clearly that you can't come within 1" of an enemy model when moving, and there's no exception to that given here

And the reserves rules specifically statey ou MUSt come on. So you hit a stalemate and the game cannot continue.

Meaning you need a houserule.

theyve had 2 editions already (4th and 5th) and not felt the need to do this, so what makes you think this will be any different?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Exactly. If the WS player placed a single model in the middel of his board edge, he would have guaranteed himself a 3-foot-wide entry corridor.

IF the player had known that this HOUSERULE was in effect, then yes,m agreed.

Then the White Scars player should have probably made sure he was going to be able to bring in his reserves if he was blocked. It is not the most intuitive thing to have to do, but if that's going to be your tactic, you might want to consider every possibility, including the one where your entire reserves entry point may become blocked by your opponent's models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If anybody's the dick, it's the Russian for placing everything in Reserves to deny the Tau player his first 2 shooting phases.

Uh, no. Thats in the rules of the game, and the WS is risking his army coming on in dribs and drabs and easier to pick off. Hardly a dick move by any stretch of the imagination.

And yet Deep Strikers can be Destroyed or Delayed on a Mishap, and NOT come on when expected, if at all. So there's clear precedent that the "must" isn't nearly as strong as you pretend it to be.

The difference is some TFGs think they should gain an risk-free advantage by not letting other players play their game.

Anyhow, I think this thread is done.

Good luck, nosferatu.

The only problem that you run into in the whole situation of being unable to resolve moving onto the board hence stand there for 2 hours comes down to one situations The mission, because if it is Capture and Control or Seize Ground using RaW you can declare a win.

How that works is Turn 1 goes off without a hitch, and the blocker can control objectives while keeping a blockade up. If they are troops and he has enough bodies to do it all. Because you completed an entire game turn, and the unable to resolve stall kicks in, he holds more objectives than you and can by RaW claim a win.

If it's an Annihilation game, RaW states it would be a draw because you both have equal KPs, 0.

However as a special aside to all this, most people will point to the deep strike mishaps table for "confirmation" of the unit is destroyed. They're trying to point out that being "in reserves" is what kills them, but it's the delayed effect off the mishap table that does it. I think most people make a bad assumption and think that rule sets the standard for reserves unable to come in equates into unit destroyed.

No you cannot "RAW" claim a win, as the game never ends - a turn never completes as you never get out of the second players movement phase. The game remains unfinished for ever, only by imposing external factors (such as a timelimit, which is never defined in the Rules, or the Houserule they decided on) can the game ever end.

JohnHwang - um, that is because the rules for DS state what happens. Its called a permissive ruleset. DS rules modify the must, but only when a unit is entering via DS - otherwise "must" is fairly explict.

So "must" come in is optional? Great, my 5th turn grabbing gretchin are *definitely* coming in on the 5th turn, regardless of what I roll - after all, "Must" is now optional!

For what it's worth, the Dark Eldar FAQ partially covers this case for the Webway Portal, which is effectively the table edge for units declared to be coming in from reserve via WWP. If the unit is unable to come onto the board legally, you're screwed, tough luck. In typical GW FAQ fashion it doesn't state what happens (destroyed or delayed) except for when all WWP carriers are killed before any are deployed.

So, although the more general case of units in reserve coming onto the player's edge isn't covered by the rules or by a FAQ, the DE WWP ruling seems to indicate RAI, and I'd expect most TOs to rule similarly in the general case.

Also, a ruling that the unit is delayed or destroyed doesn't require inventing a whole new mechanic for resolving the situation. I would not expect any TO to devise off-the-cuff rules for deploying in this situation.

Ruling that the units are either delayed or destroyed rather than deployed is more than simply a "houserule"; it's RAI and extremely likely to be ruled that way by any given TO.

As for Sportsmanship, I base it on whether how the winning player acted as he deployed, explained the situation, responded to the judge's decision, whether he offered to play a friendly game during the round, etc.

I don't think sportsmanship scores should be lowered for not handicapping yourself against an obviously less skilled player.

LMoE

I wouldn't say the opponent was "less skilled" in this case, he just got caught in a loop-hole in the rules in a very interesting set of circumstances.

It is no more "RAI" than any other Houserule - they have had at LEAST 2 editions (4th and 5th) where reserves being blocked from coming on has been a potential issue, and they have not made a general ruling - just the BEL Wolf Scouts ruling which has now been removed.

YOu dont need to invent a whole new rule - just a do over. Its the (by definition!) very start of the game, there have been no crucial dice rolls made which cant be retained (i.e., first turn) and only one army has deployed - if you get to this situation a reset should be a 5minute job. If there isnt 5minutes of slack in a tournament I would be surprised.

Destroying someones game based on a Houserule? Bad call.

I don't see why it is unsporting to attempt to gain a tactical advantage. Surely that is the whole point of playing a wargame.

Both players did their best to gain a tactical advantage through the use of the deployment rules.

It isn't anyone except GW's fault that the situation which arose was not covered in the rulebook.

The judge had to make a decision, that is what he was there for.

The decision could not be that the reserves come on anyway, since that would violate the clear rule against moving near to an enemy model.

His options were limited.

1. What he did.

2. Declare the game a tie, since neither side scored any KPs if the SMs are unhurt in reserve. This works if it is a KP mission. If it was an objective mission, the Tau player would only have needed to get near an objective during his deployment to win.

3. Declare the game a false start, and make them start it again.

There is the argument that *putting* that judge in the situation in the first place is unsporting - you have engineered a situation where a judge must resolve, knowing full well it is an issue with the rules. Thus, you have delayed the game (definitely unsporting) at a minimum, and attempted to engineer a win (as was the decision) by exploiting the pressure put on the judge to keep things moving.

I wouldn't call him a bad sport for using such a tactic. In fact, kudos to him for actually using Kroot in a productive way. Really, it's a mistake/oversight that he exploited. If your opponent was to declare a charge and was found to be just out of range (but still clearly), would you be a bad sport if you denied him the charge? After all, he's only made an honest mistake by misjuding the distance. Does that make you a bad sport when you shoot/charge that unit next turn and exploit his mistake? Not in my books.

My only Diellema here is whether I should deduct sportmanship points for that massive grin, or add them.

@ nosferatu1001 : I disagree. It is not unsporting to use an entirely legitimate method in which to gain a major tactical advantage. Just because GW is unclear about how to resolve the issue is not the player's fault; it is GW's. If this were a highly contestable issue (i.e.; where two very clear rules are butting heads with no clear answer either way) then I could see the Judge having a difficult time making a decision. But this is, in fact, a pretty simple situation; the White Scars can not come on the board. Now what happens to them could be considered a point of contention, however the rulebook is again clear on this by not saying they are destroyed by their restricted ability to mount the table. In that way, no KPs can be acquired. What would be a complicated issue is if the Tau player, in his following turns, gave the White Scars player a whole to move onto the board. Were the previously unavailable units destroyed? Or were they simply delayed? That would be contestable.

@ Killkrazy : I would fight against a "false start." There were no rules oversights made by either player; both knew what they were doing. It would be unfair to the Tau player to give the White Scars player a "second chance" because of his poor decision making. Just in the same way as it would be unfair to allow any player who makes poor tactical choices during the game a chance to start over. The White Scars player simply has to bite the bullet and realize he made a huge tactical error. At a minimum it could be considered a tie if the mission were KP/VP, but definitely not a loss for the Tau player in anyway (unless the mission has some other sort of caveat).

Deduct? Do you know how hard it is to find a truly great gak-eating grin now a days?