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.

The TO was wrong on the first rules question regarding smoke launchers. However I find it odd that there was a discussion about this as it is clearly written on p.62 that the codex rules take precedence. To me this seems very much like you either did not look this up or did not point this out to the TO. The only way I can imagine the organiser making this ruling is if he is not familiar with the BT rules and you did not clearly explain why your point was valid (as in showing him both entries, the BRB and the codex).

Onto the second point. If the TO deliberately said that you couldn't use the codex rules for smoke launchers because the codex was old, you should have specified that if this was the case that you also will be using the new rules for the rest of the entries in your codex, which you did not.

You then (knowingly) disregarded the rules in your codex to gain an advantage. This is just bad sportmanship, and depending on your behaviour in the previous and this rules question I can understand the TO's point to let you forfeit the game. Reason I suspect your behaviour might factor into this is that you felt entitled to break the rules and spoil the game for your opponent because the TO made a bad call.

On the point of using a foreign Errata, I feel that this is basically picking the one exception of every BT Errata available and using it because you like it better. I do not dispute that RAI it may be correct, but using it as RAW proof is shady. My biggest recommendation when playing with an army that might have different interpretations is to contact the organisers before the event and make sure the "grey area rules" are discussed and a decision is made on how these will be played in that tournament.

DutchSage wrote:The TO was wrong on the first rules question regarding smoke launchers. However I find it odd that there was a discussion about this as it is clearly written on p.62 that the codex rules take precedence. To me this seems very much like you either did not look this up or did not point this out to the TO. The only way I can imagine the organiser making this ruling is if he is not familiar with the BT rules and you did not clearly explain why your point was valid (as in showing him both entries, the BRB and the codex).

I did point this out to the TO, but he made his decision before I could get my Codex to show him. I think there were about another 6 games going on elsewhere at the same time. I also don't take my BRB to tournaments - perhaps an error but I know the rules well enough.

DutchSage wrote:
Onto the second point. If the TO deliberately said that you couldn't use the codex rules for smoke launchers because the codex was old, you should have specified that if this was the case that you also will be using the new rules for the rest of the entries in your codex, which you did not.

Again as per what I have said above, I did raise this with the TO but he did not wait for me to get my codex.

DutchSage wrote:
You then (knowingly) disregarded the rules in your codex to gain an advantage. This is just bad sportmanship, and depending on your behaviour in the previous and this rules question I can understand the TO's point to let you forfeit the game. Reason I suspect your behaviour might factor into this is that you felt entitled to break the rules and spoil the game for your opponent because the TO made a bad call.

Normally yes, i'd agree with you this is bad sportsmanship. But I don't think it was an unthinkable action given that my codex had been overrulled by a 5th edition rule. If the smoke launcher was invalid, then surely by the same token the LRC was invalid as well? I did not dispute this with the TO for the very same reasons you're saying I was booted out.

I made a point of NOT arguing over rules with the TO's in an effort to avoid such a result. I know that what the TO says goes - I didn't want to antagonise the situation.

DutchSage wrote:
On the point of using a foreign Errata, I feel that this is basically picking the one exception of every BT Errata available and using it because you like it better. I do not dispute that RAI it may be correct, but using it as RAW proof is shady. My biggest recommendation when playing with an army that might have different interpretations is to contact the organisers before the event and make sure the "grey area rules" are discussed and a decision is made on how these will be played in that tournament.

If i'm being honest, I agree with you here - as I have stated earlier in this thread. I would not, and have not ever tried to claim credence from a German FAQ.

I know that several of the players in this thread think i'm a great big cheat - if you do then I guess there isn't anything I can do to change that view. I merely wanted opinions from the community about how best a situation like this should be resolved, not "you broke the rules and that's it". Some of the feedback so far has been very constructive in terms of offering resolutions, and i'd like to see more of those.

liam0404 wrote: But I don't think it was an unthinkable action given that my codex had been overrulled by a 5th edition rule. If the smoke launcher was invalid, then surely by the same token the LRC was invalid as well?

The difference, as I see it, is that Smoke Launchers have a generic rules entry in the rulebook. So the TO's perception in this case was presumably that the 5th edition rulebook should take precedence. He wasn't applying new codex rules to an old codex... he was applying a new core rule, on the assumption that it should over-ride older versions of the rule.

The Assault Ramp is a different story. There is no generic 5th edition rule for it. The rulebook doesn't contain the rule any more, and cherry-picking the new rules you want out of newer codexes is (at least in this edition) largely frowned upon. So it's not a matter of you trying to apply a new rule to the old book... it's a matter of you trying to apply a rule that the BT LRC simply doesn't have, due to it being removed from the core rules.


That being said, I disagree completely with both of the TO's rulings. It should be assumed that BT Land Raiders still have their assault ramps just like every other Chapter... and Smoke Launchers, as printed in the 5th edition rulebook, follow the Codex version where it differs.

But, (while also disagreeing with booting you from the tournament for either of these issues) it's also the TO's call... if that's the way he feels it should be played, then he's perfectly entitled to run his tournament that way.

Insaniak I pretty much agree with everything you say. Ultimately I'd say that I've come out of this experience a little wiser, and will make sure I get the story straight next time before I do as much as open my case.

liam0404 wrote:Insaniak I pretty much agree with everything you say. Ultimately I'd say that I've come out of this experience a little wiser, and will make sure I get the story straight next time before I do as much as open my case.

Ain't nothin' better you can do.

Hahaha!

This kind of crap is exactly why I droped the Apothecary & Cyclone Missile Launchers from my Tourny Deathwing Army for this Saturday. No chance of getting to use the New Rules from the Space Marine Codex, why even risk or use em.


Regardless of right and wrong. Yes, rules state use the Codex since GW cant simply update their own god damn errata's to make all this irrelevant.

However, the Opponent should be ashamed for arguing (incorrectly) to get a rule admended in his favor, and then disclude you from one in yours. Would have lodged a complaint, for whats it is worth.

I think one major thing to keep in mind is that you didn't have the BRB. If your opponent didn't either, I can much better understand the rules questions and why your opponent would argue these.

I am unsure why you didn't bring your BRB, I know most tournaments I attend have in the rules of the tournament you are required to have the BRB, Codex and all official errata/FAQ with you during the event. Overall I think you were right on the Smoke Launchers, but just having the BRB yourself with you at the tournament would have prevented the argument in the first place. I think on the second ruling you were out of line (as you say 2 wrongs don't make a right).

Overall it's unfortunate this all happened to you, but I do believe you will be better prepared in future games. Best of luck in your future games.

The difference, as I see it, is that Smoke Launchers have a generic rules entry in the rulebook. So the TO's perception in this case was presumably that the 5th edition rulebook should take precedence. He wasn't applying new codex rules to an old codex... he was applying a new core rule, on the assumption that it should over-ride older versions of the rule.

The Assault Ramp is a different story. There is no generic 5th edition rule for it. The rulebook doesn't contain the rule any more, and cherry-picking the new rules you want out of newer codexes is (at least in this edition) largely frowned upon. So it's not a matter of you trying to apply a new rule to the old book... it's a matter of you trying to apply a rule that the BT LRC simply doesn't have, due to it being removed from the core rules.


That being said, I disagree completely with both of the TO's rulings. It should be assumed that BT Land Raiders still have their assault ramps just like every other Chapter... and Smoke Launchers, as printed in the 5th edition rulebook, follow the Codex version where it differs.

But, (while also disagreeing with booting you from the tournament for either of these issues) it's also the TO's call... if that's the way he feels it should be played, then he's perfectly entitled to run his tournament that way.

Insaniak as usual is spot on

insaniak wrote:

liam0404 wrote:


That being said, I disagree completely with both of the TO's rulings. It should be assumed that BT Land Raiders still have their assault ramps just like every other Chapter... and Smoke Launchers, as printed in the 5th edition rulebook, follow the Codex version where it differs.

But, (while also disagreeing with booting you from the tournament for either of these issues) it's also the TO's call... if that's the way he feels it should be played, then he's perfectly entitled to run his tournament that way.

But, if he did not advertise those rules changes prior to the tourney, then booting someone for disagreeing with a rule that has been changed without their prior knowledge is complete and utter bull. To say two strikes and you're out, and oh by the way, I'm changing some of the core rules in the rulebook and you'll only find out about it if you bring it up (and get a strike, btw).

Oh, I'm certainly not disagreeing there.

It's his tournie to run as he will... but that doesn't mean that TO's should feel free to run roughshod over their players. That doesn't get people rushing to come back next time...

insaniak wrote:That doesn't get people rushing to come back next time...

Amen to that. Like has been said earlier in the thread, this would be easy as pie to manage if GW kept their FAQ's updated regularly, especially as I don't see a BT codex in the horizon in the near future.

Amen to that. Like has been said earlier in the thread, this would be easy as pie to manage if GW kept their FAQ's updated regularly, especially as I don't see a BT codex in the horizon in the near future.

Even with an FaQ I doubt GW would address the assault ramp issue as their attitude would be it is blindly obvious what it does. Just like they don't feel the need to address whether a Hive Tyrant is dead whilst in reserve or what constitutes a daemon.