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.

aka_mythos wrote:Terminators still come with 25mm bases so its perfectly legitimate to use them.

No they don't. Having them in the box doesn't make them the bases supplied for the model.

The issue here though was with models that were supplied with 25mm bases... and barring an event-specific or house rule that says otherwise, it's perfectly legitimate to use them because the rulebook says so.


It would be nice if the rules specified base sizes for each model type, as they do (or did at one point, I haven't been keeping up) for Fantasy... but since they don't, it's not unreasonable for players to use what they have.

TOsser on a power trip.

Still, having a few spare bases and some bluetack handy can be very useful.

You said that the other tournament organizers were consulted before the fatal ruling was made. What was there rationale & behaviors like during all this?

Sorry for my delayed response.

Thanks for the responses so far, you're right in that you only have one side of the story, so you have to make up your own minds. I started this thread purely to get the RAW argument on this, so thanks for that.

I don't know the TO's name, but it was a gaming club near Glasgow, if anyone wants more detail please feel free to PM me.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
I don't think that the guy following simple, clearly defined rules is the one instigating conflict. I think that the guy creating house rules inconsistent with the RAI and RAW, then springing them on his opponent at the last minute is the one purposefully trying to instigate conflict.

You missed the part where 40k is impossible to play by PURE RAW because it breaks the game in many places. So claiming I AM RIGHT CUZ RAW doesn't actually solve issues. It is great for internet discussions, but what is played has to be a mutual agreement between opponents which sometimes has to come down to 4+ rolls, mutually agreed upon FAQs and sometimes RAI deviations from RAW which sometimes might not go your way.

You also missed the part that when you play at a tourney, you play by the TO's rules regardless of RAW is... And assuming you are always right because RAW is behind you especially when RAW breaks the game or is something commonly not followed is a good way to instigate arguments. If you know you rely on a RAW ruling that some people don't follow, clarify before the game.

And most people don't even know what the term RAW means and will look at you like you are crazy if you say it in conversation many times... you may also come off as condescending and rude even if you are totally right (and supposedly quietly and politely discussion, which is often more of a mental cartoon of how things actually went and not really the case). You can justify your behavior in your mind by saying, "my opponent is a dick for not knowing and following the rules as written!" but that doesn't accomplish anything unless your goal is to win every game via forfeit. Sometimes you have to simply accept a 4+ dice roll for a dispute even you you are always right and be aware of the possible disagreements beforehand so you can continue to have good tactics regardless of the interpretation that gets tossed down. RAW doesn't solve all, try being an ork player with a BW for the past 2 years... RAW didn't get you D6 hits on a ram no matter how much you argued about it. So you have to ask beforehand or accept you may lose your advantage on a 4+ even being morally RAW right.

If you took half the comments in this thread into the real world, games would not get played and it doesn't matter how 'right' you are if games don't get played as it defeats the purpose of the whole hobby. There is being right on the internet and then there is being a reasonable person in the real world. Unless you are only playing against a handful of YMTC readers in real life, you may not find the same acceptance of your interpretation of pure RAW out there. If you can't handle losing an argument, never attend a tourney ever as TOs have total control over how the rules will be played at his event. If he feels 25mm bases for termies are abusive and no longer welcome in modern 40k, then that is his call. Most tourneys already ignore 90% of the mission rules in the rulebook which is a massively large part of how the game is played so really I am not sure why people are surprised or claiming RAW when the version of 40k they are playing at most events is already so deviated from the core rulebook.

Wow that's a rather myopic view of it. Sure, the TO can change any rules of the game for the sake of his event. That's not news.

But if, as a TO, you are changing a rule which is 100% crystal clear, then you need to make it clear ahead of time. Punishing a player mid-game for not following a rule change that was unannounced is simply obtuse and unfair.

How are the players supposed to follow rule changes that they are not made aware of?

Really, if the TO saw it as being a problem he should have said something as soon as he noticed it - not waited to pounce over a non-issue.

Saying that RAW doesn't work isn't entirely true. Part of RAW (which is a term that should be used interchangeably with simply "the rules") is that there will be gray areas that need to be sorted out. There is no reason for a situation that is 100% clear to need to be sorted out, because the book tells you what to do.

edit: I guess I just don't see a reason to allow yourself to get browbeaten into 4+ing a situation that is clear in the rules.

You are still missing the point
The TO intervened at the wrong time and in an inapproriate, negative manner.

If your advice to Liam is for future games that is okay, but telling people that they should have mounted all their Termies on 40mm bases doesn't make up for a bad experience at a tourney.

This is getting circular and I'm getting dizzy watching not a lot being said that is particularly helpful.

Ta-ta old cock

liam0404 wrote:I don't know the TO's name, but it was a gaming club near Glasgow, if anyone wants more detail please feel free to PM me.

I feel for you Scots up there.

For punishment, can't the TO be force-fed some haggis and denied Single-Malt Scotch until 2011?

thunderingjove wrote:Are you sure you can't tell us where this tournament was so that we need never attend by accident?

Yeah. This is what the 'Net is for. Name the store, describe the TO, since you don't know his name. And Get-The-Word-Out.

Optimally, word of this gets back to him and he realizes what a bad call that was. He might reform and be a better TO.

Not-so-optimally, is that he catches so much grief over it that he gets his TO badge pulled by a general recall or the manager/owners of the store.

It's the 3rd page of bitching and complaining, enough! Now is the time for action!

*cue unruly mob with torches and pitchforks*

Seriously, this is what these forums are for; let's use them for a positive change and get Word back to that store's owners/managers to make a change for the better. A couple dozen phone calls to the Glasgow store ought to have some impact.
-----------------------------
Using Dakka's Store finder, I find Static Games on 35-39 King St. Izzat the one?

nkelsch wrote:You missed the part where 40k is impossible to play by PURE RAW because it breaks the game in many places. So claiming I AM RIGHT CUZ RAW doesn't actually solve issues. It is great for internet discussions, but what is played has to be a mutual agreement between opponents which sometimes has to come down to 4+ rolls, mutually agreed upon FAQs and sometimes RAI deviations from RAW which sometimes might not go your way.

This is a case where the RAW is clear and does not break the game, and where RAI and RAW agree. This is not a case of RAI deviations from RAW, or where RAW causes problems, this is a case where RAW and RAI are simple, easy to follow, don't break the game, and work just peachy, but some guy has decided to go opposite of both just because he wants to. It's really strange when you think about it, I'm saying 'just use the bases they came on, or all big bases, or all small bases, it doesn't matter' and you're saying 'YOU BASE YOUR MODEL ON WHAT I SAY, YOUR A JERK FOR NOT DOING IT MY WAY IN THE FIRST PLACE' but somehow you think I'm the one being unreasonable.

You also missed the part that when you play at a tourney, you play by the TO's rules regardless of RAW is... And assuming you are always right because RAW is behind you especially when RAW breaks the game

Please explain exactly how mounting terminators on their proper bases breaks the game, or stop using 'RAW breaks the game' as an argument in this discussion. It's dishonest to keep pretending that this rule is one of the cases where RAW causes a problem, it's simply not.

or is something commonly not followed is a good way to instigate arguments. If you know you rely on a RAW ruling that some people don't follow, clarify before the game.

The guy who is consistently and quietly following the RAW and RAI is not the one instigating an argument. The guy getting angry because someone didn't follow his mystery house rule that he never even told anyone about is. The guy who shows up with GW-legal models and tries to play a game according to the rules is not going to come off as condescending and rude, the newbie who starts ranting at an old-time player for playing with legal but older models is the one that description applies to.

You can justify your behavior in your mind by saying, "my opponent is a dick for not knowing and following the rules as written!" but that doesn't accomplish anything unless your goal is to win every game via forfeit.

Showing up to a tournament with legally based models is now behavior that needs justification? Do I also need to justify showing up with painted or assembled models? What about paying the tournament fee? What about bringing a printed army list?

If you took half the comments in this thread into the real world, games would not get played and it doesn't matter how 'right' you are if games don't get played as it defeats the purpose of the whole hobby. There is being right on the internet and then there is being a reasonable person in the real world. Unless you are only playing against a handful of YMTC readers in real life, you may not find the same acceptance of your interpretation of pure RAW out there. If you can't handle losing an argument, never attend a tourney ever as TOs have total control over how the rules will be played at his event.

I think that getting angry because someone has legal bases that are smaller than you'd like them to be defeats the purpose of the whole hobby. I think that demanding someone rebase models that are on legal bases and have been based that way for over a decade is being unreasonable, not *gasp* showing up to play with perfectly normal models. I really don't get you guys who make up a rule that is A. more restrictive than the standard rule and B. Directly opposite the written and intended rule, but go on to try to claim that you're being reasonable and sensible and the guy who showed up just to play and didn't invent a rule is some kind of control freak jerk.

Oddly enough, IRL people tend to respond to old models with 'oh cool, I've never seen that before, what weapon IS that?', it's only the one TFG jerk who comes in and tries to make a scene about bases. And gets mocked and the real rules pointed out to him.

I fully agree with BearersOfSalvation.

Nkelsch - nothing you said bears any real relation to reality.

The rule is clear. The intent of the rule is clear. Nothing in this is up for debate - at all. You are simply wrong in your assertions that a) rebasing is the only option, b) that rebasing wont cause issues and c) that you are a jerk for wanting to follow the rules of the game, the same rules that are commonly played by everyone I have ever played against around the UK.

None of your assertions hold any merit. YOU are the control-freak type who wants everyone to follow your unpublished, against the rules, against the intended rules , minority opinion and whines that they are "jerks" if they dont.

The quiet gamers who were playing happily until the TO stuck his unwarranted and unwanted nose in were not at fault.

insaniak wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:Terminators still come with 25mm bases so its perfectly legitimate to use them.

No they don't. Having them in the box doesn't make them the bases supplied for the model.

The issue here though was with models that were supplied with 25mm bases... and barring an event-specific or house rule that says otherwise, it's perfectly legitimate to use them because the rulebook says so.

It would be nice if the rules specified base sizes for each model type, as they do (or did at one point, I haven't been keeping up) for Fantasy... but since they don't, it's not unreasonable for players to use what they have.

My terminator box came supplied with 8 25mm infantry bases and 5 40mm bases, I do not believe if they were just in there for the teleport homer they'd supply more than the 4 on a sprue.

The OP was stating that the OT contention was that he was using the age of his models to take advantage of the generational inconsistencies of basing to his advantage. My point, there is not inconsistency, thus no real contention beyond the OT's artificial notion, since you're still allowed to base that way, regardless of the models age, thus even if the models came off the shelf now, they can be based on smaller bases.

me wrote:Do you really think that you'd get many 'yes' answers if you ask people in general 'if someone is going to be playing a game with models with an unknown group of people, and he consults the rulebook and follows it exactly for how to assemble his models, is he being a jackass?' It saddens me to see how many people pervert the idea of social respect into 'do whatever I say even if it's the opposite of the rulebook or I'll say you're unsociable'.

nkelsch wrote:And most people don't even know what the term RAW means and will look at you like you are crazy if you say it in conversation many times...

Just thought I'd also point out that in the post you were replying to I gave an example of discussing RAW in conversation without using the acronym RAW at all. I use internet abbreviations on internet message boards, I use different words in conversation. "consults the rulebook and follows it exactly for assembling his models" is the spoken version of 'followed RAW for basing', and very few people would look at you like you're crazy for using it.

Meanwhile, I think very many people would look at you like you're crazy if you fly off the handle because someone *gasp* showed up to a tournament with legal models instead of illegal ones. Especially once you actually tried to explain how it's supposed to be abusive, since either base size has advantages and disadvantages (AOE weapons, disembark-charge distance, deep strike area, range after deep strike), it's not a case where one is clearly better than the other.

nkelsch wrote:I do find it somewhat disingenuous to use multiple units of termies in the same list with different base sizes, especially at a tourney and then turn around and claim 'why should I re-base my minis?' I think people would have legitimate issues if all your assault termies were 25mm and all your other termies were 40mm.

If the assault termies are old models then they are required to be on a the small bases. There is no provision for changing them to the new bases without having to ask opponent's consent for every game.

Shush Scott, you're inserting reality and *gasp* following clear and unambiguous rules into the conversation. That makes you a "jerk" remember?

TOs can houserule waht they want, however the *way* they do it determines if they are "TFG" or not. In this situation, unless the OP has distorted reality so much that up was down, the TO was a complete tosser.

Again, I can only provide you with my side of the argument, but I can assure you that neither player had ANY interaction with any of the event's TO's before that incident during that game.

@nkelsch

I can understand why this is upsetting you so much, but as i've asked already (and I havent seen you answer), why should I fork out more of my hard-earned for models that (according to the rulebook), are legal anyway?

I know you can only provide your side, I was just expressing that the reality would have to be almost diametrically opposed to your retelling in order for the TO to not come out of this VERY badly.

Nkelsch has no rational position, as has been explained a few times, only an irrational one.

Good point Nos. hey, if he's willing to cough up ill sure as heck modernise them!!!!

And then get in problems with people noting they ARENT on the original bases, and having an issue with that.

Following the rules, whose intent seems abundantly clear, is the simpler situation.

This enrages me. I've recently been in a discussion about basing heavy weapons teams (mixing old and new teams), and am feeling very mismatched when looking at my force. Arguments like this just prolongs the argument, especially when GW have made very specific rulings on this very subject.

I also have half a dozen or so OOP metal CSM termies, with Abaddon. They're on old-style bases, and that should be fine. If the TO treated me like that, I would've gotten my opponent involved, and if they both agreed I had to change my models out, I would've packed up and made a complaint.

The only solution I see to this problem would be a page in the rulebook outlining every model in the game, and a base size GW expect said model to be based on. That or perhaps a page in each codex.

Space Marine - 25mm.
Terminator - 40mm.
Dreadnaut - 60mm.

Guardsman - 25mm.
Ogryn - 40mm
Sentinel (or HWT) - 60mm.

That way a) iI's easier for kitbashers, converters and scratchbuilders to conform to and b) It's a hard-line for every army. Like it or not, at least there's a consistent ruling that every model must adhere to.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Shush Scott, you're inserting reality and *gasp* following clear and unambiguous rules into the conversation. That makes you a "jerk" remember?

What was I thinking?

I dont know, you should do "jerk" penance for it, thats for sure...

What does "jerk penance" consist of? 50 lashes with an oversize battlewagon?

If only.

I'm afraid its time to go visit Dr S Lannesh for a physicial. Full cavity search included....

Godspeed brave soldier...

liam0404 wrote: Full cavity search included....

That normally costs extra!

True, but its usually Dr Lannesh who pays the patients!!

I think we're done here.