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.

puma713 wrote: And what if they started over and the White Scars player beat him, then the FAQ was released - who is being treated unfairly then?

And then a week after that, the new Tau codex was released, and the Tau became more powerful ... who is being treated unfairly then...?

The answer obviously is that it changes nothing, because something that hasn't been published yet has absolutely no effect on the game being played now.


You're still apparently missing the point. The FAQ has nothing to do with it, because at the time the ruling was made, the FAQ hadn't been published. Prior to the FAQ a player who kept his army in reserve had absolutely no reason to suspect that a judge would rule that his army would be completely destroyed in this situation.

That's like saying, "Oh, you screwed up your deployment that would most probably give your opponent the game? Oh, well - DO OVER!"

No, it's nothing like that at all. Because just screwing up your deployment doesn't lead to a breakdown of the rules of the game

To me, this is just as unfair as calling the game for the Tau player. And what if they started over and the White Scars player beat him, then the FAQ was released - who is being treated unfairly then?

Nobody. If I throw stones at my opponents models just because I could and after that he does not fulfil WYSIWYG requirements afterwards, do I win the game because he didnt realize that?

That's like saying, "Oh, you screwed up your deployment that would most probably give your opponent the game? Oh, well - DO OVER!"

No its not anything like that. As a judge I cannot make my call to justify a players intention. I make my call based on what the situation is and what has to be done to continue with the game. In this situation there is nothing that can be done, so we have a gamebreaking situation.

So there are 2 possible calls: 0:0 or start over. 0:0 would be too harsh because I can't say they did something wrong and shouldnt be punished, start over would be fair because now both of them know that this cant be solved and go around the problem.

There are no "do overs". The player got caught with his pants down, the judge made the right call (completely enforced by Games Workshop) and the White Scars player was a good enough sport to have a mock photo taken afterwards. Not only that, but the White Scars player learned something from the experience and the cunning Tau player advanced in the tournament.

Not the White Scars player is caught with his pants down. The rules are caught with pants down. And the white scars player has nothing to do with it. Although I could accuse the Tau player of forcing a loophole in his favour I won't as a neutral judge. So I just see a collapsing game that is either illegal (0:0) or I give them a second chance for a legal game.
Is it cunning to throw stones at my opponents models?

insaniak wrote:

puma713 wrote: And what if they started over and the White Scars player beat him, then the FAQ was released - who is being treated unfairly then?

And then a week after that, the new Tau codex was released, and the Tau became more powerful ... who is being treated unfairly then...?

The difference is what I am referring to actually happened and had a direct correlation on the game (to the specific ruling of a judge).

Insaniak wrote:The answer obviously is that it changes nothing, because something that hasn't been published yet has absolutely no effect on the game being played now.

It validates the judge's ruling (which shouldn't need validation anyway, but in this case, might because it resulting in a one-sided loss). You don't think the later release of the FAQ may have made that White Scars player feel a tiny bit better about the call?

insaniak wrote: Prior to the FAQ a player who kept his army in reserve had absolutely no reason to suspect that a judge would rule that his army would be completely destroyed in this situation.

And prior to the FAQ, a player who stopped another player's army from entering the board had absolutely no reason to suspect that a judge would rule that his opponent's army would be completely destroyed in that situation.

We're not going to agree, so we might as well just leave it at that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

-Nazdreg- wrote:
If I throw stones at my opponents models just because I could and after that he does not fulfil WYSIWYG requirements afterwards, do I win the game because he didnt realize that?

I'm confused as to what this has to do with anything.

Nazdreg wrote:So there are 2 possible calls: 0:0 or start over.

And both would have been the incorrect call, as evidenced by GW. The judge made the right call. The FAQ simply backed it up.

Nazdreg wrote:
Is it cunning to throw stones at my opponents models?

Again. . .what?

Might be a dumb question, but isn't the FAQ just a clarification of existing rules? If this situation had required entirely new rules wouldn't it then be called an errata?

I'm confused as to what this has to do with anything.

It has to do with the fact that you dont win if anyone acts outside the rules. And every kind of continue in that situation would be outside the rules. So the conclusion the Tau player win can not be justified. (Remember: The FAQ wasnt published that time)
Of course the WS-player cant win under that circumstances. If I were harsh, I would consider this game not finishable and therefore a 0:0 would be the solution. But since I have to assume that both players didnt know what they were facing, and in fact did nothing wrong, They can start again.

And both would have been the incorrect call, as evidenced by GW. The judge made the right call. The FAQ simply backed it up.

I think the judge was sympathizing with the Tau player. FAQ cant be taken into account, they can change actual wordings quite drastically.
So it wasnt a neutral decision. And it wasnt a rules based decision. So I would consider it bad.

At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, I think the judge made the better call. In a situation where neither player can solve a problem, it becomes the judge's responsibility. He made a decision. At the end of the day, his word is law. GW thought so.

I think if they gave the WS player another chance it would be no different than giving him another chance if he was down by 5 KP's half way through the game. That would be unfair to the Tau player. Ruling in the Tau player's favor wasn't unfair because his army wasn't the one that was "breaking the rules." The WS army was.....thus he loses.

I can see both sides of the argument though. It really just comes down to opinion. There is really no right or wrong way to call that situation. I would've made the same call, but I wouldn't be upset or confused if I was the Tau player and the judge said "restart the game."

Dannyevilguy wrote:Might be a dumb question, but isn't the FAQ just a clarification of existing rules? If this situation had required entirely new rules wouldn't it then be called an errata?

No, FaQ's Change rules all the time.

Look at the ruling on Tyranids about the Venomthrope brood's Spore Cloud, that changed the BRB ruling, and it is not an errata.

I think the judge made the better call. In a situation where neither player can solve a problem, it becomes the judge's responsibility. He made a decision. At the end of the day, his word is law.

Of course. But law isnt always good. Neither is it always fair...

I think if they gave the WS player another chance it would be no different than giving him another chance if he was down by 5 KP's half way through the game. That would be unfair to the Tau player.

Yes that would be unfair to the Tau player. But being down 5 KP is a perfectly legal situation within a game that can continue after that as normal.

Ruling in the Tau player's favor wasn't unfair because his army wasn't the one that was "breaking the rules." The WS army was.....thus he loses.

No. Neither of the armies broke the rules. The game just crashes. So it would be illegal to continue in any way. The game therefore will not end and no one can win. I could also disqualify the Tau player for provoking the situation. But this wouldnt be fair too.

puma713 wrote:The difference is what I am referring to actually happened and had a direct correlation on the game (to the specific ruling of a judge).

Which would be relevant if the judge is clairvoyant.

Insaniak wrote:It validates the judge's ruling (which shouldn't need validation anyway, but in this case, might because it resulting in a one-sided loss). You don't think the later release of the FAQ may have made that White Scars player feel a tiny bit better about the call?

I have no idea how he felt. Fo myself, it probably would just make me grumpy that the FAQ hadn't been issued a couple of weeks earlier so I would have been aware of the issue before the event.

insaniak wrote: Prior to the FAQ a player who kept his army in reserve had absolutely no reason to suspect that a judge would rule that his army would be completely destroyed in this situation.

And prior to the FAQ, a player who stopped another player's army from entering the board had absolutely no reason to suspect that a judge would rule that his opponent's army would be completely destroyed in that situation.

I really am of the opinion that the judges ruling did have some precedent, in so much as the WS not being able to do something they must but not be allowed to and therefore destroyed. Here is why;

As players we already know that we cannot move within 1" of a enemy model unless we are assaulting. Now in the game it is established through other rules that when you cannot do something that you are required to do, yet an opponent can prevent you from doing said required task, you are destroyed. A couple of examples would be,

1. Forced to fall back, but trapped by enemy troops gets you killed.

2. Unable to deploy from a destroyed vehicle.

So thinking about it, the judge could have easily looked at other incidents, such as those above, that the situation was similiar and ruled as those situations are played out per the rules.

Didn't the infiltration rules always say that unless you are completely able to move on the table, the model dies?

So why would preventing the model from moving onto the table be an unclear situation that the WS player was not able to anticipate?

copper.talos wrote:There is no loop hole. If you can't move within 1" of your opponent, then in this case you can't move at all. The tau player knew that and took the opportunity. It's the sm player's fault that didn't pay attention to the tau player's list. I bet he thought "Tau?! Easy pickings..."

sounds like a loop hole to me. avoiding the battle with a rule that wouldn't typically be used in such a way.

why? what do you think a loop hole is?

Brother Ramses wrote:To sit there and give the White Scars player a mulligan to start the game over penalizes the Kroot player with absolutely zero justification. Fine and dandy in friendly games, but not in a tournament.

bzzt. wrong. there's ample justification, but none of it is bound to the Rule Book. I mean, it's not like that was a 'Just' move to make. even if you can truthfully say a part (or most) of the scenarion involved doing the "right thing" that doesn't absove the WHOLE of it. of course, we both know what's really important here

insaniak wrote:The Kroot player forced the game into a situation that the rules didn't cover, and the judge awarded him a win for it. Would people be just as ok with the ruling if he had then walked over to the next table, tapped one guy on the shoulder and said 'Hey, new rule, you win. Oh, and you over there in the green shirt, there's a new rule that the guy in the green shirt automatically wins the tournament. Congratulations, thanks for coming everyone!'

what is that? that's going even further than the extreme

puma713 wrote:The White Scars player made a stupid move. The Tau player didn't find a "loophole" - if it was a loophole, then GW would've ruled against it - he played by the rules and the judge awarded him for it. Later, the judge was confirmed to be correct.

funny thing about loop holes is that they're legal. if you do a crime you get punished, if you exploit a loop hole then the higher ups/legal teams address it. depending on what's being exploited.

puma713 wrote: Next time, don't leave Khan at home or reserve your entire army when you see your opponent has 60 or so Infiltrators.

the tounament didn't allow named Heroes.

d-usa wrote:Didn't the infiltration rules always say that unless you are completely able to move on the table, the model dies?

Assuming you mean reserve, rather than infiltration... no, they never did.

If they had, this wouldn't have been an issue.

Ummmm
Fact is, it was a dick move and a clever move by the Tau player, regardless of what the WS player was planning on, he was in a tournament, and he should have asked about his opponents team, and realized that he would not be able to get on board if the kroot all infiltrated there. And he should have deployed differently, not just counted on the Tau player being a good sport during a competition where both of them paid money not just to "play" but to play for the prize, which means, alls fair in war.
Never having to move the kroot and the WS being stuck in limbo until the game was over if it was an objective game of any kind means Tau wins. If it was KP's, than it probably should of been a draw and the Tau player figured either it would be a win or a draw and he played as he should have in a tournament.
The WS player learned a valuable lesson and although he will never forget that game I'm sure he learned from it, in any case, isn't this slightly off topic, hasn't the OP's question already been answered??

Brother Ramses wrote:I really am of the opinion that the judges ruling did have some precedent, in so much as the WS not being able to do something they must but not be allowed to and therefore destroyed. Here is why;

As players we already know that we cannot move within 1" of a enemy model unless we are assaulting. Now in the game it is established through other rules that when you cannot do something that you are required to do, yet an opponent can prevent you from doing said required task, you are destroyed. A couple of examples would be,

1. Forced to fall back, but trapped by enemy troops gets you killed.

2. Unable to deploy from a destroyed vehicle.

So thinking about it, the judge could have easily looked at other incidents, such as those above, that the situation was similiar and ruled as those situations are played out per the rules.

Agreed. It's also not as if this was an entirely unknown or unprecedented situation.

The White Scar player may not have encountered it before, or may have forgotten about it (I know someone who forgot the same thing during the Adepticon Champs last year against a Tyranid player with a ton of Genestealers), but many players have encountered this situation or closely-related ones like blocking table edges from Wolf Scouts or Snikrot, for many years.

I think that if he reserved the whole army he should have thought of the possibility that the Tau player did that, and if he did think about it, what was he expecting? Being allowed to move through the tau? a free restart?

Holy smokes ya'll... this is one soapbox we have here...

Really... everyone needs to understand that the TO makes the final call and in fact, it needs to be understood that the TO is the final arbiter (right or wrong).
I get that prior to the FAQ, the game broke. So, the TO at the time decided in favor of the Tau...

Personally, I think it's a fantastic tactic in a tournament setting...

You will get blind sided... come on... who hasn't been blind sided before?? (it'll be a good topic... quick, someone make one STAT!)

Then, on the next tourny, clarify it with the TO. Here's my standard list that I normally clarify with the TO:
-FNP vs Secondary effect
-deffrolla
-KFF coverage
-does game continue if opponent is totally wiped.
-etc...

jgehunter wrote:I think that if he reserved the whole army he should have thought of the possibility that the Tau player did that, and if he did think about it, what was he expecting? Being allowed to move through the tau? a free restart?

That's exactly what I'm sayin, You can't fault the Tua player for being a better general and knowing his army any more than you can blame the WS player for reserving everything. The rule clearly states: If a unit is held in reserve and cannot enter, then the unit is destoyed. That was even before the aformentioned FAQ came out. Bottom line, this was not some freindly game at your FLGS, this was a tournament, and in a tournament setting your main goal is to win. Was what the Tau player doing a "dick move", NO, he used his army with the codex rules to table his opponent turn one. Congratulations on being a better general and acheiving victory. Any further agument about this thread is pure trolling and the people posting such arguments are doing so just for the sake of argument. Just my .02 cents.

Quick question: If I deploy all of my scoring troops into a single blob within shooting distance from let's say 4-5 Vindicator tanks, and you of course destroy my troops in your shooting phase, Is that a "dick move" on your part or just bad generalship on mine? Think about how this question applies to this thread...think.

Sub zero - The rule clearly states: If a unit is held in reserve and cannot enter, then the unit is destoyed.

NO. the rules did NOT say that. Which is why the FAQ came out.

If you disagree, please post a page and paragraph. You cant...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sub zero - The rule clearly states: If a unit is held in reserve and cannot enter, then the unit is destoyed.

NO. the rules did NOT say that. Which is why the FAQ came out.

If you disagree, please post a page and paragraph. You cant...

Ok, let's step back in time before the FAQ came out, tell me if you had a unit in reserve and could not enter, then what would happen to said unit?

Nothing, because the rules do not cover this situation.

You MUST move on, and you CANNOT move on. The game halts and breaks. Do not continue, as you have no permission to do so.

As has been pointed out a number of times throughout this thread.

Do you accept that your statement was categorically incorrect then?

Mannahnin wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:I really am of the opinion that the judges ruling did have some precedent, in so much as the WS not being able to do something they must but not be allowed to and therefore destroyed. Here is why;

As players we already know that we cannot move within 1" of a enemy model unless we are assaulting. Now in the game it is established through other rules that when you cannot do something that you are required to do, yet an opponent can prevent you from doing said required task, you are destroyed. A couple of examples would be,

1. Forced to fall back, but trapped by enemy troops gets you killed.

2. Unable to deploy from a destroyed vehicle.

So thinking about it, the judge could have easily looked at other incidents, such as those above, that the situation was similiar and ruled as those situations are played out per the rules.

Agreed. It's also not as if this was an entirely unknown or unprecedented situation.

The White Scar player may not have encountered it before, or may have forgotten about it (I know someone who forgot the same thing during the Adepticon Champs last year against a Tyranid player with a ton of Genestealers), but many players have encountered this situation or closely-related ones like blocking table edges from Wolf Scouts or Snikrot, for many years.

I just saying that the precedent for declaring that the WS army in reserve was destroyed because they could not move on the table was there before the FAQ clarified that they are indeed destroyed. Insaniak is proposing that it was just a bad call with no thought process behind it, however rules did exist that the judge could have easily used as precedent to declare that the WS was destroyed by being denied movement onto the table.

whembly wrote:Really... everyone needs to understand that the TO makes the final call and in fact, it needs to be understood that the TO is the final arbiter (right or wrong).

Everybody does understand that. The discussion is simply on whether or not the call made in this case was a good one. Not on whether or not the TO was in the right to make one. He had to make some sort of call... that's his job.

sub-zero wrote:Ok, let's step back in time before the FAQ came out, tell me if you had a unit in reserve and could not enter, then what would happen to said unit?

Sorry, but what exactly did you think the discussion was about?

Before the FAQ, the rules simply did not address what happened in that situation. Hence the judge at the tournament in the posted image having to make a call on it... and hence this entire discussion on that call.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote: Insaniak is proposing that it was just a bad call with no thought process behind it,...

I don't believe I ever suggested that there was no thought process behind it. Just that I thin it was a bad call, as introducing such a rule during the game had such a one-sided impact.

If the rule had been in existence before the game started, both players' deployment may well have been completely different.

This seems to be the exact effect of when an.unstoppable force meets an immovable object.

In this case the WS is unstoppable because it must move on. The Kroot are immovable casue it ain't their turn. According to GW, Immovable objects trump unstoppable force.

I've been following this thread with some interest.

In a nutshell, the WS player decided to reserve his entire army and deny the Tau player 2 turns of shooting. This is seen to be a viable tactic.

The Tau player saw the flaw in the WS deployment tactic, and had a sufficient force to infiltrate across the board and block the WS player's table edge.

But this is classified by a few as being "a dick move" and not a viable tactic that took advantage of an opponent's deployment error.

I see this as no differrent than say, using a refused flank deployment against an opponent, or placing 2 webway portals in an opponent's deployment zone to bring units into his rear.

I think the TO made the only decision he could at the time, giving the victory to the Tau player.

The WS player paid the price for an error in deployment, and probably won't make that same mistake again.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and we know what they say about opinions!

Actually, thinking about it, it may have been the right ruling to make. Here's my line of reasoning:

1. The WS player MUST bring on his reserves, but cannot move them.
2. He would not be able to (legally) complete his movement phase, so the game would be stuck in (probably) his turn 2.
3. It's a tournament, so games have a time limit. The game would have run out of time without progressing past the WS player's movement phase.
4. The Tau player wins because the WS player has no units "left on the table" at the end of the game (p90).

He might not have gotten full battle points for the game, though, depending on the tournament's scoring system, but I believe this was the right ruling to make.

Was it still a dick move? I would say so, obviously others think it was a legitimate tactic, but I think that anything that prevents the game from actually being played is a "dick move".

I don't get this whole "let the game be played for the benefit of playing" malarkey. IT"S A TOURNAMENT. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I pay good money to enter a tourney, then my sole objective is to win said tourney. And to those of you whining about how the WS player should get a "do-over"? I don't frakkin think so! The judge made the right call, plain and simple. At this point, I don't even see the reason for the argument. 1. Did the Tau player break ANY rules in his movement phase? NO. 2. Could the WS player bring ANY of his units into play? NO. 3. Therefore the Tau player is awarded the win. It's as simple as black and white. The fact that the FAQ was not out yet, hold no bearing what so ever on this argument. 1 + 2 = 3 Lesson over. sheesh.

time wizard wrote:But this is classified by a few as being "a dick move" and not a viable tactic that took advantage of an opponent's deployment error.

Personally, I wouldn't call it a dick move. It's certainly not a problem now that the issue has been clarified. Again, the only reason I disagree with this particular ruling is down to the timing of it.

sub-zero wrote:I don't get this whole "let the game be played for the benefit of playing" malarkey. IT"S A TOURNAMENT. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I pay good money to enter a tourney, then my sole objective is to win said tourney. And to those of you whining about how the WS player should get a "do-over"? I don't frakkin think so! The judge made the right call, plain and simple. At this point, I don't even see the reason for the argument. 1. Did the Tau player break ANY rules in his movement phase? NO. 2. Could the WS player bring ANY of his units into play? NO. 3. Therefore the Tau player is awarded the win. It's as simple as black and white. The fact that the FAQ was not out yet, hold no bearing what so ever on this argument. 1 + 2 = 3 Lesson over. sheesh.

I would recommend stepping away from the computer for a while if the discussion is getting you that worked up.

Nobody is whining. We're discussing the merits of a decision made mid-game that had a big impact on the game. Nothing more.

As for why it's an argument, it was pointed out to you before. The reason for the discussion is that a player lost a game based not on his own error, but on a gap in the rules. It's not a big issue... certainly not one that's worth getting worked up about.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

Nobody. If I throw stones at my opponents models just because I could and after that he does not fulfil WYSIWYG requirements afterwards, do I win the game because he didnt realize that?

Depends on how strict the tourney is, but if it did I would ask for a TO to declare an exception to WYSIWYG given the circumstance, and if he doesn't, end up pressing criminal damage charges :p. It's very hard to win a tourney under arrest.

As to the situation, if this was a friendly game, then it would be a dick move, but since it is a tournament, tough for the WS player

I don't think it was as much a gap in the rules, but more of a case of interpreting rules differently. Or maybe not anticipating the scenario at all.

It appears that the Tau player, through his interpretation of the rules, anticipated that the WS player would not be able to come out of reserves and auto-loose (or maybe auto-draw).

The WS player either thought that there would be a way to come onto the board anyway, or really just never anticipated a scenario like this.

I know that even before the FAQ I always thought that if you have to arrive from reserves and can't, the unit is lost. So to me this decision made perfect sense because that is how I always interpreted the rule, even pre-FAQ. Other people probably had a different interpretation.

I don't think it was a gap, there was just a difference of interpretation and the TO had to make a call. I think he did the right thing, even though I don't know if the Tau player got a win/draw/partial points or whatever.

I know that if it happened to me I would have taken the ruling, then I would have played another game that didn't count towards the results just to get the game in.