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.

Pivoting alone isn't movement... (ie pivoting can be movement, just not if that's all you do).

That said you're right - a transport wouldn't be able to run away from something that has assaulted it.
It can pivot to bring guns to bear though.

 Col. Dracus wrote:
I find this rather funny. The flip of this happened years ago at a tournament where a White Scars player had all of his bikes in reserves coming in from his own board edge. The Tau player deployed his kroot along his opponents board edge and because they could not be deployed from reserves they died.

funny stuff to hear it happen the other way around.

I remember that picture of the white scars players face, it was priceless!!! Does anyone have that photo so it can be posted?

 Abandon wrote:
miss-post, sorry.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purple Saturday wrote:
For those that enjoy obfuscation and semantics, the exact wording, "A model cannot move within I " of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase," (pg 10 BRB) can also literally mean that if my model falls within a one inch radius of an enemy model, it can not move unless to assault.

How about that...??? Reminds me of the old magic card, "Player loses next turn."

While the sentence per general use of English could be translated that way, that would break several other aspects of the game. Better to use a interpretation that does not break the game which would be that you 'cannot move to within on inch'... which is a playable way of looking at it.

I agree with you completely I was just having a bit of fun. It is a good moment to reflect on how ridiculous some RAW interpretations and arguments can get though. And GW's poor writing, generally.

That said you're right - a transport wouldn't be able to run away from something that has assaulted it.

It can move away:

Page 76, BRB. Top right of the page "The vehicle and the enemy remain where they are and are free to simply move away in future turns"

As this have had to be a Devilfish (no other transport for Tau), it can go over any unit.
You can count the unit as standing on the edge of the table, CAN count from the edge, don't need to, but can. This means you can be way outside the 1" radius of an enemy when counting your way in, and see to it that you are stopping 1" away, at the least.
Doing this with non-skimmers means that you will have to find a way around, or tank-shock as told on pg 85 of BRB.

Being less than 1" of an enemy model is intent to assault and can thus only move in the assault phase.
How you somehow start less than 1" from an enemy model is a bigger question to me, as you can not be less than 1" from your enemy.
As said, 1" within the enemy radius is intent to assault, so you can't end up there is any way if you aren't going to assault the model.

Kaizoe wrote:
How you somehow start less than 1" from an enemy model is a bigger question to me, as you can not be less than 1" from your enemy.

Easy, look at the assault scenario I posted in this thread.

The unit charged the enemy unit and there was another enemy unit that was within 1 inch of the charging unit, but not in base contact, so not in assault with the charging unit.

Plus this shows a precedent that you can move when you are closer than 1 inch from an enemy model:
Page 76, BRB. Top right of the page "The vehicle and the enemy remain where they are and are free to simply move away in future turns"

That is if the vehicle lost the assault, and the vehicle can't charge, so assault is broken up, but if it was an infantry model, there would be a pile in move.
So for vehicles you are free to move IF the vehicle looses the assault phase, otherwise it continues, and against other models there is a pile in move.

So, to reiterate what I said beforehand: you tank shock if you are locked from entering your board as normal, or skimmer over if you are entering with skimmers.
Tank shock puts you in assault, and you get out of it if your vehicle lost the assault (made no wound, I am guessing? I don't know all the rules by heart, yet...).

You can't charge in from reserve, and as it's the movement phase, you can't assault, right? Because it would be an illegal move to start your model within the 1" radius of an enemy model if you can't start with the intent to assault.
Intent to assault would be ending up, not starting, 1" from an enemy model.
Without ending an assault phase last turn, you can't be within 1" of an enemy model, it is not allowed to get a model to start his first turn there.

The house reference made earlier is perfectly valid. 'Within 1" of an enemy model' is both a measure as well as a location it would have to be in order for it to mean anything. If all you had was a measurement you end up with the ability to move your models into the air and over enemy models as movement is only defined as a distance measurement. Do we really want to head in that direction? In the end their intent was most likely that no model should end up within 1" of a model unless charging it or a model near it. You can implement a house rule that says no model is allowed to be positioned within 1" of an enemy model unless it is charging, which then covers all of the ways to start within 1" except the charging a close unit one. For that you use a rule similar to the tank shock rule and say the model must move the shortest distance away from enemy models unless......etc etc. Since GW gives way too much credit to people and their logic skills but set this game up as a frame work which you build a entertaining game around, they most likely assumed we would be civil and come up with a work around much like defining terrain. Since we are playing a competitive game it's hard to not want to make every advantage yours. In short there is no answer in the book for being blocked off the board nor a model starting within 1" of an enemy model, work it out before hand/during the game or roll off and keep truckin.

Kaizoe wrote:
So for vehicles you are free to move IF the vehicle looses the assault phase, otherwise it continues.

This is not true at all.

Tank shock puts you in assault, and you get out of it if your vehicle lost the assault (made no wound, I am guessing? I don't know all the rules by heart, yet...).

This is not true either.

A vehicle (Not including walkers) can not be locked in combat so they are never stuck.

Tank shocking does not put the vehicle into CC either.

You can't charge in from reserve, and as it's the movement phase, you can't assault, right?

Correct

Because it would be an illegal move to start your model within the 1" radius of an enemy model if you can't start with the intent to assault.
Intent to assault would be ending up, not starting, 1" from an enemy model.

It would not be an illegal move, see my example above about a unit charging Unit A, and Unit B ends up within 1 inch of the charging unit. Unit B is not locked in combat and they can move and shoot and assault as normal.

Without ending an assault phase last turn, you can't be within 1" of an enemy model, it is not allowed to get a model to start his first turn there.

This, again is not true. You can end within 1 inch of models in certain situations.

Gravmyr wrote:
The house reference made earlier is perfectly valid. 'Within 1" of an enemy model' is both a measure as well as a location it would have to be in order for it to mean anything. If all you had was a measurement you end up with the ability to move your models into the air and over enemy models as movement is only defined as a distance measurement. Do we really want to head in that direction?

Considering the rules are written on the basis that models move through terrain, and above the table is not terrain.....

In the end their intent was most likely that no model should end up within 1" of a model unless charging it or a model near it. You can implement a house rule that says no model is allowed to be positioned within 1" of an enemy model unless it is charging, which then covers all of the ways to start within 1" except the charging a close unit one. For that you use a rule similar to the tank shock rule and say the model must move the shortest distance away from enemy models unless......etc etc. Since GW gives way too much credit to people and their logic skills but set this game up as a frame work which you build a entertaining game around, they most likely assumed we would be civil and come up with a work around much like defining terrain. Since we are playing a competitive game it's hard to not want to make every advantage yours. In short there is no answer in the book for being blocked off the board nor a model starting within 1" of an enemy model, work it out before hand/during the game or roll off and keep truckin.

A good work around would be to make the models that are within 1 inch of the enemy move so that they are no closer than 1 inch from an enemy model.

Personally I have no problem with enemies being within 1" without charging. There's relatively few ways to get there considering you cannot 'move' there during movement. I don't see what the problem is for everyone.

 Abandon wrote:
Personally I have no problem with enemies being within 1" without charging. There's relatively few ways to get there considering you cannot 'move' there during movement. I don't see what the problem is for everyone.

The problem is the problem posed by the OP: board edge blocked.
What do we do in that situation?

I'm patiently waiting for someone to post that pic of the white scars player.....

 sub-zero wrote:
I'm patiently waiting for someone to post that pic of the white scars player.....

That is really not needed

That situation was a few editions ago, and the TO arbitrarily awarded a win as the rules at the time did not really cover that situation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Purple Saturday wrote:
For those that enjoy obfuscation and semantics, the exact wording, "A model cannot move within I " of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase," (pg 10 BRB) can also literally mean that if my model falls within a one inch radius of an enemy model, it can not move unless to assault.

How about that...??? Reminds me of the old magic card, "Player loses next turn."

You might want to quote the whole thing.

"A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase. To move past, they must go around." (10)

This says nothing about models that start their movement phase within one inch of an enemy model.

If anyone can answer these two questions and give me page numbers, I would appreciate it.

1) what rule tells us that a vehicle that has been charged can move as normal?

2) What happens when a unit charges a vehicle and they Immobilize the vehicle, can they ever move away from that vehicle or do they still have to remain in base contact until the vehicle is destroyed?

Ok, so I make my wall of dark angels 1.5" off your table edge. If you move onto the table, you're moving within 1", but you start 1.5" away.
I've circumvented the starting within the 1" range, and still leave you no room to deploy.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Ok, so I make my wall of dark angels 1.5" off your table edge. If you move onto the table, you're moving within 1", but you start 1.5" away.
I've circumvented the starting within the 1" range, and still leave you no room to deploy.

That is correct.

Though, in the interest of fair play, I think the situation needs to be addressed in an errata so that people can, you know, actually play a game of 40k and not just deploy, call good game, shake hands and start over. Because that is an incredible waste of time.

Is no one else thinking blocking the reserves from entering the game incredibly cheep? If I was resolving rule disputes in a game where that happened I'd say the reserves deploy the closest game edge that is not blocked. I view this practice as glitching only not in a video game way. You can call me wrong all ya want but you know this practice is bad rep for the game.

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
Is no one else thinking blocking the reserves from entering the game incredibly cheep? If I was resolving rule disputes in a game where that happened I'd say the reserves deploy the closest game edge that is not blocked. I view this practice as glitching only not in a video game way. You can call me wrong all ya want but you know this practice is bad rep for the game.

How is it bad rep?
You'd really give the opponent a free outflank on potentially most of their army because they made a poor tactical decision?

rigeld2 wrote:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
Is no one else thinking blocking the reserves from entering the game incredibly cheep? If I was resolving rule disputes in a game where that happened I'd say the reserves deploy the closest game edge that is not blocked. I view this practice as glitching only not in a video game way. You can call me wrong all ya want but you know this practice is bad rep for the game.

How is it bad rep?
You'd really give the opponent a free outflank on potentially most of their army because they made a poor tactical decision?

It is just incredibly poor game design that allows a "Game" to not be played in the first place.

Putting full squads of infantry in reserves without a way to deliver them is a poor tactical decision.

RAW it appears the enemy units cannot come onto the battlefield and would eventually count as destroyed for purposes of game resolution. Regardless of DR's inability to see the duality in the English language, this appears to be covered in the BRB well.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
Is no one else thinking blocking the reserves from entering the game incredibly cheep? If I was resolving rule disputes in a game where that happened I'd say the reserves deploy the closest game edge that is not blocked. I view this practice as glitching only not in a video game way. You can call me wrong all ya want but you know this practice is bad rep for the game.

How is it bad rep?
You'd really give the opponent a free outflank on potentially most of their army because they made a poor tactical decision?

It is just incredibly poor game design that allows a "Game" to not be played in the first place.

How is that different from setting up across from a gun line and losing every model on turn one?

The game was played, you made a poor tactical decision and lost because of it. Suck it up buttercup and don't make dumb decisions.

rigeld2 wrote:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
Is no one else thinking blocking the reserves from entering the game incredibly cheep? If I was resolving rule disputes in a game where that happened I'd say the reserves deploy the closest game edge that is not blocked. I view this practice as glitching only not in a video game way. You can call me wrong all ya want but you know this practice is bad rep for the game.

How is it bad rep?
You'd really give the opponent a free outflank on potentially most of their army because they made a poor tactical decision?

Ill break it down for you. Using this hole in the rules to gain an unfair advantage is the same thing as using the game mechanics in a video game to get an unfair advantage. Whether in a video game or in a table top, pen and paper, ect ect is called Glitching. What happens to the video game players who use glitches? They are punished. So the punishment in this case is yes his/her enemy getting a free outflank or they can feel free to forfeit. It would deter from further unsportsmen like conduct in the future.

As far as the bad rep for the game and hobby. If you are a new player to a game and you see tones of veteran players using this hole in the rules to smash inexperienced players 10 to 1 you wouldn't want to play. I have seen many new players scared off like this and guess what? They tell their friends stopping a whole group of potential new bloods. No new players = eventually the game dying. Think about it on a bigger scale because if there is 1 glitcher there are many many more.

The difference is the situation you propose, you had a chance to play the game, but rolled fantastically horribly and all of your models were removed. You had a chance to actually play the game.

In the case of not even getting to come on from the board edge you did not even have a chance to play, and that is just bad game design/ a Design Flaw with the game itself.

 chapgrimaldus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
Is no one else thinking blocking the reserves from entering the game incredibly cheep? If I was resolving rule disputes in a game where that happened I'd say the reserves deploy the closest game edge that is not blocked. I view this practice as glitching only not in a video game way. You can call me wrong all ya want but you know this practice is bad rep for the game.

How is it bad rep?
You'd really give the opponent a free outflank on potentially most of their army because they made a poor tactical decision?

Ill break it down for you. Using this hole in the rules to gain an unfair advantage is the same thing as using the game mechanics in a video game to get an unfair advantage. Whether in a video game or in a table top, pen and paper, ect ect is called Glitching. What happens to the video game players who use glitches? They are punished. So the punishment in this case is yes his/her enemy getting a free outflank or they can feel free to forfeit. It would deter from further unsportsmen like conduct in the future.

How is it a hole in the game? You (as the reserving player) made a bad decision. That bad decision cost you the game. That sucks.
It's not a hole in the game. It's definitely not the right thing to give the person making a bad decision a tactical advantage because they made a bad decision.

As far as the bad rep for the game and hobby. If you are a new player to a game and you see tones of veteran players using this hole in the rules to smash inexperienced players 10 to 1 you wouldn't want to play. I have seen many new players scared off like this and guess what? They tell their friends stopping a whole group of potential new bloods. No new players = eventually the game dying. Think about it on a bigger scale because if there is 1 glitcher there are many many more.

Seriously - think about this scenario. Understand what it actually requires.
There will not be "tons of veteran players" doing this to anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The difference is the situation you propose, you had a chance to play the game, but rolled fantastically horribly and all of your models were removed. You had a chance to actually play the game.

And so did you - you just chose to to something dumb. At least you had a choice.

In the case of not even getting to come on from the board edge you did not even have a chance to play, and that is just bad game design/ a Design Flaw with the game itself.

That's a lie - you had a chance to play. You opted not to take it.

It is not a lie, you did not have a chance to play as you did not participate in any of the three main aspects of playing the game, those being movement, shooting, or assault...

Not rolling any dice to see if your units live or die does not = playing the game.

Playing the game requires both sides participating in the main aspects of the game, which involve rolling the dice to determine if your units live or die, and an option that denies one side that opportunity is bad game design.

As DeathReaper said, it is a design flaw in the game. No rules for this edition cover it, therefore it's a huge gaping hole in the rules. As far as "a chance to play but opted not to take it." You do realize reserves cannot come into play until a certain turn and players like you (kinda obvious you love this tactic) can block the reserves before the turn they can come into play. There is a reason 40k uses points, its to make a balanced and fair game, you take that away using this tactic.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not a lie, you did not have a chance to play as you did not participate in any of the three main aspects of playing the game, those being movement, shooting, or assault...

Not rolling any dice to see if your units live or die does not = playing the game.

Playing the game requires both sides participating in the main aspects of the game, which involve rolling the dice to determine if your units live or die, and an option that denies one side that opportunity is bad game design.

So you made no decisions as to the outcome of the game?
The game is not all about dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
As DeathReaper said, it is a design flaw in the game. No rules for this edition cover it, therefore it's a huge gaping hole in the rules. As far as "a chance to play but opted not to take it." You do realize reserves cannot come into play until a certain turn and players like you (kinda obvious you love this tactic) can block the reserves before the turn they can come into play. There is a reason 40k uses points, its to make a balanced and fair game, you take that away using this tactic.

No, you *opted* to put those troops in Reserve. There isn't a unit in the game that is required to start in Reserve that can't fly over anything you try and block with.

Since you made the poor decision to start in Reserves against an army that can easily block off the table edge, you deserve to be punished - not rewarded.


Also, please don't assume bias where there is none. It's rude at least, and incorrect in this case.

Apologies if I came off as rude but 9 times out of 10 someone fiercely defending exploiting holes in games usually does so himself/herself so it was natural to assume such.

In some cases I remember certain troops are held in reserve because of scenario rules or rules of the units themselves. So in most cases not many choose to hold things in reserve. In fact most scenarios I have read you need to hold some in reserve. These are my views, I can argue them all day but I do not choose to. In this case since there are no rules to explain who is right or wrong, so I will agree to disagree and not perform these tactics nor will I play with those who use this tactic on the principle of fair play.

 chapgrimaldus wrote:
Apologies if I came off as rude but 9 times out of 10 someone fiercely defending exploiting holes in games usually does so himself/herself so it was natural to assume such.

Not in YMDC it shouldn't be.

In some cases I remember certain troops are held in reserve because of scenario rules or rules of the units themselves. So in most cases not many choose to hold things in reserve. In fact most scenarios I have read you need to hold some in reserve. These are my views, I can argue them all day but I do not choose to. In this case since there are no rules to explain who is right or wrong, so I will agree to disagree and not perform these tactics nor will I play with those who use this tactic on the principle of fair play.

Do you also make sure and keep your Avatar of Khaine away from Melta and Flamers?
Do you not cast Iron Arm on Hive Tyrants or Demons?

It's a tactical decision. For scenario games, do whatever because scenario games are "special". Normal pickup games, however, there's nothing wrong with this. At all.

The original post sounds almost like he got wiped off the board in a single turn. If the shooting had been a little more effective then he would never have gotten anything on the board due to a very poor deployment. If he could have shot ANY unit to make a gap in the line I think a TO would have ruled that the units go back into reserves.

If you make a stupid tacticle decision like leaving one weak unit on the board and loading everything else into reserves. You need to learn tactics. I'm with Rigeld on this. You had a chance of having a long game but your tactics ruined your chances. Just like anybody who bunches their models up while facing a template or large blast heavy army, you need to think out your games.

Seems like you guys are looking for this pic:



Lucarikx