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.

Hi,
I was playing in a tournament the other day and was using a Defiler. I measured the Battle Cannon range to a tactical squad and placed my large blast marker over them. My opponent then claimed I had no LoS. It was a close call about one building so I let him off and said I didn't have LoS. I then proceeded to place the large blast marker above a scout squad in plain sight, at which point my opponent asked what I was firing. I answered the Battle Cannon, and then he exclaimed: "Woah, you've already fired it, but you didn't have LoS so you can't use it!" I was so dumbfounded at the time I ended up not firing, but now I've got a feeling I've been cheated. Is what he did correct or acceptable or did he cheat me?

Not at all within the rules. You check range and line ofmsight, it isn't a legal target before that point

Absolutely, you were cheated. That guy sounds like someone it's better to not play against.

Thanks. I just wanted to know I wasn't going nuts. I knew this guy was going to be a pain the moment I drew his name and saw him.

First section of the rule book states that you have every right to measure anything you want, including LoS. This doesn't mean that you actually performed the action you were measuring. Sorry, but you've been had. Hopefully that was not the difference in the game.

Name him.

As far as I'm aware the only way to lose your ability to shoot on declaring a target is to Declare you are shooting at a Shadowseer and his unit outside of 24inches when they have veil of tears active.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I state the psychic power beforehand for my opponents as well and you can range/los check all you want. But once you DECLARE it there is no going back

You weren't necessarily cheated, but he was wrong.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

 Blitzen the Solitaire wrote:
As far as I'm aware the only way to lose your ability to shoot on declaring a target is to Declare you are shooting at a Shadowseer and his unit outside of 24inches when they have veil of tears active.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I state the psychic power beforehand for my opponents as well and you can range/los check all you want. But once you DECLARE it there is no going back

The other one is also Eldar, with the Warp Spiders' jump move.

And I would guess the few "no"s on your poll reflect Darkness's reminder that he wasn't necessarily malicious.
Your poll would be more accurate if it didn't assume guilt in the structure of the question.

Regardless of the dude's rules knowledge, he clearly was attempting to use the "rule" to keep you from damaging his units with a battle cannon. I mean, both of those units would have been dusted by the battle cannon, which adds to the suspicious nature of his actions. Was the scout squad perhaps near or on an objective? Did he get a point with them the turn after?

I don't care how clueless the guy is, even if he was genuinely mistaken, if you're attempting to restrict another player from even using the fething weapon he paid (an absurd amount of) points for, you should know the rules enough to do so. If you don't know the rules you shouldn't be so assertively swinging "rules" around that suspiciously work in your favor. I also refuse to believe this guy was that clueless about the rules, ffs. If he knew the rules for LOS he knew the rules that make what he did ridiculous.

I mean it may sound harsh to you, but if someone said that in real life to your face during a game would you respond with kindness as if the guy didn't know? He was clearly attempting to gain an advantage. If it smells like gak, looks like gak, feels like gak, it's probably gak.

The OP is a victim of TFG. If I was him/her I would entirely avoid playing him again, or play him with my most cheesefilled list and assert vehemently that every time he unfurls a tape measure towards one of my units he fired at them and can't use his weapons anymore. If he checks the rulebook to see if it's true, then you have confirmation that he didn't know, and you would be able to have himself show himself why what he did to you was ridiculous.. If he just whines about it, feth him.

Its a Tournament

you should call the TO over and have him or her lay the law.

Its possible he was mistaking some thing from an older edition but that is still very beardy to call a no shot like that.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
You weren't necessarily cheated, but he was wrong.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

This. 100%. And nice quote, Darkness!

It used to be, and still is in other games, that you have to declare the shot before seeing if it's valid. It could be as simple as grandfathering a rule from (very) old Editions or just spending too much time playing Infinity.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
It used to be, and still is in other games, that you have to declare the shot before seeing if it's valid. It could be as simple as grandfathering a rule from (very) old Editions or just spending too much time playing Infinity.

40K has always included determining LOS as a part of the process of choosing a target, and has always forbidden you from selecting a unit as a target if you have no LOS.


So while it's possible he was confusing another game's rules, or just confused, it was nothing to do with previous editions of this game.

CRB PG30 Choose a Target ,immediately followed by Line of Sight

 Blitzen the Solitaire wrote:
CRB PG30 Choose a Target ,immediately followed by Line of Sight

and under Line of Sight...

"If no model has Line of Sight, then a different target must be chosen."

So OP was cheated.

If the models were not in LoS, "then a different target must be chosen."

 JimOnMars wrote:
Name him.

I agree. Players like this should be put on a public list.

They really shouldn't.

People make mistakes. Move on.

 Lord Scythican wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Name him.

I agree. Players like this should be put on a public list.

I've mistakenly used a Large Blast marker for a regular Conversion Beamer, of COURSE it was a huge advantage for me. For some reason I had this idea in my mind of a "small Blast = 3in , blast = 5in, large blast = 7in". Noone noticed because Conversion Beamers are rare, and there's no other Codex:Inquisition player around here. I apologized when I finally noticed my mistake when I went "wait a second. why does my Deimos Predators Heavy Conversion Beamer have a 5in blast, too? OH gak".

So feel free to shame me on a public list if you think that's necessary and reasonable.

I forgot I had to snap fire my Gauss Flux Arcs after firing my Particle Whip the first time I used my Monolith. We realized this just after Turn 3. Should I have been put in the stocks and pelted with tomatoes? Probably. But not because I forgot a rule. That's just what how I get it up these days.

 EnTyme wrote:
I forgot I had to snap fire my Gauss Flux Arcs after firing my Particle Whip the first time I used my Monolith. We realized this just after Turn 3. Should I have been put in the stocks and pelted with tomatoes? Probably. But not because I forgot a rule. That's just what how I get it up these days.

You should try coffee. If propelled fast enough it'll work even better than those tomatoes - and the grounds can give off coffein directly into the bloodstream once they're through the skin.

 Lord Scythican wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Name him.

I agree. Players like this should be put on a public list.

Fine. It was Dylan Maloney.

Just to be safe, for the rest of my life, every time I meet a Dylan Maloney, he'll receive a knee to the groin. And when he's doubled over, crying, asking 'Why?' I'll say, 'One Dylan Maloney ruined it for all of you Dylan Maloneys.'

 deviantduck wrote:
Just to be safe, for the rest of my life, every time I meet a Dylan Maloney, he'll receive a knee to the groin. And when he's doubled over, crying, asking 'Why?' I'll say, 'One Dylan Maloney ruined it for all of you Dylan Maloneys.'

And as you walk away, Alice Cooper's "Mr. Nice Guy" plays in the background.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
You weren't necessarily cheated, but he was wrong.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

This. A thousand times this. Sounds like an honest mistake rather than outright cheating, but still, not the correct application of the rules (either as written or as intended).

 insaniak wrote:
They really shouldn't.

People make mistakes. Move on.

I will rephrase that then. Known cheaters should be put on a list. Although I can't prove that the guy in question is a cheater or just someone who doesn't know the rules, this quote right here gives me the impression that he is TFG:

 Chaos Spawn wrote:
I knew this guy was going to be a pain the moment I drew his name and saw him.

.

Pretty damn good chance he was a cheater and a not a mistake maker.

 Lord Scythican wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
They really shouldn't.

People make mistakes. Move on.

I will rephrase that then. Known cheaters should be put on a list. Although I can't prove that the guy in question is a cheater or just someone who doesn't know the rules, this quote right here gives me the impression that he is TFG:

 Chaos Spawn wrote:
I knew this guy was going to be a pain the moment I drew his name and saw him.

.

Pretty damn good chance he was a cheater and a not a mistake maker.

Based on what? For all we know Chaos Spawn is a judgmental asshat and let his experience on the table influence his telling on how he saw him for the first time. The guy misrepresented a single rule in a single instance, that's really not such a big thing. I did much worse and I know for a fact that I had no intention of "cheating". I simply made an error, I've since then found out I was wrong and now I use the correct rules for the Conversion Beamer. I could've continued to use it as a Heavy Conversion Beamer since I'm the only guy around that even plays Codex Inquisition, so the odds of someone noticing were pretty low.

That's the key difference between a mistake and a cheating attempt: If I find out I've used a rule wrong, I will use the correct rule from then on. A cheater will try to use that trick whenever he thinks he can get away with it.

So really you can't tell whether this guy is a cheater or just misread a rule, not based on a SINGLE event.

I once rerolled To Wound on a blast weapon because of Twin-Linked, because at the time I was new to the game and thought "template" meant any of those green markers you used for identifying flamers and blast weapons and the like.

I've since learned I made a mistake. Other guy was cool about it when we discussed it later because we're adults, and realize mistakes in a game as complicated and rules-dense as Warhammer happen.

Basically, chill out guys. It's the internet. No sense working yourself into a tizzy over a person you're never going to play anyway because they live in another part of the world, who may have misunderstood a rule and that gave him an advantage on the table.

nekooni wrote:

 Lord Scythican wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
They really shouldn't.

People make mistakes. Move on.

I will rephrase that then. Known cheaters should be put on a list. Although I can't prove that the guy in question is a cheater or just someone who doesn't know the rules, this quote right here gives me the impression that he is TFG:

 Chaos Spawn wrote:
I knew this guy was going to be a pain the moment I drew his name and saw him.

.

Pretty damn good chance he was a cheater and a not a mistake maker.

Based on what? For all we know Chaos Spawn is a judgmental asshat and let his experience on the table influence his telling on how he saw him for the first time. The guy misrepresented a single rule in a single instance, that's really not such a big thing. I did much worse and I know for a fact that I had no intention of "cheating". I simply made an error, I've since then found out I was wrong and now I use the correct rules for the Conversion Beamer. I could've continued to use it as a Heavy Conversion Beamer since I'm the only guy around that even plays Codex Inquisition, so the odds of someone noticing were pretty low.

That's the key difference between a mistake and a cheating attempt: If I find out I've used a rule wrong, I will use the correct rule from then on. A cheater will try to use that trick whenever he thinks he can get away with it.

So really you can't tell whether this guy is a cheater or just misread a rule, not based on a SINGLE event.

I didn't say he was a cheater. I just said there was a pretty good chance he was. If you know a player is going to be a pain, then you must have prior experience. I have never called someone a pain for being ignorant of the rules or for being a good player. Pains are almost always TFG.

 Lord Scythican wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Lord Scythican wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
They really shouldn't.

People make mistakes. Move on.

I will rephrase that then. Known cheaters should be put on a list. Although I can't prove that the guy in question is a cheater or just someone who doesn't know the rules, this quote right here gives me the impression that he is TFG:

 Chaos Spawn wrote:
I knew this guy was going to be a pain the moment I drew his name and saw him.

.

Pretty damn good chance he was a cheater and a not a mistake maker.

Based on what? For all we know Chaos Spawn is a judgmental asshat and let his experience on the table influence his telling on how he saw him for the first time. The guy misrepresented a single rule in a single instance, that's really not such a big thing. I did much worse and I know for a fact that I had no intention of "cheating". I simply made an error, I've since then found out I was wrong and now I use the correct rules for the Conversion Beamer. I could've continued to use it as a Heavy Conversion Beamer since I'm the only guy around that even plays Codex Inquisition, so the odds of someone noticing were pretty low.

That's the key difference between a mistake and a cheating attempt: If I find out I've used a rule wrong, I will use the correct rule from then on. A cheater will try to use that trick whenever he thinks he can get away with it.

So really you can't tell whether this guy is a cheater or just misread a rule, not based on a SINGLE event.

I didn't say he was a cheater. I just said there was a pretty good chance he was. If you know a player is going to be a pain, then you must have prior experience. I have never called someone a pain for being ignorant of the rules or for being a good player. Pains are almost always TFG.

There's a good reason I said he would be a pain. Firstly, his list. This tournament was 600points, bound. I found it suspicious that he fielded an Aegis Defence Line, two Predators, a terminator squad, a captain, a tactical squad and a scout squad. Sound over points to anyone? I asked him, and he gave some rubbish about rules errata, so I called the TO, who said we should just get on with the game and have fun instead of arguing about something as "trivial" as points. Having seen this guy play three other people, I also knew he questions EVERY rule he doesn't know. So I played as usual, and within my first turn , had to show him the CSM codex a grand total of 11 times. When I proceeded to ask if I could check the stats on his scouts, which he claimed were BS4, he pulled a foul face and said no. Only when I threatened to call another TO did he let me see, at which point he said: BS3/BS4 who cares? Now you see why I call him a pain?