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.

I got into a situation over the weekend with my marines against a AM player
basically, he'd backed his LRBTs against the table edge, so they were touching, but not overhanging, the table edge
I charged his tanks and was able to land enough glancing hits to remove 2 of the tanks from play, but he declared that, as the (AV10) rear, was off the table edge, by assaulting it and striking the rear, my squad had moved off the table and been placed into ongoing reserves

I wasn't in the mood for an argument, so I let it slide, but I'm sure this isn't the case

What is the consensus on this? How would you all play it?

There is literally no rules supporting that at all. You don't even need to be in the rear to hit the rear armor (you just always hit rear armor)

You don't have to assault the rear armor, when you assault you hit the rear armor. The AM player was playing all wrong and being a TFG.

It is not that you literally attacking rear of the vehicle:
"In close combat, however, all hits are resolved against the vehicle’s rear armour, to represent the chance of attacking a vulnerable spot"
- BRB, Armour Penetration in Assault

There are a lot of strange things in this game that you can abuse to be tfg but this is not one of them. The guy was just making stuff up.

Those were all my thoughts exactly. the guy was a bit of a TFG when it came to his attitude

I play IG, and I'd never played it that way. thanks for your input and time

The final straw was when I rolled a Weapon Destroyed result against a Manticore and he said that, like the Deathstrike, it didn't count, but he just couldn't fire that particular missile this turn. I packed up and walked away...

Case and question closed

Always have them show you the rule if your opponent states a rule you've never heard before. Always. At worst you get reminded of a rule you forgot. At best you learn something new, like a new rule or that your opponent is cheating. No need to argue, just ask for proof. No proof means no new rules, which means you go back to what is actually written.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Always have them show you the rule if your opponent states a rule you've never heard before. Always. At worst you get reminded of a rule you forgot. At best you learn something new, like a new rule or that your opponent is cheating. No need to argue, just ask for proof. No proof means no new rules, which means you go back to what is actually written.

SJ

Or THEY find out they were mistaken and you find out they were not being a cheater. Their reaction to rereading it will give you a clue if you are facing someone who is TFG or someone who misremembered.

Remmick_005 wrote:
Those were all my thoughts exactly. the guy was a bit of a TFG when it came to his attitude

I play IG, and I'd never played it that way. thanks for your input and time

The final straw was when I rolled a Weapon Destroyed result against a Manticore and he said that, like the Deathstrike, it didn't count, but he just couldn't fire that particular missile this turn. I packed up and walked away...

Case and question closed

Sorry you had such a bad experience.

As mentioned above, if I'm playing someone new, and they have a different opinion on a rule than me/my group, I ask them to show me the rule in the book and talk it out.

Better luck next game!

 Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Always have them show you the rule if your opponent states a rule you've never heard before. Always. At worst you get reminded of a rule you forgot. At best you learn something new, like a new rule or that your opponent is cheating. No need to argue, just ask for proof. No proof means no new rules, which means you go back to what is actually written.

SJ

Or THEY find out they were mistaken and you find out they were not being a cheater. Their reaction to rereading it will give you a clue if you are facing someone who is TFG or someone who misremembered.

Semantics. Whether by commission or ommission, trying to enforce a non-existent rule is cheating. We can call TFG or WAAC, but it's still the same thing. Now, if this were Bloodbowl, "if you ain't cheat'n, you ain't try'n!" But it's not Bloodbowl, it's 40k.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Semantics. Whether by commission or ommission, trying to enforce a non-existent rule is cheating. We can call TFG or WAAC, but it's still the same thing. Now, if this were Bloodbowl, "if you ain't cheat'n, you ain't try'n!" But it's not Bloodbowl, it's 40k.

SJ

Not semantics. A person can be mistaken and misremember a rule. If they apologize and say they remembered it differently, they aren't trying to cheat or be TFG. Cheating is a conscious and deliberate effort. If you consider a person cheating just because they were remembered wrong, you end up being TFG.

How were the rears of his tanks off of the table edge? I'm pretty sure that's not allowed by the rules.

In fact, there was a rule in 4th which basically said that if a model even touches table edge, it's removed from the game.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Always have them show you the rule if your opponent states a rule you've never heard before. Always. At worst you get reminded of a rule you forgot. At best you learn something new, like a new rule or that your opponent is cheating. No need to argue, just ask for proof. No proof means no new rules, which means you go back to what is actually written.

SJ

This is probably the best thing to do. I have faced tons of players who had some really strange rule interpretations ( as did I from time to time ). Most of those disputes ended friendly, players who like to cheat / pull off scams in order to win are quite rare in my experience.

Traditio wrote:
How were the rears of his tanks off of the table edge? I'm pretty sure that's not allowed by the rules.

In fact, there was a rule in 4th which basically said that if a model even touches table edge, it's removed from the game.

His tanks were at the edge of the table, not overhanging
He used a straight-edge to make sure the tracks were as close to the edge as he could during deployment. I thought he wanted to stay as far back as he could so I was further away for shooting
I asked him to show me the rule for the manticores, but he was using a printed battlescribe list, and printed it out without the rules page. the guy got shirty with me when I doubted the manticore decision, and at that point, I packed up my army and walked away

He was cheating.

Remmick_005 wrote:

Traditio wrote:
How were the rears of his tanks off of the table edge? I'm pretty sure that's not allowed by the rules.

In fact, there was a rule in 4th which basically said that if a model even touches table edge, it's removed from the game.

His tanks were at the edge of the table, not overhanging
He used a straight-edge to make sure the tracks were as close to the edge as he could during deployment. I thought he wanted to stay as far back as he could so I was further away for shooting
I asked him to show me the rule for the manticores, but he was using a printed battlescribe list, and printed it out without the rules page. the guy got shirty with me when I doubted the manticore decision, and at that point, I packed up my army and walked away

I would of left as soon as I found out he didn't have his rules. I bring mine because I don't even trust myself to know my own rules word for word. Gtfo if you think I'm trusting you to have memorized yours

Traditio wrote:
How were the rears of his tanks off of the table edge? I'm pretty sure that's not allowed by the rules.

In fact, there was a rule in 4th which basically said that if a model even touches table edge, it's removed from the game.

No there wasnt. The rule was that as soon as a falling back unit touches the edge theyre removed.

Otherwise you couldnt ever bring on reserves...

 Blitzen the Solitaire wrote:

Remmick_005 wrote:

Traditio wrote:
How were the rears of his tanks off of the table edge? I'm pretty sure that's not allowed by the rules.

In fact, there was a rule in 4th which basically said that if a model even touches table edge, it's removed from the game.

His tanks were at the edge of the table, not overhanging
He used a straight-edge to make sure the tracks were as close to the edge as he could during deployment. I thought he wanted to stay as far back as he could so I was further away for shooting
I asked him to show me the rule for the manticores, but he was using a printed battlescribe list, and printed it out without the rules page. the guy got shirty with me when I doubted the manticore decision, and at that point, I packed up my army and walked away

I would of left as soon as I found out he didn't have his rules. I bring mine because I don't even trust myself to know my own rules word for word. Gtfo if you think I'm trusting you to have memorized yours

It isn't that hard to get your opponents codex on your mobile phone these days. ; )



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Remmick_005 wrote:

I asked him to show me the rule for the manticores,

manticores are funny things since they have 2 sets of rules.
GW rules and FW rules and both are different.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Blitzen the Solitaire wrote:

Remmick_005 wrote:

Traditio wrote:
How were the rears of his tanks off of the table edge? I'm pretty sure that's not allowed by the rules.

In fact, there was a rule in 4th which basically said that if a model even touches table edge, it's removed from the game.

His tanks were at the edge of the table, not overhanging
He used a straight-edge to make sure the tracks were as close to the edge as he could during deployment. I thought he wanted to stay as far back as he could so I was further away for shooting
I asked him to show me the rule for the manticores, but he was using a printed battlescribe list, and printed it out without the rules page. the guy got shirty with me when I doubted the manticore decision, and at that point, I packed up my army and walked away

I would of left as soon as I found out he didn't have his rules. I bring mine because I don't even trust myself to know my own rules word for word. Gtfo if you think I'm trusting you to have memorized yours

It isn't that hard to get your opponents codex on your mobile phone these days. ; )



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Remmick_005 wrote:

I asked him to show me the rule for the manticores,

manticores are funny things since they have 2 sets of rules.
GW rules and FW rules and both are different.

No its not hard to do at all. But it's also not my job to bring my opponents codex. Even if I did have their codex, which I have some, I'd have packed up immediately if someone told me they didn't bring their rules (unless the guy JUST bought his army to get into the game, but don't show up with an army, a strategy and try to be technical and precise but Willfully not bring your rules)

My point was not to play the blame game, it was that each of us are responsible for the rules we choose to play. If your opponent has an odd rule you are unfamiliar with, they need to show that rule. And so do you when your opponent questions your rules. It's how we stay honest. Lack of honesty in a game leads to feel-badsies, which hurts the community.

Unless it's Bloodbowl. Got the Lurv da Bloodbowlz.

SJ

As everyone else has said, when in CC you're just treated as hitting the rear armor, even if you can't necessarily "hit" the actual rear armor. That guy was just being TFG