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.

Emporers failthful - except the big difference is that those situations are clearly described in the rules, whereas in this situation the player was exploiting a gap to force a situation.

ONe is sporting, the other isnt.

He was exploiting, what he believed to be at least (otherwise he would not have tried it), a viable rule and the opposing players inexperience/lack of knowledge. It was up to the judge to decide how this turned out. If the guy didn't crack a spack and went along with the judges decision, even if it meant a tie or a restart, ( pointed out by Killkrazy) that would make him a decent sport.

@Tyyr: I swear I know this guy... Seriously, it's bugging me.

@nosferatu1001:

So the only option for the Tau player is take it up the ass and let the White Scars player enjoy his full reserves?

What next? Give him a bad sportsman score for screwing himself?

nosferatu1001 wrote:There is the argument that *putting* that judge in the situation in the first place is unsporting - you have engineered a situation where a judge must resolve, knowing full well it is an issue with the rules. Thus, you have delayed the game (definitely unsporting) at a minimum, and attempted to engineer a win (as was the decision) by exploiting the pressure put on the judge to keep things moving.

This I will adamantly disagree with. I've been a GT judge in US/Canadian GTs, and that 'spot' is what I signed on for when I signed on. Course, I'm also smart enough to confer with my fellow judges in advance of the event on items that I think might cause problems, and this issue is one I've always brought up. Now continuing to argue with me after I've made a ruling, whether I made it in advance or on the spot. THAT would be unsporting.

Sanctjud wrote:@nosferatu1001:

So the only option for the Tau player is take it up the ass and let the White Scars player enjoy his full reserves?

What next? Give him a bad sportsman score for screwing himself?

Well, given that full reserves is explicitly allowed for in the rules (in the rulebook and encouraged in battle reports), whereas blocking the board edge to stall the game isnt - guess which way you should play? In a way that requires a houserule or one which doesnt?

There are many options the Tau player can exploit - you know, to a limited degree, what the arrival spread of units is going to be in general, and if it is kill points you ability to focus fire (more accurately known as: how you win KP missions) is increased. So the Tau player doesnt have to "take it up the ass" (lovely phrase implying its a bad thing....lol) as there are plenty of tactics available that dont require a hosuerule to function.

I've already explained why the WS player is putting themselves at quite a risk from going all reserves, as they risk getting their units on piecemeal. Apparently this is somehow "risk free" according to some.

Well, I'm not sure what your scale of 'bad' with respect to taking it up where the sun don't shine, but we are thinking of two different things then...you of pleasure and I was more thinking of a discharging shotgun... I kid.
________________

But it's still a legal move to deploy infiltrators at the board edge. The result fuxes up the game. You'd have to make a house rule to avoid another house rule. So...what: don't conga line to prevent people from coming in.

How about blocking alot of the entrance but leaving only a small gap to keep things legal?

Lets say you outflank with Al'qua-whats his face...and he's got a crap load of chimeras....you gonna force him to move more than 6" and prevent his whole line from firing because he's blocking that side and potentially block incoming enemy outflankers?

The WS player allowed this to be a possibility, so I'd say they would be both at fault.
WS player needed only to deploy just one model...as easily as the Tau player could have infiltrated elsewhere.

WEll, the WS allowed it as a possibilty, only one player took affirmative action to actually cause it. That Tau player had a choice in the matter!

In this case, which is by far the most common of an uncommon set, has an easy resolution - it takes all of 5 seconds to work out you will cause a stall, so you either prevent the stall and use some actual tactics, or you stall and then do over. Either way it wont take very long to resolve, and even in a tournament this is unlikely to cause any noticeable delay - after all, if theyre slow players they would still be slow players, even with an extra 2-3 min added on.

OT: you think of a shotgun when you use that phrase? Odd Unless "shotgun" is a euphamism for something else lol...

Why should the Tau player have infiltrated elsewhere? How can you write a "house rule" that restricts something as vague as tactics? How was it not the White Scar's fault that this happened?

I mean, is it as if the Tau player knew something the WS player did not? I mean, it's all in the rulebook, the WS player could have reasonably contemplated this happening, and if they were relying on the kindness of others to win/continue to play then that's too bad for him at a Tournament.

The WS player took a risk either not knowing by their own ignorance that his could happen, and the Tau player exploited a weakness of the WS deployment. It is no more unfair than anything else, really.

Huh? Have you missed the part where this is only a "tactic" if a ----->houserule<------ allows it? It ISNT in the rulebook, that is the point - the game *stalls* unless a houserule is used. For the 100th time of repeating....

Sheesh.....

Essentially the Tau player had many other options other than causing the stall, and chose not to do so. At a bare minimum they are both at "fault"

Edit: in addition the hosuerule isnt restricting tactics - as I said, you simply have one that restricts you blocking the board edge, OR allow something like ignoring the 1" restriction in the same way as OTHER rules which would prevent a model from arriving are ignored - this has precedence in the existing rules as a way to handle non-arrival causing rules, is the easiest fit into the rules (as it still means the *game* moves along for both players) AND it means the abuse of the 6x4 table as being the entire "world" is minimised.

LIning your guys up at the edge to block people arriving is the equivalent of shouting obscenities across a low wall - neither should have a great expectation of success.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Huh? Have you missed the part where this is only a "tactic" if a ----->houserule<------ allows it? It ISNT in the rulebook, that is the point - the game *stalls* unless a houserule is used. For the 100th time of repeating....

Not since 3rd Edition have I heard of a Tournament level "house rule" restricting a tactic. House rules are supposed to help gloss over major and minor issues of ambiguous rules and rules conflicts, not something that is relatively straightforward as this (in regards to how the player is allowed to play). To my knowledge, there are no rules in 40k that restrict tactics beyond describing the bounds of the game (i.e.; no rules saying "you can't hold your entire army in reserves so your opponent can't get his first turn of shooting," or "you can't outflank your opponent if it would prove too detrimental to his tactics," or even the courteous "you can't objective rush your Falcons in the bottom of turn 5 or later to contest objectives because you were too poor a player to be a better general."). There is no precedent that I can think of for a house rule like this.

What sort of house rule would I contemplate for this situation? Either units that are unable to arrive from reserves are destroyed, or units unable to arrive from reserves are delayed and may come on in the owning players next movement phase from reserves or units unable to arrive from reserves are returned to reserves. Those are simple, short, sweet, and fit into the entity of the current rules. House rules should fit into the current rules, not redefine them (at least at the Tournament level).

nosferatu1001 wrote:Huh? Have you missed the part where this is only a "tactic" if a ----->houserule<------ allows it? It ISNT in the rulebook, that is the point - the game *stalls* unless a houserule is used. For the 100th time of repeating....

Sheesh.....

Essentially the Tau player had many other options other than causing the stall, and chose not to do so. At a bare minimum they are both at "fault"

Edit: in addition the hosuerule isnt restricting tactics - as I said, you simply have one that restricts you blocking the board edge, OR allow something like ignoring the 1" restriction in the same way as OTHER rules which would prevent a model from arriving are ignored - this has precedence in the existing rules as a way to handle non-arrival causing rules, is the easiest fit into the rules (as it still means the *game* moves along for both players) AND it means the abuse of the 6x4 table as being the entire "world" is minimised.

LIning your guys up at the edge to block people arriving is the equivalent of shouting obscenities across a low wall - neither should have a great expectation of success.

Yes, it takes a houserule to answer, sheesh, we get it, for the 100th time.

So what? It really doesn't matter that it takes a houserule to answer.

So instead of a houserule deciding what happens in this rare circumstance, you want a houserule to change the infiltration rules, limiting where one can legally place their infiltrators. So instead of a houserule to cover one rarely occuring circumstance, you want a houserule that affects every infiltrating unit in the game? If limiting where you can place your infiltrators isn't limiting tactics, what is? So now I cannot infiltrate within a set distance from his board edge? What if it's Spearhead and I'm trying to set my Infiltrators up for a side shot on his armor? What if he uses a refused flank and I want to inifltrate to some cover on his flank near his board edge. How/where do you draw the line on this magical mystical houserule you want to put in place? Far easier to answer one specific question ie this is what happens when a unit is unable to enter due to enemy models than to try to cover all the variations on restriciting infiltrators.

The point is, the Tau player made a legal Infiltration deployment, that's the 'tactic' part. It's not HIS fault that the rules don't cover what happens next. So they did the right thing, and asked the guy who's supposed to answer these questions, ie the judge. The judge ruled, and it so happens that his ruling is in agreement with the INAT, with historical precedence ala GW, and with the most commonly used answer to this question. Wow, imagine that! Now if the judge had made some other houserule, say ok, the bikes can assault from off-table, then the tau player would have been screwed. My question to you is, would you be complaining as vociferously about it being a 'houserule' if that was the case? Or is it just the WS player losing due to sheer stupidity that has you so out of sorts?

It's worth noting that the player who lost had - what looks like - an all bike army. Lets face it. His plan was to fly in on an exposed, weak as hell CC Army and overwhelm it as quickly and mercilessly as possible. My point is he held units in reserve because he thought it was the "smart" thing to do with a fast list like that. If you're going to exploit every possible advantage you can perceive and couple that strategy with the risky choice of leaving all units in reserve (something I'd never do), then why should your opponent have mercy on you?

I would still not give full points for sportsmanship, as -lets face it - there wasn't a whole lot of "sport" to be had in this game.

The WS player created this situation - he took an army with no tanks or skimmers or deep strikers or outflankers and held them all in reserve against an army with a large number of infiltrators.

If he had taken a single tank/skimmer/deepstriker/outflanker or deployed a single unit he'd have been ok. If he'd done what he did against an army that didn't have infiltrators then he'd have been ok.

If you're going to compete with an all-reserve army then you have to be aware of the potential for this to happen.

Say I have enough models to entirely cover a table and my opponent is an entirely Deep Strike army (like Demons? Do they all have to DS?). Would I be at fault if I were able to cover the entire table before they get a unit out? But in that case, all the units could be destroyed by the mishap table or because they could not be fielded.... just a hypothetical situation.

No no Skinnattittar, it would be house ruled that you MUST go into reserves or risk the Deepstrikers making YOU roll for Mishap on YOUR units to die or go into reserves

It would depend on the guy TBH. if he was cool he gets full points. if not he wont get them.

The marine player was asking for it this game though. No khan in his bike army, won first turn, and still reserved everything. I think most people would have deployed and gone for it.

If this is the competition in europe team egobus will win full points.

I agree full marks for both if they were cool guys.

Now on the whole house rule issue, making a house rule that breaks the infiltrating rule is just bunk.

At no time did the Tau player break a rule in his infiltration. He placed his models per the rules and looked to be pretty precise in maintaining coherency(LOL).

Now since there is a precedence set for what happens when models cannot be deployed via the wolf scouts and webaway portals, the judge did have standard to work from when making his decision to declare the WS army destroyed. However, lets look at the actual non-game breaking house rule he could have enforced and the results:

House rule option # 1: Units in reserve that cannot come on the table are sent back into reserves till next turn.

Result: Tau player gets to leave his Kroot alongside table edge continually pushing WS reserves back a turn until end of game when all units still in reserve are considered destroyed. This whole time the rest of the Tau forces are able to come on the table and claim objectives or whatnot for mission.

Same result using a house rule that does not break the game.

Seriously Nos, by saying that the game should have been restarted as a result of completing a perfectly legal infiltration rule stinks of poor sportsmanship. There are plenty of tactics and moves that result in a bad spot for a player. Do we grant them do-overs as well?

Actrually Don that wasntr the solution I posed - I suggested instead you use the mechanic *already* within the rules (units ignore ANY special rule they have that could mean they dont arrive on the board from reserves, such as S&P / old BA turbocharged engine) and extend it to the 1" rule.

There, done, sorted. Entirely within the concept of the existing rules, doesnt require anything "new", and takes about, ooh, 1 line extra in the rulebook? And luckily ALSO fits with the 5th ed ethos of generally removing stupid abstractions sduch as shouting at someone with a low wall in the way is a good idea!

Then the tactic is not restricted - just made entirely, well, useless in practice.

Easy.

The thing is nos, this tactic is already useless in practice. It only works if you have infiltrators and the other guy has no skimmers, no tanks, no deep strikers, no infiltrators and he puts everything into reserve regardless (and it's an objective mission).

This isn't a tactic for players with infiltrators, the all-reserve players have to put themselves in this situation.

@ nosferato1001 : The problem is, you're now making up new rules and a new dynamic. It's not a major change in the game, but it is a change. You're also creating a very vague rule that breaks the idea of not passing through units or walking over other models. This creates more problems as later on what if one unit near the board edge suddenly finds itself inhabiting the same space as a recently arrived unit? They can't make any move as they are now all within 1" of other units. Make an exception for that? What if the area of movement is restricted? Make an exception for that as well? More problems than solved, and allows manipulation. Would not the simpler solution be to say that in circumstances like we have here, that units unable to mount the table from reserves must remain in reserves? Yeah, it sucks for the White Scars guy, but if that were a rule in the book he would/should have known that. As opposed to the current situation where it is not addressed directly.

However the rules are pretty clear, currently. White Scars held in reserves legally. Tau Infiltrated legally. White Scars attempted to come on the table from reserves legally. White Scars could not mount table due to movement restrictions from enemy models. So either they should go back in reserves, or count as having been off the table and destroyed (for some reason I'm feeling that the rulebook says if a vehicle goes off the table it counts as destroyed.... or was that a House Rule?).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:The thing is nos, this tactic is already useless in practice. It only works if you have infiltrators and the other guy has no skimmers, no tanks, no deep strikers, no infiltrators and he puts everything into reserve regardless (and it's an objective mission).

This isn't a tactic for players with infiltrators, the all-reserve players have to put themselves in this situation.

I shall quote this for truth.

Well, given that *whatever* way you work it you HAVE to make up new rules (thats the point - the rules dont cover this situation, and the game stalls) so why not make up a new rule that follows the system ALREADY in the book? Something that also removes the "low wall" issue which, frankly, makes no sense (and 5th ed is a lot about sense - hence no range or LOS sniping)

It doesnt interfere with "not moving through other models" at all....

Baring other factors. based on only the deployment, i would award 10 outa 10 to both.
As the OP askes, the thread is about sportsmanship and not rules.
@nos: if the rules do not cover a certain situation its up to the players to work it out, after that the judges. obviuosly a ruling was made and the SW lost. (personally the correct ruling IMO) your flinging around words like start over, and stall.... where does it say that a game is ever stalled or a turn is redone? i must have read over those parts.

@Hawkins:

Nosferatu1001 says 'stall' as in having to 'have' to have the judge come over and figure out what to do...at the end of the day, it's still time 'wasted' not playing the game...(a game which was pretty much over frankly).

@nosferatu1001:

I don't think the 1" rule counts as a 'special rule' to be ignored with respect to stuff like S&P and the like that would prevent the unit from moving on.

House rule is a house rule and that is the only way to figure this out as GW laughs at all this.

So long as the guy wasn't a douche about it, max. If you made the mistake of falling for that, then why ding your opponent?

Sanctjud wrote:@Hawkins:

Nosferatu1001 says 'stall' as in having to 'have' to have the judge come over and figure out what to do...at the end of the day, it's still time 'wasted' not playing the game...(a game which was pretty much over frankly).

@nosferatu1001:

I don't think the 1" rule counts as a 'special rule' to be ignored with respect to stuff like S&P and the like that would prevent the unit from moving on.

House rule is a house rule and that is the only way to figure this out as GW laughs at all this.

Ok thanks for the clarification.

What if a player put a bunch of rhinos in reserve? Could he tank shock his way onto the table?

Yes, if he had Rhinos, he could Tank Shock.

Assault Marines could fly over.

Or, if he could OutFlank, that would go around the line.

Skinnattittar wrote:Say I have enough models to entirely cover a table and my opponent is an entirely Deep Strike army (like Demons? Do they all have to DS?). Would I be at fault if I were able to cover the entire table before they get a unit out? But in that case, all the units could be destroyed by the mishap table or because they could not be fielded.... just a hypothetical situation.

2 years ago at Ard Boyz I had that situation. But, the player looked at the table, saw he was going to lose, and went to the judge and said because there were an odd number of players he would bow out and let someone else take his spot.

So I played a Tyranid kid who argued everything had a cover save...on an open table...because a genestealer was 6 inches from a termagaunt and the HIve Tyrant in between got cover from being between them....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:The thing is nos, this tactic is already useless in practice. It only works if you have infiltrators and the other guy has no skimmers, no tanks, no deep strikers, no infiltrators and he puts everything into reserve regardless (and it's an objective mission).

This isn't a tactic for players with infiltrators, the all-reserve players have to put themselves in this situation.

But, if his infantry comes in first, he loses those units. And if the tanks try to shock themselves onto the board, they could be destroyed off table. So it is not useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, if he had Rhinos, he could Tank Shock.

Assault Marines could fly over.

Or, if he could OutFlank, that would go around the line.

You have to announce outflanking at the start of the game.

The point that I was making was that it's not something that the player with infiltrators can plan on doing - it requires their opponent to take a very limited army list and then to deploy it in a particular way even though they've seen that you have those infiltrators.

BTW, I do heartily approve of the dude's "cookie-eating grin". I agree that he should get points just for that.

LMoE