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.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:BRB pg 90 under Wipeout.

I see it now, thank you.

kartofelkopf wrote:

I'm in no way one to fault the guy in pic, as that was (AFAIK) the first recorded instance of that happening, and early into the 5th edition era. But, if someone had this happen to them today, I (and I doubt I'd be alone) would feel more than justified in some pointing and laughing.

And yet it happened at the ETC AGAIN tis year................................................ Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

don_mondo wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:

I'm in no way one to fault the guy in pic, as that was (AFAIK) the first recorded instance of that happening, and early into the 5th edition era. But, if someone had this happen to them today, I (and I doubt I'd be alone) would feel more than justified in some pointing and laughing.

And yet it happened at the ETC AGAIN tis year................................................ Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

+1 to this.

It is rather uncommon, but not a one time thing. It's a semi-valid strategy and you should be aware of it (both to avoid and to exploit).

The rules are totally unclear as what exactly to do in this situation, but there is a good chance a judge will decide your army is destroyed. Is it a big enough hole that GW will rush to fix it? Probably not.

SaintHazard wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:BRB pg 90 under Wipeout.

I see it now, thank you.

This is further reinforced in the Deep Strike Mishap Table under the Delayed paragraph;

"The unit is placed back in reserve. If the unit is unlucky enough to roll this result in turn 5 or later and then the game ends while it is still in reserve, it sadly counts as destroyed." {emphasis mine}

Yes..

And how does any of that matter in this discussion, since the units are not in reserves because they passed their reserves rolls?

Unit cannot get on-table

Units off-table at game's end are Destroyed

Easy!

Gwar! wrote:Yes..

And how does any of that matter in this discussion, since the units are not in reserves because they passed their reserves rolls?

Just trying to point out that models in reserve at the end of the game are destroyed.

Unfortunately, by RAW, the models are not delayed or placed back in reserve (in the OP question) so the game again goes into a terminal if-then loop.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Unit cannot get on-table

Units off-table at game's end are Destroyed

Easy!

That isn't what the rules say...

Gwar! wrote:Yes..

And how does any of that matter in this discussion, since the units are not in reserves because they passed their reserves rolls?

A unit can pass it's Reserves roll and yet wind up back in Reserves.................... So passing a Reserves roll also has nothing to do with this discussion.

Bottom line, it's not covered under current rules. A former GW FAQ and the INAT both say unit destroyed, which is how the judge's have ruled it for the past two years at the ETC. So if you're going to the ETC, be aware of that. If you're going to a tournament that does not use the INAT, ask in advance how they're going to rule it, especially if your strategy relies on putting everything in Reserves. For your local group, discuss it and play it however you want, bearing in mind that there is no RAW solution.

There, did I cover everything so we can get off the merry-go-round?

The situation is exceedingly rare, requiring:
-Player holds everything in reserve and has no skimmers, outflankers, tanks or jump infantry.
-Enemy has enough models who can reach the board edge and block ground entry.

There is no clear RAW coverage of the exact situation.

RAI:
This is the opposite of the terrain prohibiting movement from reserve. Here, it is due to the opponent's actions that entry is blocked. If you cannot deploy by the end of the game, your units should count as destroyed.

That pic is awesome.

First off let me say that the picture is AWESOME look at how happy the Tau guy is.

Now as much as I hate to say it if I were that judge that is how I would have ruled it. You can not move within 1" of an enemy unit and since coming on the board edge would require you to do that then you couldn't and so on and so forth, basically Tau win.

Now, do I think this was fair? Feth no, this is a guy exploiting the rules to the fullest and where I play I see a lot of people exploit the rules but this is by far the worst example I have ever seen. However, I do have to feel a small bit of pride in the fact that I hate that GW has added the whole, "For any scenario you can now keep stuff in reserve." I am thorougly convinced that 5th edition rules cator WAY to much to certain army types. Case and point would be a guy that plays at my FLGS. He playes all Mech Guard and keeps ALL his stuff in reserve so you can't shoot him, then he brings it on and just makes artillery meat of your army. I really wish Deep Striking was still the only way to come on in reserve, IMHO the rules just fail and in this case break.

Sanguinis wrote: I really wish Deep Striking was still the only way to come on in reserve, IMHO the rules just fail and in this case break.

What? When was this a rule?

Grakmar wrote:

Sanguinis wrote: I really wish Deep Striking was still the only way to come on in reserve, IMHO the rules just fail and in this case break.

What? When was this a rule?

It used to be you couldn't put whatever you wanted in reserve, it was specific units. Most often deep strikers/scouty type units.

Grakmar wrote:

Sanguinis wrote: I really wish Deep Striking was still the only way to come on in reserve, IMHO the rules just fail and in this case break.

What? When was this a rule?

It wasn't. But the 'everything can start in Reserves' is new with 5th, as previous editions required the unit or the scenario to have special rules allowing a unit to start in Reserves.

And I disagree with Sanguinis about it being an 'explot'. But I think I've made my opinion clear in previous posts, so I'll let it rest with that.

I may have this wrong but I don't see how this needs a house rule, or isn't covered by the rules.

Turn 1:
Player A puts units in reserve.
Player B goes first and moves his units.
Player A does nothing for his turn.

Turn 2:
Player B spends his turn moving into final "bend your opponent over for reserving everything" position.
Player A rolls for reserves and can't move anything on.

Turn 3,4,5,6*:
Player B stays where he is and doesn't move anything.
Player A rolls for reserves and can't move anything on.

Turn 7:
Player B stays where he is and doesn't move anything.
Player A rolls for reserves and can't move anything on.
-Game Ends- Everything not on the table is considered destroyed and player B wins.

The only house rule is to call it a win at the end of turn 2 if the losing player doesn't concede defeat.

*turns may vary based on scenario and dice rolls.

zeshin wrote:I may have this wrong but I don't see how this needs a house rule, or isn't covered by the rules.

Turn 1:
Player A puts units in reserve.
Player B goes first and moves his units.
Player A does nothing for his turn.

Turn 2:
Player B spends his turn moving into final "bend your opponent over for reserving everything" position.
Player A rolls for reserves and can't move anything on.

Turn 3,4,5,6*:
Player B stays where he is and doesn't move anything.
Player A rolls for reserves and can't move anything on.

Turn 7:
Player B stays where he is and doesn't move anything.
Player A rolls for reserves and can't move anything on.
-Game Ends- Everything not on the table is considered destroyed and player B wins.

The only house rule is to call it a win at the end of turn 2 if the losing player doesn't concede defeat.

*turns may vary based on scenario and dice rolls.

The highlighted portions are where a house rule is required. You are correct in that he can't move anything on, but are missing the part where Reserve rules say he must move the unit onto the board.

So it's a contradiction of can't move on and must move on that requires a house rule.

zeshin:

The problem is that the rules don't actually cover what happens when you can't move a unit coming from reserves onto the board. The reserve rules say you must, but the rule about coming within 1" says you can't.

The part requiring a house rule is to determine what wins: The irresistible force or the immovable object.

And, what happens to those units that can't move on? Do they stay in reserves? Are they immediately destroyed? The rules don't have any permission to allow a unit to stay in reserves apart from deep striking mishaps. So, it doesn't make any sense to keep them in reserves. And, there's nothing in the rules saying the unit is destroyed until the end of the game. Is the unit left in some limbo? Unable to move onto the board, but not destroyed? So, where exactly are they?

This is just further proof about how 40k is just too loose of a rules system and how FAQ's like INAT are needed.

spireland wrote:This is just further proof about how 40k is just too loose of a rules system and how FAQ's like INAT are needed.

If only the GW or INAT FAQs actually addressed problems instead of giving no-brainer answers that are already clearly spelled out in the rules... or contradicting the rules, making them even muddier than they were before.

That'd be nice.

SaintHazard wrote:

spireland wrote:This is just further proof about how 40k is just too loose of a rules system and how FAQ's like INAT are needed.

If only the GW or INAT FAQs actually addressed problems instead of giving no-brainer answers that are already clearly spelled out in the rules... or contradicting the rules, making them even muddier than they were before.

That'd be nice.

I would even accept them changing the rules wholesale if only they were honest about it.

spireland wrote:This is just further proof about how 40k is just too loose of a rules system and how FAQ's like INAT are needed.

No confirmation bias here. Oh no, none whatsoever. Pure objective fact.

Ah, I was looking at the "what happens when the units aren't on the board" not "what happens if they can't move on the board". Point taken Hazard, thank you.

SaintHazard wrote:

spireland wrote:This is just further proof about how 40k is just too loose of a rules system and how FAQ's like INAT are needed.

If only the GW or INAT FAQs actually addressed problems instead of giving no-brainer answers that are already clearly spelled out in the rules... or contradicting the rules, making them even muddier than they were before.

That'd be nice.

Too bad there isn't someone on the Dakka boards who could write their own much more logical FAQ's.

zeshin wrote:Ah, I was looking at the "what happens when the units aren't on the board" not "what happens if they can't move on the board". Point taken Hazard, thank you.

SaintHazard wrote:

spireland wrote:This is just further proof about how 40k is just too loose of a rules system and how FAQ's like INAT are needed.

If only the GW or INAT FAQs actually addressed problems instead of giving no-brainer answers that are already clearly spelled out in the rules... or contradicting the rules, making them even muddier than they were before.

That'd be nice.

Too bad there isn't someone on the Dakka boards who could write their own much more logical FAQ's.

I know. If only there was someone willing to write comprehensive FAQs that call a Spade a Spade (or in this case, call a rules change a rules change) and explain why the change was made and in face write said FAQs before the codex even comes out on general sale.

If only...

That's one reason to play daemons

It's also a reason to not reserve your entire force. If you do, you're asking for trouble with the picket fence strategy.

Gwar! wrote:I know. If only there was someone willing to write comprehensive FAQs that call a Spade a Spade (or in this case, call a rules change a rules change) and explain why the change was made and in face write said FAQs before the codex even comes out on general sale.

If only...

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Gwar here: The existence of anyone outside the GW Development Team both willing and capable of writing the definitive FAQ is indeed a pipe-dream.

Probably saved him an hour or two struggling to enjoy a game against TFG. Would you really want to play someone who regarded that as a good way to win a game?

Although an entire bike army held back in reserve isn't a particularly sporting way to play, either, but I might be missing something about the White Scars.

doctorludo wrote:Probably saved him an hour or two struggling to enjoy a game against TFG. Would you really want to play someone who regarded that as a good way to win a game?

Although an entire bike army held back in reserve isn't a particularly sporting way to play, either, but I might be missing something about the White Scars.

Lol.

"You are TFG for not letting me deploy," says the guy playing an assaulty army who tried to dick a shooty army out of 2 or 3 turns of shooting.

Yeah, the tau player is soooooooooooooooooooooo TFG.

doctorludo wrote:Probably saved him an hour or two struggling to enjoy a game against TFG. Would you really want to play someone who regarded that as a good way to win a game?

Although an entire bike army held back in reserve isn't a particularly sporting way to play, either, but I might be missing something about the White Scars.

In a friendly game I might suggest that the opponent not reserve everything and give him the reasons. This would teach him the error of his ways while still allowing for a fun game to be played. In a tournament however I don't see where you'd want to hold back. If your opponent makes a game changing mistake I think it's bad form not to exploit it. Should Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant have slowed down or not jumped as high because it wasn't fair to the other players?