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.

d-usa wrote:I know that even before the FAQ I always thought that if you have to arrive from reserves and can't, the unit is lost. So to me this decision made perfect sense because that is how I always interpreted the rule, even pre-FAQ. Other people probably had a different interpretation.

There were half a dozen different ideas floating around pre-FAQ for how to deal with the situation, some more based in existing rules than others. Most people weren't too bothered about it, as Kroot were about the only army that made it an issue, and nobody actually used them

sub-zero wrote:I don't get this whole "let the game be played for the benefit of playing" malarkey. IT"S A TOURNAMENT. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I pay good money to enter a tourney, then my sole objective is to win said tourney. .

The first and foremost objective for most folks is to have fun. That's usually rule number 1 for having a good time at a tournament. Don't make your happiness contingent on winning the whole thing. There are usually somewhere between 20 and 100 people there, and only a few people win anything. Everyone, however, can have a good time playing the game and probably will if they keep their priorities straight and don't get too wrapped up in wanting to win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

d-usa wrote:I know that even before the FAQ I always thought that if you have to arrive from reserves and can't, the unit is lost. So to me this decision made perfect sense because that is how I always interpreted the rule, even pre-FAQ. Other people probably had a different interpretation.

There were half a dozen different ideas floating around pre-FAQ for how to deal with the situation, some more based in existing rules than others. Most people weren't too bothered about it, as Kroot were about the only army that made it an issue, and nobody actually used them

I knew and ran into a few people who ran the Kroot Mercs army (including one at the Baltimore GT), and most good Tau players I've known ran some.

I've run into the situation of infantry blocking a table edge (or part of one) to prevent Wolf Scouts or Snikrot from entering or entering in a given area literally dozens of times over the years. It's been a known and expected tactic by many players for many years, going back to third edition in the case of the Wolf Scouts. I do maintain that the Tau player's maneuver is well in keeping with the commonplace ruling for these situations, and something that could easily be anticipated by experienced tournament players well before the FAQ came out.

Mannahnin wrote:I've run into the situation of infantry blocking a table edge (or part of one) to prevent Wolf Scouts or Snikrot from entering or entering in a given area literally dozens of times over the years.

That is certainly a bigger (or at least more common) issue.

It's been a known and expected tactic by many players for many years, going back to third edition in the case of the Wolf Scouts.

Which is a good point. I don't remember, and don't have my 3rd or 4th edition rulebooks at work (fancy that!) but I'm wondering if they actually did spell out what happens if a unit is unable to move on. Would certainly explain why some people thought it was already the rule.

insaniak wrote:
Which is a good point. I don't remember, and don't have my 3rd or 4th edition rulebooks at work (fancy that!) but I'm wondering if they actually did spell out what happens if a unit is unable to move on. Would certainly explain why some people thought it was already the rule.

No, neither edition has that spelled out. And I'm not sure many people are thinking that it is a "rule", but that the mechanics of not being able to move on versus staying in reserve are clear (and have been since before the FAQ came out). Hence Mannahnin's examples about Wolf Scouts and Snikrot.

sub-zero wrote:Was what the Tau player doing a "dick move", NO, he used his army with the codex rules to table his opponent turn one.

why do you say he couldn't be doing both?

sub-zero wrote:Any further agument about this thread is pure trolling and the people posting such arguments are doing so just for the sake of argument.

that's a bit too presumptuous.

sub-zero wrote:Quick question: If I deploy all of my scoring troops into a single blob within shooting distance from let's say 4-5 Vindicator tanks, and you of course destroy my troops in your shooting phase, Is that a "dick move" on your part or just bad generalship on mine? Think about how this question applies to this thread...think.

I thought about it and I say it applies partially but not completely. though I'd assume you can draw more similarities between the two situation than I have.

Brother Ramses wrote:Insaniak is proposing that it was just a bad call with no thought process behind it

if you really think like that then you're not trying to understand what he's saying, you're arguing against a stupified (real word?) version of what he's saying that's easy for you to argue with.

time wizard wrote:I see this as no differrent than say, using a refused flank deployment against an opponent, or placing 2 webway portals in an opponent's deployment zone to bring units into his rear.

aside from the obvious differences, naturally.

Puma- Right. Not being able to move onto the table through a blocking enemy unit seemed clear and self-explanatory, given the 1" away rule.

It wasn't until 5th when voluntary table-edge Reserves became an option that this particular situation, killing a whole army preemptively, became a real concern. But the precedent seemed clear.

-Nazdreg- wrote:
If I throw stones at my opponents models just because I could and after that he does not fulfil WYSIWYG requirements afterwards, do I win the game because he didnt realize that?

TBH I haven't seen a WYSIWYG army in years, space marines are rarely modelled with their bolt pistol, bolter and two different types of grenades. If a TO demends this level of adherence to a rule that, in 3rd ed, had to be suspended for an entire codex due to the difficulty of modelling every little piece of wargear and is rarely observed in the most popular of armies then it is a poor and pedantic tournament you are in.

I do disagree with BTNeophyte though, if it happend to me that someone broke my models in a game on purpose I would be under arrest as the offending player would have aphixiated on his own army.

As to what should have happened with the game, I think as a TO if someone gets owned due to a rule like that and you read the rules to agree with the actions then you have to give the Tau the win. Although if the WS player was new to the game I would tell the Tau player to give him a game or else so that while the WS player has lost totally he does get to have another game to get familiar with the rules.

Mannahnin wrote:
The first and foremost objective for most folks is to have fun. That's usually rule number 1 for having a good time at a tournament. Don't make your happiness contingent on winning the whole thing. There are usually somewhere between 20 and 100 people there, and only a few people win anything. Everyone, however, can have a good time playing the game and probably will if they keep their priorities straight and don't get too wrapped up in wanting to win.

While I agree with your sentiment personally, I do think there are a lot of people that only go to tournaments to wave their gaming penis in the air. My 2nd game of 40k after a few years out at a tournament I had a guy that kept moving my models and doing illegal things with tank shocks, the guy was happy to try to push his luck with someone that hadn't played since early 4th ed.

Mannahnin wrote:Puma- Right. Not being able to move onto the table through a blocking enemy unit seemed clear and self-explanatory, given the 1" away rule.

It wasn't until 5th when voluntary table-edge Reserves became an option that this particular situation, killing a whole army preemptively, became a real concern. But the precedent seemed clear.

This is my point regarding the judges call.

The judge knows that scenarios exist where when an opponents models are unable to move due to positioning of their opponents models, said models are destroyed, I gave those examples earlier such as being trapped during a fallback move or unable to disembark from a destroyed vehicle due to being surrounded.

So there was clear precedence prior to the FAQ that models unable to complete a move due to positioning of enemy models are destroyed. The judge, in my opinion could have easily taken said precedence into account and ruled appropriately.

Mannahnin wrote:Puma- Right. Not being able to move onto the table through a blocking enemy unit seemed clear and self-explanatory, given the 1" away rule.

It wasn't until 5th when voluntary table-edge Reserves became an option that this particular situation, killing a whole army preemptively, became a real concern. But the precedent seemed clear.

I forget the specifics, but under 4th the Escalation mission would come close to having the same effect. Only it wasn't voluntary reserves it was mandatory.

Just to clarify, because I brought the term in, I use the word "dick move" a lot. (Venture Brothers, The Monarch)

It's seemingly being viewed in a different light.

It was a clever move, it was the right move in a tournament, yes he should have done it under circumstance, any Tournament player would have done it under circumstances, but from the WS's point of view, if I had failed to realize that and it happened, the words that would have uttered from my mouth would most likely have been similar to
"dick move" all quietly and slowly like in the realization that I was screwed. Not in the, you shouldn't do that during a tournament sense.

If it was a friendly game, both players were equally under the terms of "dick move", in the sense they took the fun out of the other playing fielding their army in some sense.

Tau not being able to do anything for two turns, and WS not being able to field. Game starts over, friendly game, and the players field differently so they can enjoy their gaming afternoon. Maybe even field different armies because the WS player realizes this tactic is better left for tournaments, unless the other player has Infiltrating units.

Honestly, I know that slang between states and countries and groups doesn't carry over, so please excuse the very common and constant use of the "dick move" phrase I like to throw it about, I feel a little guilty here.

Also, my point about this not being to related to the thread, is that, with the FAQ, the OP's question has already been answered. You know, everyone is just discussing the WS thing now. I mean, it's not a, "Was that the right call at the tournmanet with the WS player thread...right?"

Don't throw stones, we're all sinners here.

Its a good tactic if the other person is trying to mass outflank. Own one side of the board and then shoot them dead as they now have to walk all the way down the table to get to you. If you have enough guys in fast vehicles to pull it off you can make the game a easy win that way if they are having everything come in that way.

Now wait a minute? Maybe the perspective is off in the pic, and the "rule hounder" actually managed to keep it to under an1½" between every model, but it definately looks like there are gaps between those Kroot wide enough for a biker or a model to move through... They would have to come on in single file "collumns" which could possibly result in some "log jams" and subsequent loss of units to being unable to deploy, but... c'mon, reeree!

Dagger wrote:Now wait a minute? Maybe the perspective is off in the pic, and the "rule hounder" actually managed to keep it to under an1½" between every model, but it definately looks like there are gaps between those Kroot wide enough for a biker or a model to move through... They would have to come on in single file "collumns" which could possibly result in some "log jams" and subsequent loss of units to being unable to deploy, but... c'mon, reeree!

The bikers still have to stay more than an inch away from enemy models during their entire move. If the Kroot are 2" apart, then enemy models still cannot move between them without coming within 1".

Ok ok, 2am, and I had to get the Biggah Brackah....ya you get it, just to check this out...

Nothing specifically along the lines of what I'm suggesting, but *sigh* it does say under "Models In The Way" : 'may not move...through a gap between "freindly" models smaller than it's own base.' So I assume it can be extrapolated that you can not move through gaps in enemy units at all.... But I can't find if it says that specifically anywhere... anyone? Bueller?

I 'spose if thats how that works, well played sir, well played indeed! (If it'd happened to me, I probably would have wound up in jail, LOL!) But yes, I don't disagree as to the OP: if your move from reserve is blocked and you are unable to do so, you do infact die, a horrible sad and pointless little plastic death! D'oh!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

...The bikers still have to stay more than an inch away from enemy models during their entire move. If the Kroot are 2" apart, then enemy models still cannot move between them without coming within 1".

Dagger wrote:Ok ok, 2am, and I had to get the Biggah Brackah....ya you get it, just to check this out...

Nothing specifically along the lines of what I'm suggesting, but *sigh* it does say under "Models In The Way" : 'may not move...through a gap between "freindly" models smaller than it's own base.' So I assume it can be extrapolated that you can not move through gaps in enemy units at all.... But I can't find if it says that specifically anywhere... anyone? Bueller?

That rule makes no difference to this situation; it's just saying that if a model's base physically cannot fit between those of other friendly models, then it can't move there. This situation is all about not being able to move within an inch of an enemy.

Yah, I see it now... thats RAW, but pretty harsh interpretation really? The "spirit" of the rule, if you will, seems more to do with whet your models end there movement but I see it there, written in the blood of reserve moving WS!

I don't see how the "spirit" of the 1" rule could be taken any other way. If you want a fluff justification for it, you could say that the White Scars realised that this part of the battlefield (since a 40k battle really only represents a small chunk of a larger-scale conflict) was too strongly held by the enemy to risk a front-on attack, and so relocated to another zone. They might not necessarily have died, but for the purposes of the game they are casualties.

Besides, if you were playing by the "spirit" of the game rather than the RAW interpretation, then this situation probably would never have come up in the first place, since I doubt friends who are relaxed with the rules would bother pulling this kind of stunt.

Meh? ... if you have to move within an inch on your way past an enemy unit but don't end your move within an inch, then so be it? Just seems a harsh "interpretation" but I guess you could say if you came that close they would just "reach" out and initiate combat, ending your move? But realizing this now, if we're talking about a friendly game, it would not bother me... "maybe"!!! I agree, that is the rule, cut and dry. Guess it never came up for me in regards to trying to get "past" an enemy unit? I think the OP question has been answered in full however: Yes. If your movement from reserve onto the table edge is blocked by intervening terrain or models, they are lost as casualties... right? o_0

IIRC the Tau player did actually post somewhere here on Dakka about this. From what I remember, the Tau player did ask the WS player several times if he was sure he wanted to keep all of his forces in reserve. The WS player said yes.

Dagger wrote:Meh? ... if you have to move within an inch on your way past an enemy unit but don't end your move within an inch, then so be it?

Them's the rules. It can be important in regular games too. Having to stay outside 1" of enemy units as you move, means that (for example) if you're trying to move around an enemy squad or tank which is blocking your way, you have to move a wider arc around it to stay outside that inch. This means (for example) that a squad of three infantry can actually block off a space 9" wide to keep enemy units from moving through during the movement phase.

The game wasn't actually played. They got to deployment and couldn't proceed from there. If I were the judge, I would have zero qualms telling the Tau player "well, you found a loophole. You have stalled the game, pretty much forever, so we can either sit here until the tournament ends, in which case you both lose, or you back up and we have a real game."

Honestly, the most "fair" would have been either a 1:1 draw or a do-over. No game was played. Nothing was lost, nothing was won (until the judge decided, that is).

Oh, and saying "yeah, well, the FAQ backed him up, so, he was right" is wrong. That's post ex facto, and not applicable to this discussion.

Now, that judge's ruling would be backed up by rules.

Then, it was not. You can't go back in time and say it made sense then, because it didn't then as there was no way of knowing what the correct answer was.

Also, fluff wise, how does that even work? How does an enemy "block" you from entering the battlefield? HInt: They don't. That's like hundreds of Taliban fighters surrounding an Army base, and the army saying "oh crap, I guess we can't get out, I guess we should all kill ourselves because we can't get out there to fight." It's dumb and makes zero sense.

Now, that judge's ruling would be backed up by rules.

Then, it was not. You can't go back in time and say it made sense then, because it didn't then as there was no way of knowing what the correct answer was.

This is not true, and I've repeatedly explained why. Experienced tournament players had seen and dealt with similar situations, particularly defending against Space Wolf Scouts and Snikrot's Kommandos, going back as far as 2001 (when the SW Scouts got their awesome Operate Behind Enemy Lines rule). Blocking part or all of a table edge was a known tactic, and the rule on which it is based (not being able to move within 1" of an enemy) is clear and well-understood, and has been the same for three editions of the game.

While cases this extreme are rare, the application of the same rule and similar tactic to this type of situation was clear and logical.

McNinja wrote:Also, fluff wise, how does that even work? How does an enemy "block" you from entering the battlefield? HInt: They don't. That's like hundreds of Taliban fighters surrounding an Army base, and the army saying "oh crap, I guess we can't get out, I guess we should all kill ourselves because we can't get out there to fight." It's dumb and makes zero sense.

What about hundreds of US army soldiers surrounding a base, keeping the Taliban from being able to enter and attack?

It is really not that hard of a concept. Naval blockades have been carried out using the same idea for many years.

It's an abstract game rule based on the battlefield for the game being a finite, defined space. You can easily rationalize it either way to make sense.

d-usa wrote:

McNinja wrote:Also, fluff wise, how does that even work? How does an enemy "block" you from entering the battlefield? HInt: They don't. That's like hundreds of Taliban fighters surrounding an Army base, and the army saying "oh crap, I guess we can't get out, I guess we should all kill ourselves because we can't get out there to fight." It's dumb and makes zero sense.

What about hundreds of US army soldiers surrounding a base, keeping the Taliban from being able to enter and attack?

It is really not that hard of a concept. Naval blockades have been carried out using the same idea for many years.

yeah, and if you look at them, they don't work because the ships cannot physically pass by the navy. They work because they are threatened with being shot if they don't bugger off. They don't approach the blockade and explode. The Cuban Missile Crisis naval blockade is a perfect example of why a blockade works and how it can almost fail.

Mannahnin wrote:

Now, that judge's ruling would be backed up by rules.

Then, it was not. You can't go back in time and say it made sense then, because it didn't then as there was no way of knowing what the correct answer was.

This is not true, and I've repeatedly explained why. Experienced tournament players had seen and dealt with similar situations, particularly defending against Space Wolf Scouts and Snikrot's Kommandos, going back as far as 2001 (when the SW Scouts got their awesome Operate Behind Enemy Lines rule). Blocking part or all of a table edge was a known tactic, and the rule on which it is based (not being able to move within 1" of an enemy) is clear and well-understood, and has been the same for three editions of the game.

While cases this extreme are rare, the application of the same rule and similar tactic to this type of situation was clear and logical.

While I don't disagree, I can't fully agree with you either. While technically legal, it still halted the game, no actual game was played, and there is still a difference between knowing the rules/good generalship and exploiting loopholes.

That's a very subjective line. There are a great number of rules in this rather abstract game which run contrary to how you or I (or both, but not necessarily) would think the situation in question "should", "realistically" work.

In regular practice folks just can't pull their usual full-Reserve tricks against an army with a bunch of infiltrators. In a pick-up game, if a game ends early due to a fluky or lucky series of events/amazing shooting phase-combined with terrible morale checks type-deal, you just restart and play another game. I've seen and heard of games of WHFB ending literally before one player has had a turn, because his critical big unit containing his general and battle standard got panicked off the table turn 1 by a particularly devastating spell.

In a tournament it comes down to the generosity of the guy with the infiltrators when he sees his opponent making this scale of error. You don't usually let your opponent have do-overs. Or if you do, it's acknowledged as an act of generosity. When I've seen a game end early like this in a tournament, usually the players mark the sheets, turn in their results, then play a "real" game for fun and to pass the time.

Mannahnin wrote:You don't usually let your opponent have do-overs. Or if you do, it's acknowledged as an act of generosity. When I've seen a game end early like this in a tournament, usually the players mark the sheets, turn in their results, then play a "real" game for fun and to pass the time.

As I say if it was me, I would shake your hand and tell you "You're the chessiest bastard on two legs" let the TO write up the results and ask for another game.
Also if your opponent is asking you do you really really want to reserve all your forces while rubbing his hands together and smiling like a priest in a playground then maybe it is an idea to think about your plan.