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.

So can I have my whole army in Reserve as long as I have a model on the table turn 1 and turn 2 ?
If so where is it in the rule book ? Thanks I have a Grey knight and storm trooper army I want to run.

Yes you can hold most of your army in reserve.

Preparing for battle section, Deployment sub-section has the details of doing this. as well as the Reserves and Preparing Reserves Sub-sections.

Thank you very much,
I read though those pages and I do not see anything saying you must have a model on the table at the start of the 1st turn.

 ghostmaker wrote:
Thank you very much,
I read though those pages and I do not see anything saying you must have a model on the table at the start of the 1st turn.

If the game starts and you have no models physically on the board, you lose.

Don't remember exact line in text but this works for flyers too as they have to be physically touch it but this is just being a douche imo

Zodiark,
It isn't the Start of the Game Turn which causes the Rule to Trigger, as we are informed to check that condition only at the End of the Game Turns. If an Army has the ability to pull Units out of Reserve on Turn 1 then they can begin the game with 100% of their number in Reserve, and not run afoul of being "Tabled." Like wise, if an Army was destroyed during the first half of Turn 2, the owning Player still is allowed to make Reserve Rolls at the Start of their Player Turn, to see if any Reserves come in and allow the Game to continue at the End of the Game Turn.

Also the Flyers do touch the table as the Base is still part of the Model, even if we ignore it in the majority of situations.

Zodiark wrote:

 ghostmaker wrote:
Thank you very much,
I read though those pages and I do not see anything saying you must have a model on the table at the start of the 1st turn.

If the game starts and you have no models physically on the board, you lose.

Don't remember exact line in text but this works for flyers too as they have to be physically touch it but this is just being a douche imo

Incorrect btw.

You dont loose for having no models on the board until the end of the game turn.

Player 1 could theoretically have nothing on the board on his turn, then if he could somehow summon a unit onto the table before his opponent ended his turn he wouldnt loose.

Im not sure if theres any army that can do that, but theoretically it would work.

JinxDragon wrote:
Zodiark,
It isn't the Start of the Game Turn which causes the Rule to Trigger, as that occurs only at the End of any Game Turn. If the Army in question has a way to get Units out of Reserve on Turn 1, then they can begin the game with 100% of their number in Reserve and not run afoul of being "Tabled." Like wise, if an Army was destroyed during the first half of Turn 2, the owning Player still is allowed to make Reserve Rolls at the Start of their Player Turn, prior to being declared as 'Tabled' at the End of Turn 2.

Also the Flyers do touch the table as the Base is still part of the Model, even if we ignore it in the majority of situations.

Really? I'll need to double check as I remember being told otherwise, also saw it on some batrep videos as well, but secondary sources don't count here apparently

Zodiark wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Zodiark,
It isn't the Start of the Game Turn which causes the Rule to Trigger, as that occurs only at the End of any Game Turn. If the Army in question has a way to get Units out of Reserve on Turn 1, then they can begin the game with 100% of their number in Reserve and not run afoul of being "Tabled." Like wise, if an Army was destroyed during the first half of Turn 2, the owning Player still is allowed to make Reserve Rolls at the Start of their Player Turn, prior to being declared as 'Tabled' at the End of Turn 2.

Also the Flyers do touch the table as the Base is still part of the Model, even if we ignore it in the majority of situations.

Really? I'll need to double check as I remember being told otherwise, also saw it on some batrep videos as well, but secondary sources don't count here apparently

The do not, as they are usually incorrect. As is the case here...

"If at the end of any game turn, one player has no models on the battlefield his opponent automatically wins." (BRB Preparing for battle section, Victory Conditions sub-section, Sudden Death Victory heading).

It is counted at the end of any game turn.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Zodiark,
It isn't the Start of the Game Turn which causes the Rule to Trigger, as that occurs only at the End of any Game Turn. If the Army in question has a way to get Units out of Reserve on Turn 1, then they can begin the game with 100% of their number in Reserve and not run afoul of being "Tabled." Like wise, if an Army was destroyed during the first half of Turn 2, the owning Player still is allowed to make Reserve Rolls at the Start of their Player Turn, prior to being declared as 'Tabled' at the End of Turn 2.

Also the Flyers do touch the table as the Base is still part of the Model, even if we ignore it in the majority of situations.

Really? I'll need to double check as I remember being told otherwise, also saw it on some batrep videos as well, but secondary sources don't count here apparently

The do not, as they are usually incorrect. As is the case here...

"If at the end of any game turn, one player has no models on the battlefield his opponent automatically wins." (BRB Preparing for battle section, Victory Conditions sub-section, Sudden Death Victory heading).

It is counted at the end of any game turn.

This is what I thought, thanks

As it is far to easy to get conflicting information from secondary sources, even information which directly conflicts the Authors themselves, we simply can not accept such sources.

The Human psyche has a great deal of complexity, including the ability to convince itself that whatever it believes is 'right' has to be the correct and only answer. Couple this with the concept that 'to err is human,' already raising concerns that this secondary source is already honestly mistaken, and one starts to get a feel for the shape of this problem as such a person would repeat the mistake for whom knows how long before it is caught. This shows that we should already be concerned about the validity of the answer provided, all before we even begin to address the possibility that these sources are simply flat out lying. They may have simply become too comfortable being the 'Final Say' in their local group, or they might have an agenda against a certain type of play style, but regardless of their motives these people are more then willing to try and trick everyone into playing the Game their way.

Such people also answer phones....

That is why this Forum only accepts clarification from official sources, posting in a location where their credentials can be verified and in a format which we can easily review for ourselves.
For if such people make a mistake at least they can re-write the Rules to fix it.

JinxDragon wrote:
As it is far to easy to get conflicting information from secondary sources, even information which directly conflicts the Authors themselves, we simply can not accept such sources.

The Human psyche has a great deal of complexity, including the ability to convince itself that whatever it believes is 'right' has to be the correct and only answer. Couple this with the concept that 'to err is human,' already raising concerns that this secondary source is already honestly mistaken, and one starts to get a feel for the shape of this problem as such a person would repeat the mistake for whom knows how long before it is caught. This shows that we should already be concerned about the validity of the answer provided, all before we even begin to address the possibility that these sources are simply flat out lying. They may have simply become too comfortable being the 'Final Say' in their local group, or they might have an agenda against a certain type of play style, but regardless of their motives these people are more then willing to try and trick everyone into playing the Game their way.

Such people also answer phones....

That is why this Forum only accepts clarification from official sources, posting in a location where their credentials can be verified and in a format which we can easily review for ourselves.
For if such people make a mistake at least they can re-write the Rules to fix it.

No this makes perfect sense, but if you play competitively in games like this as I do, though I haven't started competing in this one, whenever there is a rule dispute or a clarification needed that is not directly answered in the rulebook itself, you always refer to a judge or an authority of the subject, such is the case for Warmachine, Star Wars when looking at miniature games (Warhammer is no exception though in these forums it is) as well as other competitive games like Magic the Gathering. This is what judges and referees are for. I totally agree that second sources are prone to mistakes hence the necessity of a primary source, but when the primary source is in question, coming to a forum to interpret what it says is truly no different than going to a red-shirt for clarification. At least they have the backing of the company that would support whatever they said, whereas people in the forums have nothing.

A TO can give his ruling on the day, to facilitate the game, and subsequently the event, proceeding.

That in no ways makes that ruling correct.

 azreal13 wrote:
A TO can give his ruling on the day, to facilitate the game, and subsequently the event, proceeding.

That in no ways makes that ruling correct.

Any judge who flip flops around like that isn't a good judge and should cease being one immediately. This is how it is handled in other games. Judges must give the same responses whenever the situation occurs, it cannot change on an event basis. If they do, the whole thing loses credibility which is probably why so many of you have issues here, but it does not stop them being an authority on it and their word is law in a tournament. You are free to play how you want at home with friends but when you play at a shop or a tourney, you are subject to interpretation of the judges and shop owners. Discounting their judgments simply because you consider them an invalid source is flat out rude because you are no more of an expert than they are.

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
A TO can give his ruling on the day, to facilitate the game, and subsequently the event, proceeding.

That in no ways makes that ruling correct.

Any judge who flip flops around like that isn't a good judge and should cease being one immediately. This is how it is handled in other games. Judges must give the same responses whenever the situation occurs, it cannot change on an event basis. If they do, the whole thing loses credibility which is probably why so many of you have issues here, but it does not stop them being an authority on it and their word is law in a tournament. You are free to play how you want at home with friends but when you play at a shop or a tourney, you are subject to interpretation of the judges and shop owners. Discounting their judgments simply because you consider them an invalid source is flat out rude because you are no more of an expert than they are.

This is waaaaayyyyyy off topic, but...

The issue here is that for every possible interpretation you'll have one TO that absolutely believes in it and another that scoffs at the idea.
TOs don't change rulings during an event, but they might between events based on new evidence. TOs/Red Shirts are an invalid source for authority because they have no special insight you and I don't. Pretending they have some magical ability that automatically makes their interpretation concrete is, as far as 40k is concerned, wholly incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
A TO can give his ruling on the day, to facilitate the game, and subsequently the event, proceeding.

That in no ways makes that ruling correct.

Any judge who flip flops around like that isn't a good judge and should cease being one immediately. This is how it is handled in other games. Judges must give the same responses whenever the situation occurs, it cannot change on an event basis. If they do, the whole thing loses credibility which is probably why so many of you have issues here, but it does not stop them being an authority on it and their word is law in a tournament. You are free to play how you want at home with friends but when you play at a shop or a tourney, you are subject to interpretation of the judges and shop owners. Discounting their judgments simply because you consider them an invalid source is flat out rude because you are no more of an expert than they are.

This is waaaaayyyyyy off topic, but...

The issue here is that for every possible interpretation you'll have one TO that absolutely believes in it and another that scoffs at the idea.
TOs don't change rulings during an event, but they might between events based on new evidence. TOs/Red Shirts are an invalid source for authority because they have no special insight you and I don't. Pretending they have some magical ability that automatically makes their interpretation concrete is, as far as 40k is concerned, wholly incorrect.

No I don't think they have any magical insight, but when you're playing at their shop, they become the reference you go to with questions as this is how shops generally work, or at least it has for pretty much any game I've played in the last fifteen or so years. There has to be someone who players can go to for questions besides other players, you may not consider them a valid source, but it does not mean they are not.

Once again, not going to argue with you, I've learned that like some other posters, all you do is argue and contribute nothing

There is a Rule which isn't spoken about much on these Forums, as we discuss only the default state for the Rules and it has no purpose outside of the Table-Top:
All Rules can be modified, by agreement between the two players or the moderator of the event the players have entered into.

Any players whom enter into a Tournament have already agreed that they will play using Modified Rules made by the organizers of the Events, either through 'clarifications' published ahead of time or by the judgement of the organizers during play. Some stores which view themselves as more competitive have House Rules that require all players, even in friendly Games, to abide by the judgement of the people running the store. Others will be turned to simply because the players could not come up with a suitable solution themselves, aside from agreeing that an independent party would be better to solve the problem. If an opponent sits down to play against you, and you have a condition of play that they respect the judgement of a third party, then they agreed to abide by a third party.

Without that agreement then what that third party thinks is irrelevant.

As to why people like myself debate the Rule as Written so firmly in places like this?
There are a million answers, but it is most-likely a sign of mental illness....

Their rulings stand at their store/Event, but not beyond that.

Redshirts opinins are no more or less valid than any others.

Just like the rest of us, they do not have any special insight into the rules.

JinxDragon wrote:
There is a Rule which isn't spoken about much on these Forums, as we discuss only the default state for the Rules and it has no purpose outside of the Table-Top:
All Rules can be modified, by agreement between the two players or the moderator of the event the players have entered into.

Any players whom enter into a Tournament have already agreed that they will play using Modified Rules made by the organizers of the Events, either through 'clarifications' published ahead of time or by the judgement of the organizers during play. Some stores which view themselves as more competitive have House Rules that require all players, even in friendly Games, to abide by the judgement of the people running the store. Others will be turned to simply because the players could not come up with a suitable solution themselves, aside from agreeing that an independent party would be better to solve the problem.

All of these have one thing in common:
The Players involved have agreed to allow a third party to make changes to the Rules, without that agreement then what that third party thinks is irrelevant.

As to why people like myself debate the Rule as Written so firmly in places like this?
There are a million answers, but it is most-likely a sign of mental illness....

I debate it because when I read it, it makes sense to me. Otherwise I'd do the wise thing and ignore the troll baiting, but alas, I love troll bashing.

I agree with your other points. House rules are fine, but house rules > RAW is not. If a RAW contradicts a house rule, the RAW takes precedence. If something is debatable, you roll it out and call it a day, you don't try changing the rules.

Zodiark wrote:

No I don't think they have any magical insight, but when you're playing at their shop, they become the reference you go to with questions as this is how shops generally work, or at least it has for pretty much any game I've played in the last fifteen or so years. There has to be someone who players can go to for questions besides other players, you may not consider them a valid source, but it does not mean they are not.

You have misunderstood. Event organisers are a perfectly valid source for their own events. But their opinion simply doesn't count for anything more than anyone else's outside of that venue, because 40k doesn't have any sort of judge certification process.

Once again, not going to argue with you, I've learned that like some other posters, all you do is argue and contribute nothing

This sort of comment is unwarranted. See Dakka's rule #1.

 insaniak wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

No I don't think they have any magical insight, but when you're playing at their shop, they become the reference you go to with questions as this is how shops generally work, or at least it has for pretty much any game I've played in the last fifteen or so years. There has to be someone who players can go to for questions besides other players, you may not consider them a valid source, but it does not mean they are not.

You have misunderstood. Event organisers are a perfectly valid source for their own events. But their opinion simply doesn't count for anything more than anyone else's outside of that venue, because 40k doesn't have any sort of judge certification process.

Once again, not going to argue with you, I've learned that like some other posters, all you do is argue and contribute nothing

This sort of comment is unwarranted. See Dakka's rule #1.

Sorry for the negative comment, but seriously I'm tired of arguing with someone who presents zero facts to their statements when I have provided them. You deny them and try and poke holes in them but it does not disprove them.

Event organizer rules take precedence, agreed, so do shops. But their rules do not contradict RAW. What is in the book is the law and any change is cheating, hands down?

Zodiark wrote:
Sorry for the negative comment, but seriously I'm tired of arguing with someone who presents zero facts to their statements when I have provided them. You deny them and try and poke holes in them but it does not disprove them.

I do present facts, but that doesn't change the fact that what you said was a personal attack. And apologizing to the mod means nothing.

Event organizer rules take precedence, agreed, so do shops. But their rules do not contradict RAW. What is in the book is the law and any change is cheating, hands down?

Their rules might contradict RAW. I've played at events that ruled MCs can only Overwatch with one guns, and I've played at events where MCs can Overwatch with 2 guns. One of these contradicts RAW indisputably because the RAW cannot say both are correct.

Zodiark wrote:

Sorry for the negative comment, but seriously I'm tired of arguing with someone who presents zero facts to their statements when I have provided them.

So don't.

There is no prize for getting the last word in the argument.

Event organizer rules take precedence, agreed, so do shops. But their rules do not contradict RAW. What is in the book is the law and any change is cheating, hands down?

Sorry, what?

 insaniak wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

Sorry for the negative comment, but seriously I'm tired of arguing with someone who presents zero facts to their statements when I have provided them.

So don't.

There is no prize for getting the last word in the argument.

Event organizer rules take precedence, agreed, so do shops. But their rules do not contradict RAW. What is in the book is the law and any change is cheating, hands down?

Sorry, what?

If a shop makes a rule that contradicts a ruling in the BRB that is cheating. As has been stated, some people read the rules and have enlightenment from the get go, needing no other help understanding something so simple, others need help. Those that need help from what I have seen turn to editing rules for their own uses in their groups, this is fine when playing with friends and all, but if you ever played with someone following the rules you would be cheating.

Nuff said, good day

No, it isn't cheating. It is a rules modification, entirely allowed within the rules of the game.

No, if a shop makes a rule that contradicts a rule in the BRB, but applies it consistently, then it's a house rule, and part of wargaming.

Sometimes "understanding" is simply a level of ignorance where "some people" have no idea how little they know.

Self censored.

 azreal13 wrote:
No, if a shop makes a rule that contradicts a rule in the BRB, but applies it consistently, then it's a house rule, and part of wargaming.

Sometimes "understanding" is simply a level of ignorance where "some people" have no idea how little they know.

Reading comprehension is something that should be focused on more in schools, we'd have less people with questions with obvious answers and less pointless bickering.

Also, nos you say it is fine, I call it cheating. When a rule is in question, interpret as you will, intentionally changing the RAW is breaking the rules. I am a very by the book player and changing the rules is not by the book. Though I am partial to rolling on a die for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Self censored.

Can't we all just get along. We are talking about a friggin board game here people.

Zodiark, please take this as an honest piece of advice, given with genuinely good reasons.

Give yourself a holiday from YMDC, before you get an enforced holiday from Dakka entirely. You are self confessed new to the game, I heartily suggest you get some more gaming experience under your belt and then, perhaps, dive back in.

 azreal13 wrote:
Zodiark, please take this as an honest piece of advice, given with genuinely good reasons.

Give yourself a holiday from YMDC, before you get an enforced holiday from Dakka entirely. You are self confessed new to the game, I heartily suggest you get some more gaming experience under your belt and then, perhaps, dive back in.

I'll step away, mostly cause I want to enjoy this game and many of you make me regret buying. Just because I am new though, does not mean I do not understand. I am quite intelligent and reading comprehension comes easily. Some things are obvious and are not debatable, others are not. The rules I have been discussing are obvious to me and those I play with, many of them have been playing for well over a decade and the same is true with them.

But yeah, I'd rather not have a forced holiday simply because people are unable to agree on anything and have weird rules for what is tantamount to a theory crafting session

Peace

It isn't cheating. As part of playing there you abide by their rules. If you don't agree, don't play there.

It is also a rule that you can, with agreement, change any rule. That us, by definition, not cheating.