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.

If you have a unit that is outflanking or in reserve and for whatever reason you can't make it on the board because your opponent lined up along your table edge, do you stay in reserve or are you removed as a causality.? The BRB says nothing about what happens. So I would say they die. Since a lot of rules say that if a model can't be placed it is destroyed, I'd apply the same rule here

I would think that doing that is incredibly unfriendly and defeats the purpose of even playing the game.

I personally hate the whole reserves dying thing entirely. Delaying them another turn is punishment enough. If my opponent rolls a one on the mishap table, I usually tell them to delay them instead of killing the unit. Unless I'm getting ruthlessly destroyed. In the case you outlined, if I was the guy lining up on my opponents table edge, I would simply not do it. If I was the guy that was being done to, I would probably just pick up my models and leave and not play that person again, unless I was destroying my opponent and that was the only way to equalize the game for them.

RAW, however, the units would probably be dead.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I would think that doing that is incredibly unfriendly and defeats the purpose of even playing the game.

I personally hate the whole reserves dying thing entirely. Delaying them another turn is punishment enough. If my opponent rolls a one on the mishap table, I usually tell them to delay them instead of killing the unit. Unless I'm getting ruthlessly destroyed. In the case you outlined, if I was the guy lining up on my opponents table edge, I would simply not do it. If I was the guy that was being done to, I would probably just pick up my models and leave and not play that person again, unless I was destroying my opponent and that was the only way to equalize the game for them.

RAW, however, the units would probably be dead.

the question was from a competive stand point, like if it were to happen at a event and what not, in a friendly game, playing like that would be uncalled for. Showed have made that clear in my post.

I don't think there is a RAW answer. The rules require them to enter the battlefield, but do not state what happens if they can't. Being destroyed makes sense within the rules given, and as a model that's not on the battlefield, not in reserves, and not anywhere, I'd rule it a casualty for all intents and purposes.

Fifth it was FAQ d as dead, but nothing since to my knowledge.

Strictly the game halts as both players have created an Unresolvable situation.

How... Exactly did they manage to do that?

Wasn't there the infamous match where a white scar all bike army chose to go all reserve? Then, his vile xeno filth Tau opponent infiltrated his Kroot along his opponent's edge 1" apart. Since the white scars player could not deploy onto the map, he lost. There was a picture making its way through the internets, complete with a smirking Tau player mugging for the camera as the biker player and TO looked through the rule book.

Yes, it's a famous anecdote from like 3rd or 4th edition.

I'm just surprised it'd be doable still.

5th edition from memory, and was BEFORE the FAQ. The to at the time made a frankly terrible call, given it was etc. Should have restarted the game.

Yes he certainly should have restarted the game !

nosferatu1001 wrote:
5th edition from memory, and was BEFORE the FAQ. The to at the time made a frankly terrible call, given it was etc. Should have restarted the game.

And then what? Have the players go through 5 to 7 turns of the Tau player not moving and the White Scars player unable to do anything before the game ended in a Tau victory when the White Scars were counted out at the end of the game?

The fact that someone allowed that to happen to then it's by the tau players fault it's the white scars players fault for doing it to him self. But like previously stated in a event it's about doing what you need to do to win (without cheating) and the tau player came up with the best idea givin the situation he was in

It has been done many times, I killed a few units myself this way over the years.

Blocking a table edge is not an easy nor a forgiving strategy. It is quite easy to spot and disrupt. If the other player goes all out on the outflank tactic and still allows it then he should suffer the consequences.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
5th edition from memory, and was BEFORE the FAQ. The to at the time made a frankly terrible call, given it was etc. Should have restarted the game.

100% this.

That judge made an arbitrary call that was not RAW at the time.

Terrible call. That was not even a game.

I don't think that is beardy at all, I think its one of the few examples of tactical movement left in 40k.

Although an example that leaves a bit worse of a taste in the mouth is when a transport is completely surrounded and the occupants die horribly.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
How... Exactly did they manage to do that?

If the enemy goes null deployment, Infiltrate his board edge. He won't be able to bring any reserves unless Deep Strike (not every has access to) or having a Skimmer vehicle, Jump/Jet Pack infantries (also, not everyone has).

If the enemy Outflanks, you can Infiltrate at least one of the side edges to bar some of his models to enter the battle.

Jefffar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
5th edition from memory, and was BEFORE the FAQ. The to at the time made a frankly terrible call, given it was etc. Should have restarted the game.

And then what? Have the players go through 5 to 7 turns of the Tau player not moving and the White Scars player unable to do anything before the game ended in a Tau victory when the White Scars were counted out at the end of the game?

What part of "restarted the game" was tricky to understand?

Both players actively contributed towards a situation where the game halts and cannot proceed. This is undeniable (now and then, given the 5th edition FAQ timing).

The TO should have recognised this, kniowing there is no current precedent to draw upon, and taken the least damaging option of restarting the game.

They from then on can make a house rule (at the time) about destroying reserves, however killing the game before anything happened, handing a "win" that is only a "win" in name in a tournament is a frankly awful decision by a TO.

Dman137 wrote:
The fact that someone allowed that to happen to then it's by the tau players fault it's the white scars players fault for doing it to him self. But like previously stated in a event it's about doing what you need to do to win (without cheating) and the tau player came up with the best idea givin the situation he was in

At that particular point in time, it was nobody's 'fault' but the judge's, as there were no rules that actually dealt with the situation.

It wasn't the marine player failing to anticipate a tactic, or the tau player capitalising on a tactical error... It was a judge creating a rule on the spot that handed a win to one player with no game actualy having been played.

Some time after that event, the FAQ was updated to cover it... And then 6th Ed came along, and we reverted back to the rules not covering the situation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
5th edition from memory, and was BEFORE the FAQ. The to at the time made a frankly terrible call, given it was etc. Should have restarted the game.

And then what? Have the players go through 5 to 7 turns of the Tau player not moving and the White Scars player unable to do anything before the game ended in a Tau victory when the White Scars were counted out at the end of the game?

What part of "restarted the game" was tricky to understand?

Both players actively contributed towards a situation where the game halts and cannot proceed. This is undeniable (now and then, given the 5th edition FAQ timing).

The TO should have recognised this, kniowing there is no current precedent to draw upon, and taken the least damaging option of restarting the game.

They from then on can make a house rule (at the time) about destroying reserves, however killing the game before anything happened, handing a "win" that is only a "win" in name in a tournament is a frankly awful decision by a TO.

And how do you determine what "the least damaging option" entails? I'm pretty sure restarting the game would've been pretty damaging to the Tau player. The Tau player capitalized on an bad judgement the white scars player made. The only two viable options to continue the game where either destroy the units unable to come on board or delay them a turn (leaivng them in reserves the entire game).

Judges are there to clear out disputes and if need be they make calls when the rules don't cover a subject. There was no precedent so the judge set the precedent.

GIven the Tau player also helped create the unresolvable situation, why are you giving the Tau player the win? Should the Tau player not share some of the blame for this?

It was an awful deciison. Starting the game over was the only option available that was fair on both sides.

THe ONLY *fair* option was a restart. Your false dichotomy is refuted, utterly.

In a literally game ending decision such as this, you set the precedent going forwards, especially as playing another game was entirely poissible - from memory thats what they actually did in this situation.

Restarting is not a fair option, as it rewards to person that made to error by giving them a do over, while robbing the other player of victory due to making a smart move. The judge called it right, which set the precedence the current rules cover. Null deploy is a risky tactic that can pay off big or lose big. In that specific case, it lost big.

SJ

I assumed the win was given to the Tau player because the best victories are ones where no one has to fight, and preventing your opponent from even reaching the field is a way of doing that.

It was a bad call by the white scars player to null deploy in that instance, upon which the Tau player capitalized.

The marine player was outplayed, as simple as that.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Restarting is not a fair option, as it rewards to person that made to error by giving them a do over, while robbing the other player of victory due to making a smart move. The judge called it right, which set the precedence the current rules cover. Null deploy is a risky tactic that can pay off big or lose big. In that specific case, it lost big.

SJ

Giving the Tau player the win rewarded the person who made an error that resulted in the game halting. They BOTH killed the game, so the i=only fair option is to restart.

WHen you say "the current rules" you mean "not in 7th or 6th edition rulebook or FAQ" yes? Or do you have a reference to your assertion that says the current rules cover this?

bleak wrote:The marine player was outplayed, as simple as that.

THe marine player lost due to the TO deciding the Tau player won. Simple as that.

Found the pic, look at the smirk on that guy.

That was posed afterwards, sad to say. Still a genius photo

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:Restarting is not a fair option, as it rewards to person that made to error by giving them a do over, while robbing the other player of victory due to making a smart move. The judge called it right, which set the precedence the current rules cover. Null deploy is a risky tactic that can pay off big or lose big. In that specific case, it lost big.

SJ

Giving the Tau player the win rewarded the person who made an error that resulted in the game halting. They BOTH killed the game, so the i=only fair option is to restart.

WHen you say "the current rules" you mean "not in 7th or 6th edition rulebook or FAQ" yes? Or do you have a reference to your assertion that says the current rules cover this?

bleak wrote:The marine player was outplayed, as simple as that.

THe marine player lost due to the TO deciding the Tau player won. Simple as that.

He still won that round fair, and I don't see a problem with that. The marine player shouldn't have used reserve to HIS advantage which then gave the tau player the advantage to seal the table edges.

Yes, the Tau player won the round, because the TO decided no game should be played. It was a manifestly unfair decision.

Sealing the board edge causes the game to halt. Both players caused that.

Restart. AFTER that you then decide that in future units that cannot enter are destroyed.

Anything esle is demonstrably unfair.

And getting free transports are?

1) 5th edition. So youre about...2 editions ahead to complain about free transports
2) Yes, it is "fair" in that all players can gain access to free transports by playing that detachment. It is also utterly irrelevant to this discussion, due to 1)

Prior to this game there was NO decision on destroying units (and hence losnig the game in this instance) and therefore the decision was unfair.