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.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

There is a much easier way to make slow play a thing of the past. ITC LVO packet said game length was set for 6 turns and no random game length. So the solution is simple, with the exception of a tabling you only score a percentage of the points earned in your game in relation to which game turn you ended on. In other words if I score 24 points when time is called but I only made it to turn 2 then the max they can earn is 8 points. Play 1/3 of a game, earn 1/3 of the battle points.

That is already in place in the ITC Champions missions since points are scored turn-by-turn. The consequences are that if you are playing in a "win/loss" situation like LVO, it doesn't really matter how many points you score in a game as long as you win and advance. Conversely, in a 'battle point" tourney if a competitive player gets stuck with a slow opponent in a given round and only gets 2 or 3 turns to score, he/she is screwed.

And then there are the soft-score tourneys where sportsmanship scores get chipmonked by butt-hurt players on the losing end, and players help out friends and teammates.

I haven't found the optimal system.... Maybe clocked turns and a small soft score component.

I think there is a smart solution to soft scoring. I think you make it basically three tiered. Exceptional sport, Normal, and unsportsmanlike conduct. You get a +X for exceptional, and zero points for the other two except Unsportsmanlike gets a red box checked and the player fills out a reason and explains it to the judges. You get enough red checks and the TO knows this isn't just some jerk dinging someone, because it isn't docking there score anyway and it has occured more then once, both times with a reason. The only point adjustment is for being an exceptional sport.

This way it can't be used as a weapon, but it can be used to protect players from poor conduct or things like slow playing. It also encourages players to be a good sport.

ITC put a judge on the top table for the final round to monitor time and be very accessible. This shows they care and were concerned - I think that is great. If nothing is done then *&$s will continue to reign.

Slipspace wrote:
If time is an issue - and it certainly appears to be in at least some games - there are two things that need to be addressed:

1. Is the time allocated per game sufficient for the size of game being played?
2. Are people deliberately slow playing to gain an advantage?

Well. I'm starting to run into time issues with 75PL so about 1500 pts lists with my IG and they are not even horde IG! (painted only and I only have 4 squads of infantry painted so rest are russes and chimeras). I remember stats already so I'm not flipping codex and I'm traditionally fast player(in 7th ed playing 2k games in 1.5h-2h). Not sure how 8th ed is supposed to have made it any faster except many games end on 1-2 turns unless scenario has weird special rules to help with it. But if game drags it actually is even slower.

It's all those rerolls. 40 dice. Pick up 1's, reroll. Pick hits, roll. At worst even more rerolls. And that's for one weapon.

So with ~2h 15 minutes before I had to leave in the end so last turns a) I had no time to actually go through dice rolls so opponent was on trust basis b) I had to resort on "screw that. That russ can't fire" and not even bother to check if one of my tanks COULD shoot or not and just skip it to save time rather than waste time pondering does it see or does it not see.

Cant' figure what's taking so long. I'm not pondering positionings all that well(as evident that when chimera blew out I just put contents there right in front of rapid fire range of primaris marines when I could have put them just out) and wasn't checking rules all the time but the games keeps getting longer than in 7th ed. 7th ed? 200 model orks and give me 2.5h game time and I'm among first to play game through. Now all these rerolls after rerolls slow the game to drible.

Why is Tony's gotcha moment considered poor sportsmanship? Wasn't he just punishing his opponent for a misplay?

tneva82 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
If time is an issue - and it certainly appears to be in at least some games - there are two things that need to be addressed:

1. Is the time allocated per game sufficient for the size of game being played?
2. Are people deliberately slow playing to gain an advantage?

Well. I'm starting to run into time issues with 75PL so about 1500 pts lists with my IG and they are not even horde IG! (painted only and I only have 4 squads of infantry painted so rest are russes and chimeras). I remember stats already so I'm not flipping codex and I'm traditionally fast player(in 7th ed playing 2k games in 1.5h-2h). Not sure how 8th ed is supposed to have made it any faster except many games end on 1-2 turns unless scenario has weird special rules to help with it. But if game drags it actually is even slower.

It's all those rerolls. 40 dice. Pick up 1's, reroll. Pick hits, roll. At worst even more rerolls. And that's for one weapon.

So with ~2h 15 minutes before I had to leave in the end so last turns a) I had no time to actually go through dice rolls so opponent was on trust basis b) I had to resort on "screw that. That russ can't fire" and not even bother to check if one of my tanks COULD shoot or not and just skip it to save time rather than waste time pondering does it see or does it not see.

Cant' figure what's taking so long. I'm not pondering positionings all that well(as evident that when chimera blew out I just put contents there right in front of rapid fire range of primaris marines when I could have put them just out) and wasn't checking rules all the time but the games keeps getting longer than in 7th ed. 7th ed? 200 model orks and give me 2.5h game time and I'm among first to play game through. Now all these rerolls after rerolls slow the game to drible.

I think you might be right about the rerolls. It's becoming increasingly rare to go through a phase without having some sort of extra interaction with your rolls, usually requiring measuring for aura effects and the like. Even saves have this problem with the various FNP-type saves becoming worryingly prevalent and often adding extra dice rolling to the game for very little effect.

Having said that, I usually get through a 1750 point game in less than 2.5 hours, and that's in a non-tournament environment with time spent chatting and discussing stuff rather than just flat-out playing the game. If an emphasis is put on good timekeeping at tournaments I think it's possible to get a game finished in 2.5 hours, though possibly not at 2000 points.

karandrasss wrote:Why is Tony's gotcha moment considered poor sportsmanship? Wasn't he just punishing his opponent for a misplay?

Technically he was just taking advantage of a misplay, yes. Some people are fine with that. His opponent actually showed a lot of class by just accepting it and moving on. However, it's the kind of thing that just feels unnecessary and TFG behaviour because ultimately nothing would be changed by allowing the player making the mistake to wind back the deep strikes and do things in the correct order. I think we can see from the response in the video chat and here that the overwhelming majority of people feel it was clear TFG behaviour. It's often difficult to define that type of behaviour in advance but easier to see it once it happens. What probably made it worse was the player's reaction to having the same thing done to him in a later game. Nobody likes a hypocrite.

karandrasss wrote:
Why is Tony's gotcha moment considered poor sportsmanship? Wasn't he just punishing his opponent for a misplay?

Because the game state was not effected in any way. There would have been no difficulty in allowing Alex to complete his movement.

Ordana wrote:

karandrasss wrote:
Why is Tony's gotcha moment considered poor sportsmanship? Wasn't he just punishing his opponent for a misplay?

Because the game state was not effected in any way. There would have been no difficulty in allowing Alex to complete his movement.

The main point was then he threw a hissy fit in the next round when someone held him to his own standards of play ... You reap what you sow and all that.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I think there is a smart solution to soft scoring. I think you make it basically three tiered. Exceptional sport, Normal, and unsportsmanlike conduct. You get a +X for exceptional, and zero points for the other two except Unsportsmanlike gets a red box checked and the player fills out a reason and explains it to the judges. You get enough red checks and the TO knows this isn't just some jerk dinging someone, because it isn't docking there score anyway and it has occured more then once, both times with a reason. The only point adjustment is for being an exceptional sport.

This way it can't be used as a weapon, but it can be used to protect players from poor conduct or things like slow playing. It also encourages players to be a good sport.

NOVA basically does (or at least used to) do this with only 2 scores Thumbs up, and thumbs down, then they would ask about thumbs down games and why the rating was given. I think if you go to 3 scores you need to include explanation for both exceptional and bad ratings. IME a lot of people will just default to exceptional for their opponents when it is an option (I've done sportsmanship rating 1-5 in tournaments and had most people get straight 5s, where 3 was supposed to be average). If they need to explain why I think it would create a scenario where most people default to normal because of the ease, and perception that it is the typical score.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

karandrasss wrote:
Why is Tony's gotcha moment considered poor sportsmanship? Wasn't he just punishing his opponent for a misplay?

Part of it is that the deepstrike did not in any way effect his other moves, part of it was at the begining of the game they had an agreement to go by intent to some extent to speed up the game, and Tony knew Alex intended to move his other models, and part of it was in his next game when he made a misplay and it was pointed out several phases later he wanted to be allowed to correct himself. There are a lot of players that will let opponents amend mistakes when they happen, the action by Tony just sent a signal that the game was not going to be played like that and would be determined by a gotcha moment instead of strategy.

Isn't it universally understood that you can't break the rules in tournaments? I.e. moving after deep-striking is RAW not allowed.

karandrasss wrote:
Isn't it universally understood that you can't break the rules in tournaments? I.e. moving after deep-striking is RAW not allowed.

But then comes how strict you have to be. Is following rules to letter even when correcting would be easy and wouldn\t change things if things had been played in proper order without mistake(caused by your opponent deliberately slow playing) in the first place more important than having fun game?

There's cheating and then there's "cheating".

And then of course the TFG has audacity of complaining when he's subjected to same thing when he screwed up order.

Ordana wrote:

karandrasss wrote:
Why is Tony's gotcha moment considered poor sportsmanship? Wasn't he just punishing his opponent for a misplay?

Because the game state was not effected in any way. There would have been no difficulty in allowing Alex to complete his movement.

I don't think Tony disallowing Alex's movement after the fact is a dick move at all. If you forget rules at the highest level of competition you ought to be punished in game for it. Moreover, these guys should expect to be held to this standard by their opponents. Yes, Tony could have shown some grace and allowed Alex to take it back, but at this level of competition that is not a requirement. I don't know very many Warmahordes players that let someone go back on a "forgot to feat" moment - and no one lambasts them for it.

What IS a dick move by Tony G is the fact he got caught by Nick in his next game and incessantly bitched about it. No, bro. You get the same treatment.

What is also a dick move is the absolutely blatant slow play and useless banter. It's good to chat and be friendly with an opponent, but to monopolize time like that is unfair to the opponent and the tournament in general.

My group is saying that Alex should just play better next time, that Tony was completely in the right, and that anyone would do what he did in a tournament setting. How should I convince them otherwise?

karandrasss wrote:
This LVO debacle made me realize that everyone in my country is TFG. They're all saying that Alex should just play better next time, that Tony was completely in the right, and that anyone would do what he did in a tournament setting.

I guess the entire warmahordes community is TFG then? That makes no sense. This is the highest level of competition we're talking about. Alex should have played by the rules....and so should Tony.

The real issue here is the misperception of competitive play, coupled with the lack of in depth time standards by FLG. The mismanagement of time is a grievous error on their part.

karandrasss wrote:
My group is saying that Alex should just play better next time, that Tony was completely in the right, and that anyone would do what he did in a tournament setting. How should I convince them otherwise?

Tell them they're wrong and call them A-holes. I'm sure it'll work.

Sarcasm aside...tell them to stop thinking like A-holes. In a 3-4 hour game that's being shoved into 2.5 hours, holding your opponent to any action that totally handicaps their ability to play the game isn't your opponent making a mistake, it's you being an A-hole.

Real players want to beat their opponents, not cheat them...

Sportsmanship is not something you can easily define using a set of iron-clad rules, so there will be disagreements over what is and isn't acceptable. That's fine.

I think in this case, it's not just about the deep strike issue though. There was the very slow first turn, which many people viewed as being an underhand attempt to either annoy his opponent or make sure the game didn't drag on too long where his army might have had a disadvantage. There's also the behaviour in the subsequent game. Any one of those things by themselves might be enough for some people to consider Tony to be unsporting. YMMV because this is inherently subjective. What I think we can say is that taking all 3 together paints a worse picture than any one in isolation.

 Voidwraith wrote:

karandrasss wrote:
My group is saying that Alex should just play better next time, that Tony was completely in the right, and that anyone would do what he did in a tournament setting. How should I convince them otherwise?

Tell them they're wrong and call them A-holes. I'm sure it'll work.

Sarcasm aside...tell them to stop thinking like A-holes. In a 3-4 hour game that's being shoved into 2.5 hours, holding your opponent to any action that totally handicaps their ability to play the game isn't your opponent making a mistake, it's you being an A-hole.

Real players want to beat their opponents, not cheat them...

Especially when you are deliberately slowplaying thus forcing opponent to play in a rush thus increasing odds of making these sort of mistakes.

Also the issue was Tony and Alex agreed to intent. It was clear that Alex's intent was to place them and move on since Tony was slow playing and Alex had very little time to do his turn. So Tony going back on that, while technically correct, was a dick move because he deliberately slow played and then did a "gotcha" when he knew Alex would have little time to play, and had previously agreed to play intent not letter to help speed things up. I believe you even hear him say it's okay to put a model there as a placeholder for where they will deepstrike, and then a few minutes later does the "That's the end of the movement phase, dude" stuff (not sure on that, heard it secondhand).

That's what makes it a dick move; the combination of slow playing (over an hour for 1 turn? feth outta here) and then purposely doing a gotcha on your opponent when he is rushing to complete a turn because you used half the time for the game.

I'm truly thankful that these high level tournaments are able to be watched by the masses. Watched many fun games, learned a lot, and appreciate the time and effort that goes into such an endeavor.

In the same breath, I'm grateful poor play is on display too, when it happens, particularly at the top tables like this, because it shows without a doubt the lengths people will go to in order to win.

I've been gaming a long time. Cheating and poor sportsmanship is nothing new, in any competitive scene. When it comes to light, it's proper and helpful to the community to air their concerns.

It's the tournaments that bother to address the problems, rather than sweep them under the rug, that have my respect. You'll never catch every cheat, but I rest easy knowing karma is a real thing in life, thankfully.

Lastly, sure, Tony got what he deserved, but more importantly, Alex Fennel displayed true poise and became even more recognized as one of the finest ambassadors of 40k. That's what I'll remember most.

 Byte wrote:
I understand that you looking from the "inside out" the view of cheating my seem convoluted.

From the "outside in" I ASSURE its not.

The rules packet should address violations and repercussions. You would know much better than I what a "violation" means. Managing expectations goes a long way in players being able to police themselves. Assume nothing.

Much respect.

I think the problem here is when you spell everything out is first it gives people ideas. You'll have some people say "wow, I never thought of that." Also, if you do have hardcore cheaters, you're giving them a map "around the rules". Secondly, you're creating a risk vs. reward system. You'll have some people willing to risk the consequence for the advantage. ie "If I'm caught with this extra unit, I'll only lose 2 points" Finally, once you have a list with penalties, it becomes less viewed as "cheating" and more as a foul and loses all the negative stigma attached to it. You have someone who holds in the NFL or is offsides, do you call them a cheater?? Not really, it's just part of the game.

This year was my first LVO. I personally had a very enjoyable time (with a, I think, respectable 4-2 finish). I only played 1 game that I didn't enjoy out of 6 and I was able to play 4 of my 6 games to completion. I will say in a 'from the trenches' view if you will I didn't think Tony's move was made in good faith, outside that situation and a few hiccups with BCP though I think it was a good overall event.

 Voidwraith wrote:

karandrasss wrote:
My group is saying that Alex should just play better next time, that Tony was completely in the right, and that anyone would do what he did in a tournament setting. How should I convince them otherwise?

Tell them they're wrong and call them A-holes. I'm sure it'll work.

Sarcasm aside...tell them to stop thinking like A-holes. In a 3-4 hour game that's being shoved into 2.5 hours, holding your opponent to any action that totally handicaps their ability to play the game isn't your opponent making a mistake, it's you being an A-hole.

Real players want to beat their opponents, not cheat them...

If I could exalt this post 50 times, I would.

 djones520 wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:

karandrasss wrote:
My group is saying that Alex should just play better next time, that Tony was completely in the right, and that anyone would do what he did in a tournament setting. How should I convince them otherwise?

Tell them they're wrong and call them A-holes. I'm sure it'll work.

Sarcasm aside...tell them to stop thinking like A-holes. In a 3-4 hour game that's being shoved into 2.5 hours, holding your opponent to any action that totally handicaps their ability to play the game isn't your opponent making a mistake, it's you being an A-hole.

Real players want to beat their opponents, not cheat them...

If I could exalt this post 50 times, I would.

Their argument - how is following the rules being an donkey-cave? Alex made a mistake, Tony capitalized.

karandrasss wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:

karandrasss wrote:
My group is saying that Alex should just play better next time, that Tony was completely in the right, and that anyone would do what he did in a tournament setting. How should I convince them otherwise?

Tell them they're wrong and call them A-holes. I'm sure it'll work.

Sarcasm aside...tell them to stop thinking like A-holes. In a 3-4 hour game that's being shoved into 2.5 hours, holding your opponent to any action that totally handicaps their ability to play the game isn't your opponent making a mistake, it's you being an A-hole.

Real players want to beat their opponents, not cheat them...

If I could exalt this post 50 times, I would.

Their argument - how is following the rules being an donkey-cave? Alex made a mistake, Tony capitalized.

Alex didn't make a mistake though. It wasn't an error.

It was a play made with the understanding that they were playing by intent, and not pure RAW. Things like "I am firing this unit's Assault weapons after advancing", which are not allowed by the rules, would be allowed under such an agreement.

I'm tempted to go back through Tony's games and see if there is ever a time he fired a pistol in CC, an assault weapon after advancing, or anything of the sort that's obviously not the RAW, and see if he's a hypocrite.

After all, it's just following the rules.

EDIT: Call it the BaconCatBug approach.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

karandrasss wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:

karandrasss wrote:
My group is saying that Alex should just play better next time, that Tony was completely in the right, and that anyone would do what he did in a tournament setting. How should I convince them otherwise?

Tell them they're wrong and call them A-holes. I'm sure it'll work.

Sarcasm aside...tell them to stop thinking like A-holes. In a 3-4 hour game that's being shoved into 2.5 hours, holding your opponent to any action that totally handicaps their ability to play the game isn't your opponent making a mistake, it's you being an A-hole.

Real players want to beat their opponents, not cheat them...

If I could exalt this post 50 times, I would.

Their argument - how is following the rules being an donkey-cave? Alex made a mistake, Tony capitalized.

Alex didn't make a mistake though. It wasn't an error.

It was a play made with the understanding that they were playing by intent, and not pure RAW. Things like "I am firing this unit's Assault weapons after advancing", which are not allowed by the rules, would be allowed under such an agreement.

I'm tempted to go back through Tony's games and see if there is ever a time he fired a pistol in CC, an assault weapon after advancing, or anything of the sort that's obviously not the RAW, and see if he's a hypocrite.

After all, it's just following the rules.

EDIT: Call it the BaconCatBug approach.

Their argument - There was no agreement. Tony just said "yeah, yeah" when Alex was saying HE didn't want to "play that game" where you're anal about the rules. Even if there was, it isn't enforceable, and Tony had every right to do anything allowed by the rules to win. It is a tournament, not casual gaming.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

It was a play made with the understanding that they were playing by intent, and not pure RAW. Things like "I am firing this unit's Assault weapons after advancing", which are not allowed by the rules, would be allowed under such an agreement.

Why aren't you allowed to fire assault weapons after advancing?

karandrasss wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

karandrasss wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:

karandrasss wrote:
My group is saying that Alex should just play better next time, that Tony was completely in the right, and that anyone would do what he did in a tournament setting. How should I convince them otherwise?

Tell them they're wrong and call them A-holes. I'm sure it'll work.

Sarcasm aside...tell them to stop thinking like A-holes. In a 3-4 hour game that's being shoved into 2.5 hours, holding your opponent to any action that totally handicaps their ability to play the game isn't your opponent making a mistake, it's you being an A-hole.

Real players want to beat their opponents, not cheat them...

If I could exalt this post 50 times, I would.

Their argument - how is following the rules being an donkey-cave? Alex made a mistake, Tony capitalized.

Alex didn't make a mistake though. It wasn't an error.

It was a play made with the understanding that they were playing by intent, and not pure RAW. Things like "I am firing this unit's Assault weapons after advancing", which are not allowed by the rules, would be allowed under such an agreement.

I'm tempted to go back through Tony's games and see if there is ever a time he fired a pistol in CC, an assault weapon after advancing, or anything of the sort that's obviously not the RAW, and see if he's a hypocrite.

After all, it's just following the rules.

EDIT: Call it the BaconCatBug approach.

Their argument - There was no agreement. Tony just said "yeah, yeah" when Alex was saying HE didn't want to "play that game" where you're anal about the rules. Even if there was, it isn't enforceable, and Tony had every right to do anything allowed by the rules to win. It is a tournament, not casual gaming.

Right. So if you're being 'anal about the rules' then you better be so about yourself as well as your opponent. If Tony ever fired a weapon from a model that didn't have eyes in 7th, or in 8th fired an assault weapon after advancing or pistols in combat, then he's not following RAW.

skarsol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

It was a play made with the understanding that they were playing by intent, and not pure RAW. Things like "I am firing this unit's Assault weapons after advancing", which are not allowed by the rules, would be allowed under such an agreement.

Why aren't you allowed to fire assault weapons after advancing?

Because "the rules" are broken. Assault weapons may be fired after advancing, sure, but a unit cannot be selected to fire in the first place if it advanced, so you never get to the choose a weapon step. It's bogus and stupid, but that's what "anal rules playing" gets you in Warhammer and is why it should never be done this way.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

karandrasss wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

karandrasss wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:

karandrasss wrote:
My group is saying that Alex should just play better next time, that Tony was completely in the right, and that anyone would do what he did in a tournament setting. How should I convince them otherwise?

Tell them they're wrong and call them A-holes. I'm sure it'll work.

Sarcasm aside...tell them to stop thinking like A-holes. In a 3-4 hour game that's being shoved into 2.5 hours, holding your opponent to any action that totally handicaps their ability to play the game isn't your opponent making a mistake, it's you being an A-hole.

Real players want to beat their opponents, not cheat them...

If I could exalt this post 50 times, I would.

Their argument - how is following the rules being an donkey-cave? Alex made a mistake, Tony capitalized.

Alex didn't make a mistake though. It wasn't an error.

It was a play made with the understanding that they were playing by intent, and not pure RAW. Things like "I am firing this unit's Assault weapons after advancing", which are not allowed by the rules, would be allowed under such an agreement.

I'm tempted to go back through Tony's games and see if there is ever a time he fired a pistol in CC, an assault weapon after advancing, or anything of the sort that's obviously not the RAW, and see if he's a hypocrite.

After all, it's just following the rules.

EDIT: Call it the BaconCatBug approach.

Their argument - There was no agreement. Tony just said "yeah, yeah" when Alex was saying HE didn't want to "play that game" where you're anal about the rules. Even if there was, it isn't enforceable, and Tony had every right to do anything allowed by the rules to win. It is a tournament, not casual gaming.

Right. So if you're being 'anal about the rules' then you better be so about yourself as well as your opponent. If Tony ever fired a weapon from a model that didn't have eyes in 7th, or in 8th fired an assault weapon after advancing or pistols in combat, then he's not following RAW.

skarsol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

It was a play made with the understanding that they were playing by intent, and not pure RAW. Things like "I am firing this unit's Assault weapons after advancing", which are not allowed by the rules, would be allowed under such an agreement.

Why aren't you allowed to fire assault weapons after advancing?

Because "the rules" are broken. Assault weapons may be fired after advancing, sure, but a unit cannot be selected to fire in the first place if it advanced, so you never get to the choose a weapon step. It's bogus and stupid, but that's what "anal rules playing" gets you in Warhammer and is why it should never be done this way.

That is hilarious. I will pull that can't shoot if you advance card after I verify it. Or do you have exact references?

karandrasss wrote:
That is hilarious. I will pull that can't shoot if you advance card after I verify it. Or do you have exact references?

Here's the whole thread about it: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/730922.page

Should have all the references you need.

Fundamentally, 40k is a "broken game" and saying "well, it's fair to just play by the rules" means that you're okay playing a different game than the rest of us. Either that, or what's more likely, you're TFG, calling your opponent on rules (such as "deep strike ends the movement phase") while not following the rules yourself ("I fired these assault weapons after advancing / pistols in close combat / whatever other broken RAW nonsense").

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Because "the rules" are broken. Assault weapons may be fired after advancing, sure, but a unit cannot be selected to fire in the first place if it advanced, so you never get to the choose a weapon step. It's bogus and stupid, but that's what "anal rules playing" gets you in Warhammer and is why it should never be done this way.

Oh, that's fun. I'd missed that, thanks.