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.

nekooni wrote:
So you're playing with nonfunctional assault weapons, too? Just checking.

We should be, honestly. Maybe that would incentivize GW to finally fix it.

tneva82 wrote:
Try to arque silly rule and you get silly rule in response. Infinite hits might be RAW but thing is so is me rolling my saves one at a time RAW. Person can't claim RAW on one thing and deny RAW for me and if somebody tried I would say stuff it and accept I roll saves one at a time Have a problem with that? Don't try silly infinite hits. Whoever tries to claim infinite hits AND complains about me forcing him to roll for saves and me roling saves one at a time is just a crybaby. Thank god that's just internet virtual scenario without anybody actually trying that in live game.

He got what he wanted

Fine, roll your armor saves one at a time, I really don't care. If that is what the rules say you should follow them.

w1zard wrote:

nekooni wrote:
So you're playing with nonfunctional assault weapons, too? Just checking.

We should be, honestly. Maybe that would incentivize GW to finally fix it.

The only effect this would have is that you're playing a stupid version of 40k. it's not like we're not fully aware how it is meant to work, same with this issue.

GW might fix this, but playing it like that won't make them fix it faster. Telling them that they made a mistake might. But honestly, this is just an internet issue. And allegedly at tables where BCB plays.

nekooni wrote:

w1zard wrote:

nekooni wrote:
So you're playing with nonfunctional assault weapons, too? Just checking.

We should be, honestly. Maybe that would incentivize GW to finally fix it.

The only effect this would have is that you're playing a stupid version of 40k. it's not like we're not fully aware how it is meant to work, same with this issue.

GW might fix this, but playing it like that won't make them fix it faster. Telling them that they made a mistake might. But honestly, this is just an internet issue. And allegedly at tables where BCB plays.

It's an internet issue until someone pulls it at a tournament. Chances are they'll fix it before then, but if not... the clock rules don't help either.

Breton wrote:

nekooni wrote:

w1zard wrote:

nekooni wrote:
So you're playing with nonfunctional assault weapons, too? Just checking.

We should be, honestly. Maybe that would incentivize GW to finally fix it.

The only effect this would have is that you're playing a stupid version of 40k. it's not like we're not fully aware how it is meant to work, same with this issue.

GW might fix this, but playing it like that won't make them fix it faster. Telling them that they made a mistake might. But honestly, this is just an internet issue. And allegedly at tables where BCB plays.

It's an internet issue until someone pulls it at a tournament. Chances are they'll fix it before then, but if not... the clock rules don't help either.

Tournaments aren't RAW only. They have organisers/judges to interpret RAW. No tournament will allow infinite shooting.

 Stux wrote:


Tournaments aren't RAW only. They have organisers/judges to interpret RAW. No tournament will allow infinite shooting.

You hope. Somebody somewhere will. Assuming it's not corrected by then. Until it's corrected, an impartial judge should. The FAQ spells it out clearly. Stupidly, but clearly.

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:


Tournaments aren't RAW only. They have organisers/judges to interpret RAW. No tournament will allow infinite shooting.

You hope. Somebody somewhere will. Assuming it's not corrected by then. Until it's corrected, an impartial judge should. The FAQ spells it out clearly. Stupidly, but clearly.

An impartial judge should not. They're not just making rulings based on RAW, that's not how judging works. They also need to make decisions based on their interpretation and, in situations like this, the good of the game. If some idiot judge did decide to allow infinite shooting that's entirely their call, but that seems like a really good way to mark your tournament out as one to avoid in the future.

A well run tournament should , in fact, rarely run as completely RAW. In my opinion. However, they should be relatively clear on major changes to the RAW before hand. Not the edge cases, but on big things that effect a lot of games, like this, definitely.

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:


Tournaments aren't RAW only. They have organisers/judges to interpret RAW. No tournament will allow infinite shooting.

You hope. Somebody somewhere will. Assuming it's not corrected by then. Until it's corrected, an impartial judge should. The FAQ spells it out clearly. Stupidly, but clearly.

Exactly. A good impartial judge will allow it. A great impartial judge will have issued a statement ahead of time telling players that its obviously not intended and will present a workaround for the rest of the tournament/event before lists are submitted. Although the smaller the event, the less need for an impartial judge since you are probably playing against the same people you play every week.

 Type40 wrote:
A well run tournament should , in fact, rarely run as completely RAW. In my opinion. However, they should be relatively clear on major changes to the RAW before hand. Not the edge cases, but on big things that effect a lot of games, like this, definitely.

You might want to read some of the things in BCB's signature before you continues that train of thought. Whenever the intention is clear, like obviously not every unit with whirlwind of rage one-shotting everything it touches with a six, the judge should rule exactly like that.

The judge should rule towards intent or RAW ?

I dunno, like I said, its my opinion on what makes a "good" tournament.

I think a judge should aim for RAI and fairness. Meaning RAW is important for fairness, unless its clearly not RAI then it probobly isn't fair.

But what makes a good tourny is pretty subjective.

Where the RAW is clearly broken, a judge should absolutely rule against it. An event that allowed infinite shooting would quickly lose its legitimacy.

 Stux wrote:
Where the RAW is clearly broken, a judge should absolutely rule against it. An event that allowed infinite shooting would quickly lose its legitimacy.

The opposite is equally true. If a judge can spit out rulings that are against the RAW in the middle of an event, ESPECIALLY if there is a prize, then the event has less legitimacy.

For example, Player A enters a tournament with a 1k prize pool and wants to take the most competitive list possible. A brand spanking new ruling was just issued before an event and it was before the rules/point change cutoff so it should be considered fair game. Player A takes an army of Tesla Necrons because he thinks exploding instagib 6s are going to be strong and necrons have access to plenty of Tesla. Round 1 starts and he tries to 1 shot a unit and as you can expect his opponent calls over a judge. Player A shows the printed out FAQ, his codex, his copy of the BRB, and the tournament specific rules to the judge stating that the FAQ is legitimate and he prepared for the tournament given the rules he was told to use. He fully expected other players to use the same FAQ for this tournament before it gets hotfixed by GW. Judge says "LOL NO. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE FAQ SAYS THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT INTENDED" Why is Player A in the wrong and not the judge for changing the pre-agreed upon rules for the tournament?

The failure was not addressing a huge game changing ruling in the tournament packet and changing the rules mid tournament is far worse. Especially if a judge tries to pick and choose "no infinite 6s but we are still applying other effects that happen on 6."

It depends on the rule though. It requires a judge to have a nuanced understanding of context and what is reasonable.

In this instance it would be entirely unreasonable for a judge to allow a player to use RAW to shoot an arbitrarily high number of times with one unit.

Ambiguous rules should be cleared with the TO BEFORE you try to use them. Failing to do so opens you up to the rules being interpreted against you as T.O.'s are running home ruled events and are under no obligation to follow RAW (rules cutoffs, ITC =/= RAW, NOVA GSC rules...).

Anyone with half a functioning brain knows that this is not the way the rule is intended to work so I'd check with a judge before I tried to exploit a badly written rule.

Even more edge cases (what warlord traits do DA use on phobos characters? Can I give my non-phobos units +1 to hit) should be cleared with a T.O. BEFORE you show up with your list.

T.O.'s AND players have a responsibility to make sure everyone shares an understanding of how the game works (maybe this wouldn't be so hard if GW gave a damn about writing working rules but rainbows and unicorns and all of that).

This is definitely something a lot of tournaments need to work on. Publishing a tourney FAQ BEFORE LIST SUBMISSIONS ARE DUE would go a long way in clearing these types of potential "misunderstandings." Rules questions due by X, answers to be published by Y, lists due by Z. Assume any questions not asked/answered shall be construed to the advantage of your opponent. Hell just running through this forum and answering the most contentious questions would head off a lot of these problems before they pop up (drones intercepting MW caused by weapons...)

 Stux wrote:
It depends on the rule though. It requires a judge to have a nuanced understanding of context and what is reasonable.

In this instance it would be entirely unreasonable for a judge to allow a player to use RAW to shoot an arbitrarily high number of times with one unit.

Um i disagree the judge/TO should either have clarified the difference before the event or in the tourney pack. Or stick with rules as bonkers as they are. Most tourneys have a rules cut off before list submission.

However it would be encumbant on the judge to point out that once the infinite hits have started their is no off ramp and so the player who generated them has locked there turn till the clock expires and rule that therefore their clock has now expired all attacks are removed without resolving and the other player may now proceed with their turn.

Not true if you slow-roll. If you do one attack at a time, even if you gain an additional hit from an ability, that hit doesn't do anything until you have finished with your current attack, including generating more hits. I won't get into how it interacts with fast-rolling, since Brook closed that other thread, so we'll just leave it at that.

U02dah4 wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It depends on the rule though. It requires a judge to have a nuanced understanding of context and what is reasonable.

In this instance it would be entirely unreasonable for a judge to allow a player to use RAW to shoot an arbitrarily high number of times with one unit.

Um i disagree the judge/TO should either have clarified the difference before the event or in the tourney pack. Or stick with rules as bonkers as they are. Most tourneys have a rules cut off before list submission.

However it would be encumbant on the judge to point out that once the infinite hits have started their is no off ramp and so the player who generated them has locked there turn till the clock expires and rule that therefore their clock has now expired all attacks are removed without resolving and the other player may now proceed with their turn.

I sense we'll have to agree to disagree, my opinion is strongly that when it is something game breaking on this level it absolutely is the prerogative of the judge to make a call there and then to stop it.

My opinion lies with you on this one Stux. But again, tournament rules and whether or not a tournament is "good" is subjective and up to the organizers and their players. So, what ever floats your boat XD. .

 Type40 wrote:
My opinion lies with you on this one Stux. But again, tournament rules and whether or not a tournament is "good" is subjective and up to the organizers and their players. So, what ever floats your boat XD. .

Agreed, it is ultimately up to the individuals involved.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Ah, so it is rounding out of convenience (and practicality).

There's no rounding in the proof. It's just notation to represent an infinitely recurring decimal.

That might be what you mean, but I'm just being clear that rounding has no part in the proof.

Except thats only valid as a math proof, as for any actual calculatable value 9X is not 9 it's 8.9'

9 is literally the exact same number as 8.9' and provably so in multiple ways.

It's not literally because that comes from the latin meaning letter by letter, and written down it is not literally the same, because 8.9999 is written differently to 9, and also because it's not letter by letter but because it's a number.

There. Now I've been as pendantic and pointless as everyone else in this thread.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Ah, so it is rounding out of convenience (and practicality).

There's no rounding in the proof. It's just notation to represent an infinitely recurring decimal.

That might be what you mean, but I'm just being clear that rounding has no part in the proof.

Except thats only valid as a math proof, as for any actual calculatable value 9X is not 9 it's 8.9'

9 is literally the exact same number as 8.9' and provably so in multiple ways.

It's not literally because that comes from the latin meaning letter by letter, and written down it is not literally the same, because 8.9999 is written differently to 9, and also because it's not letter by letter but because it's a number.

There. Now I've been as pendantic and pointless as everyone else in this thread.

I like to think this is a Dakka parody thread. I've had a lot of fun here!

 Stux wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It depends on the rule though. It requires a judge to have a nuanced understanding of context and what is reasonable.

In this instance it would be entirely unreasonable for a judge to allow a player to use RAW to shoot an arbitrarily high number of times with one unit.

Um i disagree the judge/TO should either have clarified the difference before the event or in the tourney pack. Or stick with rules as bonkers as they are. Most tourneys have a rules cut off before list submission.

However it would be encumbant on the judge to point out that once the infinite hits have started their is no off ramp and so the player who generated them has locked there turn till the clock expires and rule that therefore their clock has now expired all attacks are removed without resolving and the other player may now proceed with their turn.

I sense we'll have to agree to disagree, my opinion is strongly that when it is something game breaking on this level it absolutely is the prerogative of the judge to make a call there and then to stop it.

You two have effectively the same result. One has a judge going "nuh uh that's totally not intended and you know it." The other has a judge going "I mean sure if you really want to push it then you will have unlimited attacks with 0 way of breaking the infinite loop and will be forced to concede. Would you like to reconsider?" One is a judge going rogue against RAW and the other is a judge beating someone over the head with RAW for bad behavior. Hilarious if it forces a roll-off and the non-infinite player wants the infinite ruling.

You are still caught in a bad scenario where other tables might not be made aware so it once again goes back to TO failing to address it in the rules packet. The player isn't exactly innocent either. If they had asked ahead of time this could have been avoided for multiple reasons. The TO would be made aware of the problem so they are more likely to answer it in the tournament packet. The player would know ahead of time if the infinite was going to be used so they could build their list accordingly.

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Where the RAW is clearly broken, a judge should absolutely rule against it. An event that allowed infinite shooting would quickly lose its legitimacy.

The opposite is equally true. If a judge can spit out rulings that are against the RAW in the middle of an event, ESPECIALLY if there is a prize, then the event has less legitimacy.

For example, Player A enters a tournament with a 1k prize pool and wants to take the most competitive list possible. A brand spanking new ruling was just issued before an event and it was before the rules/point change cutoff so it should be considered fair game. Player A takes an army of Tesla Necrons because he thinks exploding instagib 6s are going to be strong and necrons have access to plenty of Tesla. Round 1 starts and he tries to 1 shot a unit and as you can expect his opponent calls over a judge. Player A shows the printed out FAQ, his codex, his copy of the BRB, and the tournament specific rules to the judge stating that the FAQ is legitimate and he prepared for the tournament given the rules he was told to use. He fully expected other players to use the same FAQ for this tournament before it gets hotfixed by GW. Judge says "LOL NO. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE FAQ SAYS THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT INTENDED" Why is Player A in the wrong and not the judge for changing the pre-agreed upon rules for the tournament?

The failure was not addressing a huge game changing ruling in the tournament packet and changing the rules mid tournament is far worse. Especially if a judge tries to pick and choose "no infinite 6s but we are still applying other effects that happen on 6."

Player A should be expected to be smart enough to think not just "oh, instagib 6s are strong" but to go "hm - this is clearly broken. Instead of making an ass out of myself at the next tournament I'll just assume this is not going to fly." And if he really, really wants to bank it it being a thing, he should ask the TO beforehand if they're going to go with the broken rule.

Infinite Hits. Lol okay.

Request Chess Clock.
Allow player to make infinite hits.
Force player to roll infinite dice.
Laugh as he loses the game due to timing out.

This would seem to have run its course.

Moving on.