PDA

View Full Version : These two things came up yesterday (fear/overrun)



Malorian
06-12-2007, 18:01
I'll start with the over run. This is the siuation: It started with a large unit of saurus fighting a unit of knights. Then the saurus were hit in the flank by a smaller halbredier unit, and I then hit the flank of the halbredier unit with a unit of salamanders.

He lost combat and both units ran. You have to flee from the unit with the largest unit size (saurus) so the knights ran back and the halbrediers ran to the side. My saurus chased the knights and the salamanders chased the halbrediers and caught them.

Now if I moved my salamanders striaght to the side (the same direction/angle the halbrediers ran) they would hit the flank of another unit of knights. However my opponent said that I had to run in the direction of the fleeing unit and so my salamanders would chase at a diagonal and thus miss the knights flank.

Which way is right?


The second issue came from the same combat. When I won combat I outnumbered him and the slamanders cause fear so I told him he needed double 1s. He disagreed and said that you only look at the models that cause fear and they didn't outnumber him.

Who is right here?

forthegloryofkazadekrund
06-12-2007, 18:06
you use the fear causing units unit strength not any others in the combat as well

Malorian
06-12-2007, 18:21
But you would count the skinks with the salamanders as well right?

And what if you join a hero with fear to a unit? would you use the unit size of the whole unit or just of the hero?

forthegloryofkazadekrund
06-12-2007, 18:31
im not sure if the skinks would be counted or not, i think they might do but only if the salamanders are alive


only the hero would cause fear, not the rest of the unit so only he would be counted

Malorian
06-12-2007, 18:57
Really? Because there are several magic item you can take to give a character fear or terror, and I thought the general tactic was to put him in a unit so the unit causes fear.

What about the chasing question?

theunwantedbeing
06-12-2007, 18:59
The salamanders will flank those knights if the knights were on the same line as the one that the halberdiers fled along.
You now flee directly away from the enemy, regardless of whether freinds or enemies are in the way, you run through them if they are in the way.
Those pursuing run the same way and will stop when they contact friend or foe instead of running through them.

As for fear, you only count the unit strength of the models that actually cause fear.
So if you are not outnumbered by the fear casuing models you take your break test as normal, however if they outnumber you then you need to roll a double 1 to pass the break test.

The skinks dont cause fear so they do not count, only the salamanders count.

Malorian the point of putting a fear/terror causing character in a unit is to make them immune to fear/terror. Only the character causes fear/terror, not the unit.

Malorian
06-12-2007, 19:46
But the book says a 'fear causing unit' and since the salamanders cause fear then the whole unit should be used for unit strength. It doesn't say anywhere 'if outnumbers by the unit strength of the fear causing models'. So by this the skinks should be included.

When heros join a unit they are obviously part of the unit. One joined anything that effects the unit also effects the hero. So I think again it is a 'fear causing unit' and all models would be counted.

For the chasing one the halbrediers did flee directly away from the saurus and their path would not have touched the knights. But since the salamanders where on the flank (so lower) if they also moved in the same direction they would hit the knights.

So is the pursuing unit assumed to teleport behind the enemy unit and then chase? do they run at them in an angle? or if their roll is higher, do they just run at the same angle from where they are?

Nurgling Chieftain
06-12-2007, 19:56
Now if I moved my salamanders striaght to the side (the same direction/angle the halbrediers ran) they would hit the flank of another unit of knights. However my opponent said that I had to run in the direction of the fleeing unit and so my salamanders would chase at a diagonal and thus miss the knights flank.

Which way is right?Fleeing and pursuing from HtH are always resolved at right angles. So, the salamanders would pivot 90 degrees and chase that way, rather than straight at the center of the unit. This isn't actually stated outright in the rules, but that's how it's resolved in the accompanying diagram, so that's what I'm basing my statement on.


It doesn't say anywhere 'if outnumbers by the unit strength of the fear causing models'.Don't have my book handy, but I'm pretty sure it actually does say something precisely to that effect. You might want to look under psychology for characters, I think it says something about it there.

Malorian
06-12-2007, 19:59
Nurgling Chieftain:

So I should have hit the knights rather than slaughtered by handgunners : (

We didn't look in the character section because we weren't arguing that at the time, but we looked over psychology pretty well and it doesn't say anything about models, it's about units.

Chicago Slim
06-12-2007, 20:27
But the book says a 'fear causing unit' and since the salamanders cause fear then the whole unit should be used for unit strength. It doesn't say anywhere 'if outnumbers by the unit strength of the fear causing models'. So by this the skinks should be included.

I cannot understand what you're talking about, here.


When heros join a unit they are obviously part of the unit. One joined anything that effects the unit also effects the hero. So I think again it is a 'fear causing unit' and all models would be counted.

So, why'd you ask a question, if you've already decided to ignore the answer?

Check the basic rulebook, in the Psychology and Characters sections: there's a page or two on "Characters and Psychology", which explicitly indicates which "unit effects" transfer between characters and the units they join. I think you'll find, on re-reading it, that your interpretation is explicitly not supported.


For the chasing one the halbrediers did flee directly away from the saurus and their path would not have touched the knights. But since the salamanders where on the flank (so lower) if they also moved in the same direction they would hit the knights.

Again, the basic rulebook covers this very clearly, in the Combat section, under "pursuit". Each of your units chooses an enemy (with which it was in base contact) to pursue. That enemy turns directly away from the combat, and flees in the straight line established by their formation during combat. Your pursue follows exactly the same path.

So, if the halberdiers didn't hit the knights, then the only way you would hit the knights is if you were a wider unit, and that extra width covered the knights while you moved in the same path the halberdiers took (or, rather, would have taken if they hadn't been cut down).


So is the pursuing unit assumed to teleport behind the enemy unit and then chase? do they run at them in an angle? or if their roll is higher, do they just run at the same angle from where they are?

No. A pursuing unit stops moving as soon as it encounters any impassible obstacle (friendly units, enemy units or impassible terrain). If that obstacle was an enemy unit, then it's considered to be charging that enemy.

If the pursuer wins the dice-off, then the fleer never actually moves, but the pursuer still follows the path that the fleer would have taken.

I cannot recommend strongly enough that you re-read the basic rulebook-- this is all explained there, quite clearly.

Malorian
06-12-2007, 20:38
Chicago Slim: If you would read a few of the posts here you see that it already been pointed out that the diagram shows them running to the side and not teleporting behind and following the unit.

Are you then saying that if I were to have two units in combat with the front of an enemy unit and the enempy unit ran, that if only one unit pursued then I would have to line it up? No, it goes in a straight line following the model. This is what I'm doing with the salamanders. I'm not lining up before I pursue (because the book doesn't tell you to) and I'm moving in a straight line at the same angle as the unit I'm pursuing.


For the character in a unit, whatever, that's not the main point here. It's something I thought of after I made this post.

As for losing combat to a fear causing unit, this is exactly what I'm talking about. A fear causing UNIT. It doesn't say model, so you would add up the unit strength of the unit.

If you don't understand what I'm asking then don't reply. These aren't clearly layed out in the book (which we went over in great detail yesterday) so I'm I'm trying to work out the RAW with the forum.

Borthcollective
06-12-2007, 20:41
If the pursuer wins the dice-off, then the fleer never actually moves, but the pursuer still follows the path that the fleer would have taken.

I cannot recommend strongly enough that you re-read the basic rulebook-- this is all explained there, quite clearly.

If your pursue roll is equal or higher than the fleeing troops you cut the enemy down where they stand and no pursuit is made.

Malorian
06-12-2007, 20:43
What? If it's equal to or greater you catch them and move that distance.

txamil
06-12-2007, 21:47
I agree the unit of salamanders causes fear, not the salamanders within the unit. It doesn't say Salamanders cause fear, it says the unit causes fear.

theunwantedbeing
06-12-2007, 21:58
Your reading the rules wrong then.

The rules clearly state that only the salamanders cause fear.
In the book where it states the special rules in the armylist it gives rules for salamanders and then under that it gives rules for the skink handlers.

Malorian
06-12-2007, 22:12
I'm not saying that skink handlers cause fear, I'm saying that the salamanders cause fear and because of that they are a fear causing unit.

Cragspyder
06-12-2007, 22:35
The Salamanders cause fear, the Skinks do not, because they are Skinks.

If the entire US of a Salamander Unit counted for Fear, then adding a character that caused Fear to a unit that did not would make the whole unit Fear-Causing. However, it does not, so in turn having Salamanders in the unit Cause Fear does not make the associated Skinks Cause Fear.

The example you gave in your original post is an even bigger misinterpretation. The Salamanders do not make an associated unit in the same combat as them 'Cause Fear'. Even if somehow your Salamander/Saurus Team happened to outnumber the Halberdiers and Knights in total, they still don't have to auto-break, because the total US of Fear-Causing models was only (max) 9.

So if he had 3 Knights and like 2 Halberdiers left at the end of combat (and you still had all 3 Sallies) then yes, he had to autobreak. Otherwise no.

In contrast, you were right about the pursuit of the Halberdiers. They fled away from the highest US (I assume the Saurus), you pursued them with the Salamanders, caught them, and moved your full pursuit distance, straight into the flank of the Knights.

Malorian
06-12-2007, 22:46
Using RAW there is only two ways this could be interpreted:

1. The salamanders cause fear thus making it a fear causing unit. If you are outnumbered by a fear causing unit then you need double 1's or you flee, so you use the total unit strength of the unit.

2. Only the salamanders cause fear and not the skinks so the unit doesn't cause fear. If you are outnumbered by a fear causing unit then you need double 1's or you flee, but since it isn't even a fear causing unit then this rule doesn't apply.

There is nothing in the wording about models, it's all about the unit. So either the salamander pack is a fear causing unit or it isn't.

theunwantedbeing
06-12-2007, 23:12
I'm sure this was errata'd so that you only use the unit strength of the fear causing models for the purposes of outnumber.
Can anyone point us in the direction of it (assuming it exists) so we can end this debate?

Cragspyder
07-12-2007, 00:14
A character that causes Fear does not make his whole unit cause Fear, even though he counts as part of 'the unit' for every other purpose. And if it doesn't work that way with characters it doesn't make any logical sense for it to work with Salamanders, either. Though of course I cannot quote an exact sentence of the rulebook that makes it apply to Salamanders, so this view is null and void.

:rolleyes:

So, either they cause Fear or they don't. So, you take the option that makes them less overpowered, so your Sallies don't cause Fear :P

Sallies have so many rules issues and I don't think any of them have been errata'd either.

T10
07-12-2007, 12:18
(flee/pursuit) Which way is right?

Your opponent was right. The Salamanders would have to pursue the halberdiers by moving in the "same direction" as them, meaning parallel to their course.

Edit: Sorry, I failed to completely grasp who saying what. Your opponent was wrong in calling for a "diagonal" pursuit.

Think about it. If the halberdiers had been caught by the pursuers (as based on the flee/pursuit roll), the unit would simply have been removed immediately. You would have no point on the table that would dictate their "position" and you would have no idead where to move your salamanders.


(fear) Who is right here?

You determine the "outnumbered by fear-causing enemy" as follows

1) add up all friendly unit strength in the combat.
2) add up all enemy fear-causing unit strength in the combat. Only the enemy models that actually cause fear are counted.

-T10

DeathlessDraich
07-12-2007, 13:07
The second issue came from the same combat. When I won combat I outnumbered him and the slamanders cause fear so I told him he needed double 1s. He disagreed and said that you only look at the models that cause fear and they didn't outnumber him.


Your opponent is correct but only probably. **


A character that causes Fear does not make his whole unit cause Fear, even though he counts as part of 'the unit' for every other purpose. And if it doesn't work that way with characters it doesn't make any logical sense for it to work with Salamanders, either. Though of course I cannot quote an exact sentence of the rulebook that makes it apply to Salamanders, so this view is null and void.
.

Quoting the closest related rule on your behalf here. **



You determine the "outnumbered by fear-causing enemy" as follows

1) add up all friendly unit strength in the combat.
2) add up all enemy fear-causing unit strength in the combat. Only the enemy models that actually cause fear are counted.

-T10

This is not directly supported by the rules but seems the most acceptable solution considering the rules below:

**The rules on pg 51 state “the combined US of all Fear causing units”. - units not *models*

But:

A Fear causing character joining a non Fear causing unit causes Fear *only if* the character is involved – pg 78 “test for Fear/Terror only if a charge will result in the unit fighting the character in question”

It seems reasonable to extrapolate this and assume the same rules for a unit with a mixture of Fear and non Fear causers e.g. Sallies. The US of Fear causers should be that of the Sallies only.

Malorian
07-12-2007, 13:13
T10:

If my salamanders move parallel then I was right. (maybe I should have drawn a picture)

There is nothing in the book about it just being about the models. Or if there is please provide a page number. For my part, pg 50 says:

"Units in close combat automatically fail their break test if they are defeated by an enemy that they fear and the combined unit strength of the units on the losing side is lower than the combined unit strength of all fear-causing enemy units on the winning side."

Note that thereis NOTHING about models, only units.

And for the rest of you, the question of the joining character is over. I've now had a chance to look it up and the unit is only immune to fear/terror. This has nothing to do with the current question.

DeathlessDraich
07-12-2007, 14:10
T10:
And for the rest of you, the question of the joining character is over. I've now had a chance to look it up and the unit is only immune to fear/terror. This has nothing to do with the current question.

Check again.
The *closest* rule, in the absence of a rule that specifically deals with this, is to be found in the Characters chapter which I quoted earlier.

The alternative to ignoring this rule is to roll a dice. Your choice. :p

Malorian
07-12-2007, 15:06
I'm ignoring this rule because it's not the same.

You can 'mend' rules you think are broken by looking for things slightly similiar and assuming they apply.

I I wanted to at least roll it off, but he refused.

T10
07-12-2007, 15:50
"Units in close combat automatically fail their break test if they are defeated by an enemy that they fear and the combined unit strength of the units on the losing side is lower than the combined unit strength of all fear-causing enemy units on the winning side."

Note that thereis NOTHING about models, only units.


That the rulebook says "count units" is interesting, butassumes that you have agreed on wether the unit causes fear or not.

Does a unit of Salamanders cause Fear? There is nothing that says that a unit of Salamanders causes Fear in the first place. Sure, it contains rank and file models that individually cause fear, but it also includes models that do not. So the answer is, in fact, no. The entire Salamander unit does not cause Fear.

Most players agree to count only the fear causing models in this case, because that is what is most fair to both parties.


-T10

EvC
07-12-2007, 17:02
Although I doubt you use a Slann in a unit of infantry, if your opponent told you that you can't actually use the Slann whilst he's in the second rank, then would you stop him doing anything simply because of a poorly written rule (It says he may cast as if unengaged, but an unengaged wizard in the second rank can't cast anyway)? Or would you just play the game the proper way that is fair to both parties?

Malorian
07-12-2007, 17:23
The lizardmen book actually says he can cast from combat so it's not an issue.

T10: Hey, that could be the answer, maybe the salamander unit doesn't count as a fear causing unit, but it has to be one or the other. Either it is a fear causing unit or it isn't.

This would have far spreading effects however because it would mean that cold one riders (lizardmen or DE), cold one/lion chariots, other mixes units like rat ogres with pack masters, and lord/heross on dragons or other such mounts are not fear causing units because the riders or some part of them don't cause fear. I think we all know that this is not the case. If part of a unit causes fear then it's a fear causing unit.

Makaiju
07-12-2007, 17:33
I have to say some of this seems like it’s only going to be resolved as a house rule or an agreement between two players. Here is why:

A classic example of a fear causing unit would be skeletons. Every model in the unit causes fear so the unit causes fear, easy to understand.

A classic no fear unit could be skinks. No fear at any level.

Now GW had to hork that all up by creating a Salamander unit. That consists of 1 model and causes fear and 3 handlers that do not cause fear. The unit strength is the total of all models. But is the fear tag on the unit for everyone?

If the salamander died and only the skinks were alive, should that unit still cause fear?

That’s why, IMO, most people are saying you have to treat this unit not by the basic ‘fear causing unit’ definition but by the ‘fear causing model in a unit’ rules.

So if you charge a Salamander unit (with a life salamander in it) you have to make a leadership check. If you are charged by a Salamander unit (with a life salamander in it) you have to make a leadership check. If you get beat by a Salamander unit (with a life salamander in it) you should probably only count the salamander it’s self when doing the ‘do you auto break unless you roll double 1s’ count.

That being said, the basic unit listing in the army book just says “unit. Consists of… causes fear… costs points…” So if you use the assumption that every single possible variation of the rules concerning that unit are described under the unit page, then it really doesn’t say anything about breaking up which models cause fear over the total number of models that make up the unit strength.

But by that logic I really think you should count the unit as causing fear even when the salamander dies and only skinks are left. (I don’t have the Lizardman book with me right now. Do the skinks just run way if the salamander dies?)

theunwantedbeing
07-12-2007, 17:37
Page 79 disagree's with you malorian.
Well on everything bar the rat ogres anyway.

There are no rules for mixed units beyond what is said in the character section, and that fails to adress the auto-break problem.
But it is pretty clear that a fear causing model in a non fear causing unit does not make the unit cause fear, and that you only take a fear test when you are actually going to be fighting the fear causing model.

EvC
07-12-2007, 17:45
The lizardmen book actually says he can cast from combat so it's not an issue.

Yeah, that's not an issue, but what I said is! Having read your Battle Report I see you so use your Slann in infantry - good man! - but there really is nothing "official" that allows a Slann to cast magic from the second rank. Sure he can cast from combat, but that's a separate rule and doesn't mean he can cast from the second rank, does it? ;) You use your common sense... just like most people do with Salamanders, even if there's a stupid glitch in the rules.

Makaiju
07-12-2007, 17:49
I think I mostly agree with what you are saying theunwantedbeing

If anything the confusion comes not from the rules you’re stating but from the unit description. Instead of the book saying “A unit of Skinks with a Fear Causing Salamander in it” the book just says ‘a fear causing unit.’ (Actually it doesn’t even “say” that. It just lists fear as a unit trait.)

As far as Malorian’s comments, again… I just blame GW. DE on Cold Ones cause fear… if you lose a model you lose the DE and the Cold One. Not one or the other. So the rules “might” be the same but you’ll never know. Because you’ll never have a Cold One die but not the DE. Plus a hero riding a dragon can’t actually join a unit of regular foot blokes. (At least I don’t believe they can… rule check anyone?) So again, doesn’t really help his point.

Makaiju
07-12-2007, 17:53
Yeah, that's not an issue, but what I said is! Having read your Battle Report I see you so use your Slann in infantry - good man! - but there really is nothing "official" that allows a Slann to cast magic from the second rank. Sure he can cast from combat, but that's a separate rule and doesn't mean he can cast from the second rank, does it? ;) You use your common sense... just like most people do with Salamanders, even if there's a stupid glitch in the rules.

Point in case… a mage can’t cast in combat… but if challenged and he declines he goes to the back of the unit. Can he cast then? He’s not supposed to be able to and in fact, it takes a special army rule like what the Skaven have to do anything if your aren’t in the front rank of your unit. So does that mean a Slann ‘can case from the middle of the unit? I would think so but EvC is right, there honestly isn’t a clear stating of “yes” or “no”.

Malorian
07-12-2007, 17:55
-The slann is a large target
-I have line of sight
-There is nothing saying a mage has to be in the front rank to cast spells.

There is no issue what so ever. It's clear cut.

A mixed unit is something else that is not properly adsressed in the rules book. By the rules book it's based off the unit, not the model.

So to sum things up so far, this has been resolved:

1. I was right about the charge direction and my salamanders should have hit the knights.

2. I was wrong about characters with fear in units. A character with fear in a unit only makes them immune to it.

3. There is nothing in the book that says you use the unit strength of the models that cause fear, only the the unit strength of the unit that causes fear.

The only question now is: Does a mixed unit or fear causing and non fear causing models count as a fear causing unit or not?

Makaiju
07-12-2007, 18:08
Sorry if I sound like I’m trying to push your buttons. (I’m not) I do agree with you about the casting, I just don’t agree its “clear cut”.

What you point out is logical and with deductive reasoning makes perfect sense as an intended rule. I just don’t agree that the rules are worded in a way that 100% shuts down any argument about not being able to do it. (At least not without the army book & rule book in front of me.)

I have only seen one tournament live but I did see two different judges rule differently on how to deal with the same situation. I have seen White Dwarfs that say rules that contradict army books that contradict the main rule book. The truth is that GW is a company that sells stuff and that stuff isn’t a ‘flawlessly worded set of clear rules.’ So I can honestly see why someone wouldn’t think that was right.

Malorian
07-12-2007, 18:25
Usually the problems can easily be agreed on, but in the case of the salamanders it REALLY matters. In other similar cases it can be ignored because the models with fear outnumber the ones the don't, but there is 9 skinks in each of these full salamander packs and really changes things.

I always have my three units of saurus this the salamanders inbetween so the salamanders are protected and near the general while they shoot, and once the saurus are in combat the salamanders run up to add the salamander punch in combat and then make them autobreak. But if you don't include the skinks then it completely defeats it.

That's why I'm fighting for this. To me is seems clear that it's based off the unit and so the skinks should count, but since these people disagreed it really hurt me a couple of times.

Makaiju
07-12-2007, 18:54
I would 100% want skinks to count too seeing how you use them.

I’m also still not sure you are wrong. I just don’t see the rules clearly defined any where and worse, the rules ‘seem’ to indicate you might be wrong.

See… I take no sides yet. So of course, I’m no use to anyone. I’m cool with that.

If nothing else, just declare the unit interpretation before the start of the game (heck, before you build your army) and if your opponent agrees… well, who cares what we think. I guess if you are getting ready for a tournament, well I can then see caring what other think but even player consensus has never been rock solid proof of what GW will say from one round to another.

Cragspyder
07-12-2007, 22:38
Could you clarify if the Salamander unit outnumbered the enemy Knights AND Halberdiers all on its own?

I know it doesn't resolve the main issue over whether Salamander units Cause Fear or do not Cause Fear, but if your Salamander unit did not outnumber all the enemy units on its own then they still would not have auto-broken, even if we are counting all the Skinks in the unit as part of the US for Causing Fear.

Malorian
07-12-2007, 22:49
Yes they did. I had two units of 3 salamander packs each, so 6 salamanders (=6X3=18) and 18 skinks for a combined unit strength of 36.

I believe his unit strength at the time was about 30.

theunwantedbeing
08-12-2007, 00:39
Well the book says "fear causing unit".
Not "fear causing models".
And this errata I belive I have read that clarifies this does not appear to exist anywhere so we shall stick with your view for now.
So the skinks count towards the total unit strength.

This means that characters that cause fear in units that do not, are allowed to add the unit strength of the non fear causing unit they are part of to their total unit strength for the purposes of calculating the unit strength of the fear causing unit.

Making nurgle character's in big units of marauders hugely powerful.
Or any chaos character on a daemonic steed for that matter in such a unit.

EvC
10-12-2007, 12:17
-The slann is a large target
-I have line of sight
-There is nothing saying a mage has to be in the front rank to cast spells.

There is no issue what so ever. It's clear cut.

Sorry to keep going back to this tangent, but you're wrong, go look at the characters section, which states that a character not in the front rank cannot cast magic, use magic items or provide his leadership. So indeed, technically a Slann cannot do anything in the second rank (He can provide his LD according to the Lizardmen FAQ, but that's it; you could also argue his rules contain a general allowance to cast from the second rank, but even then he can't provide BSB power or use magic items). So do you want to play the way that makes the game fair and fun (Slann can cast in second rank; Salamander Handlers do not get included in the Fear total), or the technical semantic-based game that is not fun? ;)

Chicago Slim
10-12-2007, 20:27
Malorian, I certainly understand your desire for the rules to work out in your favor (and I'm pretty sure that I understood that that's what you were doing, before you laid out how you use your salamander units).

But the very fact that you're working to establish a reading of the rules that increases the potency of the tactics you've chosen suggests that you should reconsider. You're not an objective rules-reader, here. Instead, you're working only towards your own benefit-- there's lots and lots of names for that behavior, and the people who engage in it, and very few of them are even remotely complimentary...

As Avian has often said, and as EvC's specific point suggests, you want to be careful about "powergaming" the rules-- there's plenty of people who've found lots more "stupid rules tricks" then you have. Generally, these people are easy-going, and interested in playing in the obvious spirit of the game (which is, after all, The Most Important Rule). But, when faced with someone who insists on fighting for a self-advantageous reading of the rules, Avian (for example) can powergame you into oblivion, pulling out minute details of ambiguous rules and working them to his advantage.

I have a bit of that "rules fu" myself, and once or twice a year, my best mate and I will play a "powergame", where we deliberately try to go over the top with bizarre rules hacks, instead of playing a clean, fun game. It can be a funny afternoon, so long as we're both intending to keep a sense of humor about it, but I definitely wouldn't want to play that way every day.


Finally, as I've long said, if I were faced with an opponent who insisted on a rule I disagreed with, I'd shrug, say "I think you're being a bit unsporting, but I'm game to play it your way, since you clearly care more about this rule than I do," and then play on. (Note, in tourney play, I generally spin it a little differently, sticking with "I'm not sure I agree, but in the interest of time, I'll do it your way." Tourneys generally include a sportsmanship component, in which your opponent judges you, and calling your opponent unsporting is, I think, unsporting itself. So, I try to earn full points for myself, by being a good sport about the disagreement, and then I dock the other guy sportsmanship points...)

T10
11-12-2007, 01:13
T10:

If my salamanders move parallel then I was right.

Duly noted - post edited.

-T10