PDA

View Full Version : Honor Codex in Gaming: how Gentlemen wage war



BrotherCaptain_Vladimir
05-03-2009, 12:35
Currently there is a big discussion going on in my gaming group since the last 40k-session on sunday. It has only marginally to do with rules, but more with the appropriate conduct at the gaming table.
The problem is one player who tends to always raise arguments - and when they don't go the way he likes, he keeps arguing on, even if any single other person in the room is annoyed.

The latest argument was about this:
He was playing his Tau against our other Tau-guy and moved a Fusion Blaster armed Piranha almost in base to base contact with a Crisis-suit (which is forbidden, as the rules say that models have to be 1 inch apart from each other if they aren't in close combat). In his shooting phase he fired the Blaster at the enemy HHead, rolled, scored and then declared he gets +1D6 for penetration as he is in 6-inch-range. His opponent - a new player only in his third game - asked NOW if it was at all legal to be that close to his other unit (the Crisis suit). Of course moving one inch apart was already OUTSIDE the six-inch-Melta-radius...
Now this is a clear rules breach by a seasoned player (ok, won't start accusing him of cheating YET). The solution was for us all: take the shot, but outside of the Melta-extra-penetration (still a 33% chance to damage the HHead). But he declared that either he gets his penetration, or he will move his Piranha otherwise OR he will use the (already scoring) shot for another target.
Now we think that he bended the rules and when that didn't work he still wanted a lot of other options instead of recognising his own fault. I'm quite forgiving usually, but somehow it didn't feel right for us to allow him anything other than the "standard" hit on the HHead.

What are your thoughts about that? How would your club/gaming group handled this situation? Is the guy a jerk? (We think he is, although he's our friend ;))

fluffstalker
05-03-2009, 12:40
Sounds like an **** to me. I mean, sure we all fudge the rules a bit now and then, but to be pointed out and then continue to argue as if you were in the right would really, really **** me off. Thankfully Ive never seen one of those guys in our local gaming club but if they did pull something like this I would hope they would be kicked out or at least warned very, very explicitly.

Korras
05-03-2009, 12:45
simple: move it back outside the 1" radius, and still resolve the declared shot, either with or without the melta +d6, depending on the range. moving it back should have little impact on the rest of the game. he declared the shot already, so I'd hold him to it.

Alx_152
05-03-2009, 13:05
Start at the beginning. Move it back to at least 1" distance or move the prianha to some other place. Then let him shoot what he wants (legally of course). The declared shot is no longer valid.

IAMNOTHERE
05-03-2009, 13:10
You can't come within 1" of your opponents models, as far as I know your own ones are fair game.

So if both the suit and the pirana belonged to the same player then it's legal.

pookie
05-03-2009, 13:31
simple answer is, dont play him, refuse to and see how often he gets to argue then.

Master Stark
05-03-2009, 13:47
It's a bit of an iffy one.

Well, it's not exactly iffy, but it's been made more complicated by the player allowing the move to stand, and only challenging it after the shot was made in the shooting phase.

A couple of points of etiquette:

1 - If you ever make a rules blunder on your own part, it is best practice to own up to it as soon as you see it, and ask your opponent how they would like to handle it.

2 - If you see your opponent make a rules blunder, it is best practice to point it out (politely and in a friendly way) as soon as possible, and ask them how they would like to resolve it.

Now, both players appear to have made an error in gaming etiquette here, but as the player who has made the rules error, the owner of the Pirhana should ask his opponent how he would like to proceed, and abide by that. Doing anything else is just rude.

But having said that, the owner of the Hammerhead should have raised the issue before the end of the movement phase, or at least before the shot was taken, to avoid the argument altogether.

I'm actually more interested in the rest of the discussion you guys had. I think a set of behavioural wargaming guidelines would be interesting and beneficial for some folks in the community.

Cane
05-03-2009, 13:49
In this case the rules breach is a mountain out of a molehill kind of deal.

However if this guy has a history of cheating and a history of being unsportsmanlike than he's simply not cut out for fun, competitive gaming. He should stick to modeling or playing online so he can say whats really on his mind with impunity ;)

Toomanymind
05-03-2009, 14:50
It's a bit of an iffy one.

Well, it's not exactly iffy, but it's been made more complicated by the player allowing the move to stand, and only challenging it after the shot was made in the shooting phase.

A couple of points of etiquette:

1 - If you ever make a rules blunder on your own part, it is best practice to own up to it as soon as you see it, and ask your opponent how they would like to handle it.

2 - If you see your opponent make a rules blunder, it is best practice to point it out (politely and in a friendly way) as soon as possible, and ask them how they would like to resolve it.

Now, both players appear to have made an error in gaming etiquette here, but as the player who has made the rules error, the owner of the Pirhana should ask his opponent how he would like to proceed, and abide by that. Doing anything else is just rude.

But having said that, the owner of the Hammerhead should have raised the issue before the end of the movement phase, or at least before the shot was taken, to avoid the argument altogether.

I'm actually more interested in the rest of the discussion you guys had. I think a set of behavioural wargaming guidelines would be interesting and beneficial for some folks in the community.

I can say as a new player just learning the more advanced rules that I rely mostly on my opponents knowledge of the rules, and don't question what they do. (I would assume if they made a mistake they would resolve it with me, and explain to me why. And if I wonder why they do something, I ask them.) But unfortunately, some people just like to win.

This reminds me of one of my first games ever played in WHFB, the opposing player did a lot of things that were not legal. I had fun, granted he decimated me, but I was still new and I don't really care about winning or losing, just enjoying watching the battles play out. The next week I played a GW employee and came to find that certain things the previous opponent had done or had not let me do were not correct.

I would chalk it up to his inexperience or certain misinterpretations of the rules but he has been playing for numerous years and in tournaments and such, so he should know better. It was just the fact that I was new and did not have sufficient knowledge of the rules at that time that spurred him to, essentially, cheat. Which is somewhat pathetic. :rolleyes:

Templar Ben
05-03-2009, 15:05
Well the story is a bit confusing as the flying base has no effect so base to base doesn't matter strictly speaking.

That being said, if you think the guy is a jerk then don't play with him. I feel like I am your dad or something.

Inquisitor_Tolheim
05-03-2009, 16:38
You can't come within 1" of your opponents models, as far as I know your own ones are fair game.

So if both the suit and the pirana belonged to the same player then it's legal.

This is my understanding of the rule as well. Your models can be base to base contact without breaching the rules, but must be at least one inch away from enemy models that they are not in close combat with.

Laser guided fanatic
05-03-2009, 17:34
Why would a fusion blaster get +d6 against a crisis suit anyway?

Grimtuff
05-03-2009, 18:09
Why would a fusion blaster get +d6 against a crisis suit anyway?

:eyebrows:
Erm, it's firing on a Hammerhead

BrotherCaptain_Vladimir
05-03-2009, 21:19
So if both the suit and the pirana belonged to the same player then it's legal.

No, they didn't belong to the same player. The Crisis belonged to the opponent.



Well the story is a bit confusing as the flying base has no effect so base to base doesn't matter strictly speaking.

a) But the hull is important, and the hull was definitely in the 1-inch-range of the enemy Crisis.
b) He didn't even have the flying stand mounted...

Master Stark: this sounds very reasonable and ultimately the way we decided. Unfortunately the owner of the HHead is a bit inexperienced, as this was only his third game. Naturally like Toomanymind said he wasn't questioning the intentions of a veteran.
The discussion followed in the mailing list - originally I thought we were done with it.
Some extra anecdotes: the game in which it happened was a 500-points league game and the Piranha-guy was insisting that it "is a very important shot, which can decide the whole game". It was turn two and till then one Fire Warrior from every side bit the dust. In the end he won the game by annihilating his opponent (the guy with the HHead) restlessly.

sabre4190
05-03-2009, 21:28
Im not certain, but the impression i get is that he moved the pihrana within 1 inch of the crisis suit, then fired at the hammerhead nearby. Had he not had that 1 inch, he would not have gotten the extra D6.

If this is the case, the pihrana must be moved back. Just because I "forgot" to do this in my movement phase, and my opponent missed it does not validate breaking the rules. Move the model back immediately, and ignore everything else. Effectively, its a brand new round of shooting for the pihrana, and it has to pick its target again, roll to hit and such. This is the most fair way of resolving it that I can think of.

BrotherCaptain_Vladimir
05-03-2009, 21:53
Unfortunately he already rolled for the hit against the HHead and hit it, then seeing that it would be OVER 6 inch if shot correctly, decided that he didn't like the shot and demanded to shoot at another target.

Now further information by the HHead-player showed up today! ;)

The case is: he allowed him to shoot another target! But the Piranha-guy missed and decided that he doesn't like that, and started to argue again over getting the shot with the 2d6-penetration...

Well, that's a bit I didn't know, but certainly THIS doesn't help the Piranha guy's case, since this is some a**holeworthy gaming behavior if it's true.

BTW, feel free to discuss similar situations you experienced!

Major_Manny
05-03-2009, 22:58
In my eyes i would make the player move back an inch so that the movement was "legal" but surely he would still have to shoot at the hammerhead, cus to give him the choice of another target would basically be giving him the chance to "pre-measure" now that the hammerhead isnt as inviting anymore.