Monday 23rd May

[anonymice]

Hi all, im looking for a game on monday the 23rd, of 40k

1500 pts or 2000 pts

[dave3]

A week monday...OK I can do 1500 if you like ;D

[anonymice]

sorry not bene on for a little while, i have organised a 2000pts game while i have been away ... i hope i havent let you down dave

[dave3]

No probs plenty of time to re schedule...as it hapens I had double booked the following week, so now perhapse we can do the Golan Heights tank action next week....Steve? or is that too soon?

[adjudicator]

wondered about that rule I disagreed with on the sunday apoc game - I am unable to find it again, a friend believes it was FAQ'd, and dealt with. We're just clarifying a few things that went wrong last battle, there was a lot that went wrong. Could somebody tell me the page number/ paragraph reference or something I could look into please?

[anonymice]

its clarified even in the rule book... it just wasnt read properly

DEFENDERS REACT
If a unit that is already locked in combat from a
previous turn is assaulted by a new enemy unit, it can
react as normal. Its models must be moved into base
contact with models from any of the units that they are
fighting, not just the enemies that just assaulted them.

ATTACKING
In multiple combats, when it is time for a model to
attack, the following extra rules apply:
• Models that were engaged with just one of the
enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before
any model attacked) must attack that unit.

• Models that were engaged with more than one
enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before
any model attacked) may split their attacks freely
between those units. Declare how they are splitting
their attacks immediately before rolling to hit.

in answer to your question... page 41 multible combats secton in the mini rule book
He got confusedby the first paragraph

[Elle]

Anony perfectly copied word for word from the rulebook. In the interest of completeness I'm reposting the section including the FAQ sections in bold italics.
I know I wasn't there but I suspect it was the 'round of' sections below which caused the confusion and mishandling of the rules.



DEFENDERS REACT
If a unit that is already locked in combat from a
previous turn is assaulted by a new enemy unit, it can
react as normal. Its models must be moved into base
contact with models from any of the units that they are
fighting, not just the enemies that just assaulted them.

ATTACKING
In multiple combats, when it is time for a model to
attack, the following extra rules apply:
• Models that were engaged with just one of the
enemy units at the beginning of the round of combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit.

• Models that were engaged with more than one
enemy unit at the beginning of the round of combat (before any model attacked) may split their attacks freely
between those units. Declare how they are splitting
their attacks immediately before rolling to hit.

• Models that at the beginning of the round of combat (before any model attacked) were engaged with more than one enemy unit, but were in base contact with just one of the enemy units, must attack that unit.

[adjudicator]

I have gone over many rules with Wayne in the store, and he has shown me (using the rule book) each rule in depth, and the differences each makes. I add that in every arguament in each case on the 8th, I stood correctly. I am happy to go over each arguament, but not here.

I am hoping that these rules were a misunderstanding on his part, and that he knew less about the rules than he believed. I found that asking whether I had read the rules or not, whilst deliberately mis-reading rules to the advantage rude and inconsiderate (i.e. The melee rule was only read in part)
To pretend to be omniscient would be a great mistake for either party. I only play games for enjoyment, and will only play against opponents who either know the rules, or are humble enough to accept they may be wrong. To misunderstand a rule and inievetably cause friction without mitigation is not my idea of enjoying a game. This sounds more like a lawyer in a court room (I happen to know a few, and theyre good at bending the laws to help their clients).
I have purchased the large rule book, and will be going over it often. But I do have over a year of experience, so whilst I might be wrong occassionally, please don't believe I am automatically wrong because I have not yet read the rulebook. I find that insulting.

Meanwhile I will be open for smaller games, say 1000 to 2000 points, to test different ideas. This monday I am playing annony, as I believe he would like to try Danté, or some other HQ idea out. B- did you know the landraider and the storm raven have ramps, theyre the only closed top transports in the game that allow charging after disembarking? Keep that in mind for tactical purposes dude, I expect another wipe ^^

[anonymice]

trev did you expect me to put assault tropps in my raven and not to have them charge on the turn they disembark, its why i got a storm raven in the first place (plus i wanted to utilise elles amazing conversion experiance) you know my tactics now so prepair yourself!!!

[mike954]

Off topic, I know, but Elle's post is constructive, civil, well reasoned and deserving of a reply.

May 18, 2011 23:32:01 GMT Elle said:

I suspect it was the 'round of' sections below which caused the confusion and mishandling of the rules.

Thank you for the informative post, Elle. Reading your amended version of the BRB rules it's clear the FAQ addition of "round of [combat]" is a significant change to the way the assault rules work.

It's a pity FAQ rules weren't available on the day. BRB rules were applied as those were the only rules available to players at the time. Indeed adjudicator specified players could only rely on rules for which hard copies were available on the day (see the planning thread). Future games should be more enjoyable now this rules query has been laid to rest.


@ adjudicator:

I find this outburst surprising and somewhat out of the blue to be honest. Especially surprising that you didn't see fit to make your feelings known in person. You certainly didn't need to hijack this thread just to share your feelings.

I'll add a link you can follow to a new thread where I'll post a response. Assuming this wasn't some rhetorical diatribe by yourself to which no response was ever desired:
bedfordgladiators.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=owt&thread=1246