People don't get to be judges because they care about fun. Especially in terms of Warhammer groups.

@@Druark The judge went home and seethed over it, poored salt on his head and started measuring. What judge does that unless its really bothering his ego or to try and go after that player? Especially when 2 previous judges of the events said that it couldnt be engaged.

I watch those videos because I like the models. Now I'm sure that I will never play the real game.

@@TiagoHackbarth just dont play with dickheads who rules lawyer or discuss with them in advance about stuff like this. Most people that play are cool.

@@TiagoHackbarth search for a chill group they are getting rarer and rarer

Reminds me of a Magic the Gathering tournament where a guy was totally robbed because of the tournament's use of terminology completely broke a guy's deck. Their own ruling basically removed an entire phase from the game that his deck was built around.

@@bad-people6510how did they rule a whole phase didn’t exist?

@@bgreene103010 Could be thinking of the wrong situation, but the tournament ruled that saying you were "Going to Combat" meant the players were progressing to the "Declare attacking creatures" phase. This skips the "Beginning of combat" phase. One of the players had creatures that needed a cost paid before they could attack. Costs can be paid during "beginning of combat" but no player is allowed to activate abilities or pay costs during "declare attackers", so the guy couldn't attack to win the game. Also, that guy had another card that automatically activated at the "beginning of combat" phase, so by skipping that phase the guy was also given a tournament penalty for missing his card's trigger. Made worse by the fact that this happened in the eighth round, so this guy had been playing his deck in seven previous matches without any issues with these same cards and assumedly the same "go to combat" callout.

@@AutumnSorcerer so what happened was like almost everybody the player said "Combat" to indicate the change of phase however as most of the time there is nothing to do in the "beginning of combat" step it is often skipped so the phrase "Combat" is commonly used as a shortcut to the "declare attackers" step of combat, however that player had optional effects that only triggered in the "beginning of combat" step which he missed because he said the shortcut that he had previously used in that game because you know no triggers until they're on board and the backlash WOTC got over that interaction changed the ruling on shortcuts so that if a trigger would be in a step or phase that was previously shortcut out it can trigger as intended. didn't help that guy but his sacrifice makes the game better for all following players.

@@bgreene103010 There was this obscure phase most people didn't bother with, but his cards had an effect that could only activate in that phase, but the judge ruled that by ending the previous phase you would go straight into the NEXT phase. Jumping from 1 to 3 with no way of getting into 2 even though he needed 2 to do what his cards were designed for.

I said the exact same thing on Reddit right after the event and the news of the ban. What wasn’t discussed here was that after the ruling, the Daemon player rage quit and left which I think also has to do with the knee jerk reaction post event.

Just a shit judge, go look at the page trevy linked and you can go back years reading about him shadow banning people after events.

@@georgetimson6896 Daemons being one of the few armies that can abuse that interaction too... I hope we get an errata that when you hover it removes all aircraft rules except the requirement to fly to melee.

@@georgetimson6896 out of curiosity, did the daemons player know about the previous rulings on this at other events which share rulings? and did the daemons player bring that up at the table when the ruling was made?

@@georgetimson6896 Maybe it's just me, but the fact that this likely happened because the Daemon player threw a hissy fit makes this even worse? Like judgeman should NOT be a judge if someone throwing a public tantrum is enough for them to retroactively reverse a win & ban someone for life. And shame on the Daemon player, too.

It was. TO was a judge at US Open Dallas and the US Open ruled that players could not disembark from stormraven wings so just from the base (see rules commentary Vehicles with Bases) So if the player can't disembark from the wings, they can't be charged. TO did a scummy thing

​@@grotwurksmekshop6607 The more I read about this situation the more it strikes me as weird. Contradictory rulings and a retroactive ban after the event has ended but that ban can be appealed after a year if the player is willing to work on their communication? That doesn't sound right for someone that you've just banned for cheating. That's not even talking about the fact that 2/4 of the points regarding the ban involved things outside of the players intent (Faulty measuring tape/Poor GW quality control). Just seems like some things don't add up from they TO.

@@IceZachara Which is exactly why I am boycotting Alamo GT or events run by this TO

Now if the player was changing its position angle to prevent charging and extend disembark range then yes that player is a cheater. But in my area and this last year of play, it's been agreed upon to measure to the bottom of the hull from that base using the GW height stand or that keeps it oem height

@@nofuxgivens2797 It doesnt matter. If the TO states that the player cant disembark from the wings, then the wings cant be charged. Any other option is not the players fault

Made at home, from memory, with no footage for reference, using different models. Plus the fact that two possible reasons why it wasn’t the players fault given, and two contradictory rules about how it could possibly be the player cheating, one of which, the pushing down of the model’s nose to raise the wings higher, is something that should have been noticed at the time, but either way, both ‘cheating’ reasons would need the original model to be checked. I would want to know who the judge talk to after the game.

I use to be really good friend with David and he was always a really strait shooter with me when we talked rules this ruling itself shocked the shit out of me. But this is also why I left competitive play in the past.

AFTER THE FACT no less.

@@StixFerryMan don't forget a few different contrary rulings to the one reached in this case both inside of his circuit and outside of his circuit in his region than the ruling he retroactively reached to get banned, that existed prior to the retroactive ruling. Not only does the original model need to be checked but the stand in model technically should be independently checked to make sure that it wasn't tampered with to end up within that range where it should actually be outside of it to create falsified proof to justify the decision.

Fr tho. Makes a ruling outside the game despite accepting the measurement at the time Issues what sounds to be a first offense instant ban and win revoke despite already making a judgment, and did not refer to previous rulings with that judgement. If the judge had done his fucking job and looked up previous rulings for the rule, this wouldn't even be a conversation and they'd have gotten on with his life. This is the judge just deciding how rules are post game and changing his mind.

Both of the judge's actions are completely incorrect, the post game red card for a false reason, and failure to adequately make a rules judgement in a game by his own inability to gather information to make an informed judgement (the entire reason he's there). He should not be a judge. He's clearly not capable.

Both of the judge's actions are completely incorrect, the post game red card for a false reason, and failure to adequately make a rules judgement in a game by his own inability to gather information to make an informed judgement (the entire reason he's there). He should not be a judge. He's clearly not capable.

Well to me it just means: never play in tournaments that arent friendly games.

a judge NOT knowing rules isn't a fault on the games producer its down to the judge themselves for NOT actively maintaining relevant knowledge of the rules, when u play the role of a judge u not only have the power to determine important calls but ur also the de-facto source for ANY and ALL info of the ENTIRE game for the venue at the time, when u make a ruling u damn make sure ur info is up to date

I was going to say that tape measure doesn't look to be at a 90 deg angle to the surface. This is just f-ckery all around

300% this, absolutely manipulating evidence via angles of photography

This being a different model made by a different person there is also chance for manipulation through subtle alteration of parts that we can't see. It's not useful proof. What they need is to remeasure and examine the exact model in question. Not some rarely used different models made by a different player.

pff lol okay look, the trans player cheated, get over it, sjw.

Why would they use a tape measure anyway? if 5" is the measurement to be used a set measurement stick of 5" length should be used and slid under the model, then its a simple contact or no contact scenario and doesn't allow manipulation of viewing angle or perspective.

AMEN

😂 I mean, thousands and thousands of matches get played. It's super funny when people point out outliers and ignore the overwhelming majority of counter examples to 'prove their point' "Those 999 times where it worked out? They don't count! See this example? That's why this is stupid! Haha!" 🙄

​@@JRuni0rEven when it works, competitive 40k just sounds like a miserable experience.

@@JRuni0rcompetitive 40K is the worst way to play and has led to the rules focusing more on balance and less on storytelling

@@blakeoarmboy Uh? Play Crusade or some other narrative format? You're conflating 'matched play' with Tournament rules/environment. Maybe 30k is more your style or HH if you're after narrative play. It's a bit odd to complain about a TTRPG where the overwhelming majority of games are 'Matched Play' when you're not interested in that style of gameplay. I mean, it's like joining a DnD group and then getting annoyed that they're all roleplaying and getting into the story when you just want to grind mobs and max/min your character.

I wanna see the judge lol

Apparently he had received a Yellow Card for similar problems with his flying models at previous events. Still completely inexcusable that the judge didn't know about a past ruling until he looked it up at home, but condemns the player for not knowing said ruling. Especially since it was one of his own previous rulings.

@@martenkahr3365 at one previous event, ruling on a different part of the model.

Right? If you're affiliated with this circuit or part of the TO you're probably pissed at this Judge for making you all look like absolute fools/jerks. That judge might be the one who will be receiving a lifetime ban when this all settles. Unless this player has a serious history of misbehaviour (that I either missed or wasn't shared in this video) this was a Reddit Moderator level overreaction.

@@JRuni0r What I dont get is this: If the intended interaction is "thing hovers at X inches" no matter what the model does, it hovers at "x inches". Like how hard is that?

Flying vehicle's should not be engage able unless the charger has the fly key word

​@@michaeljones7916 well I thought this was the case anyway. I may be going from what I remember from 8th/9th though

@@michaeljones7916 Or there is a status for the aircraft that states its altitude. If it is flying low enough, especially after a gun run, it could fall into range of larger units.

@@michaeljones7916 Should be a "only works if you roll all 6s" kind of situation. Not 100% impossible, but allowable if extremely lucky; because rule of cool.

Infantry can't punch one in flight, but can if it's hovering, hence no longer an aircraft for rules purposes. It's a weird edge case where GW sell it as an aircraft so its kit is modelled for its aircraft stance, but it can choose to hover lower, which should make it chargeable but for being sold on a flying base. The rules are clear that in hover mode or should be able to be charged, but GW sell the kit ignoring that. Not the players fault, but a stupid case if you can't charge it as then virtually no downside to using hover.

This is exactly what should have been done. If it seems suspect, or they have reasons to be unsure they need to make a call at the table to make an exception "consider it less than 5". I hate to say it but this thing being discussed in public is a weak argument to strip a win and ban someone. I feel the other accusations are more relevant.

I think arguing that "my model is on a stand high enough that nobody can engage it in melee" is absurd and deserves a ban on its own 😑 some rule lawyering is expected at a tournament, but this argument is ridiculous and I wouldn't tolerate it.

@@drakebaker2769 I think he was arguing that you had to get within 1" of the base to be within engagement range (not that you can't get into melee range at all).

What if this wasn't the first offense?

@@wilky1189 I have no idea on that one. I don’t know any of the players, just giving my thoughts based on what I’ve been told.

They literally are going to kill their own event for this.

Yup. This is the exact kind of crap that keeps people from continuing or even starting to play. Seeing it at the highest levels of play sends a HUGE message to not invest.

From everyone in the TX scene, their events only have success because they got their mits on a golden ticket major and the rest are basically no-shows or people who dont care enough

​@@GitGud40kI'm a big fan of your Instagram for bringing the insanity of this to my attention

@@anthonyugarte1072 as someone who plays casual this just affirms my dislike of competitive events of any form,

🤣

The rules don't say you're not allowed to!

Well I can't read!- A black Templar player

@@nickclemitus4598 If those Black Templar players could read they'd be really offended by this!

This is why I don't do magic the gathering either, I just went to multiplayer video games.

@@MercenaryX21 at least in magic events they have judges get properly tested and they have ranks in order to run events

Living in the Austin area, I've had to deal with these TO's many times and all you ever hear is "This isn't the first time" and "many people have had similar complaints" over the smallest of things like WYSIWYG. Never a shred of evidence of complaints from the actual community, just by the word of these judges. I've had quite enough and have stopped attending their events.

It's even worse when you consider in that region both inside and outside of that same circuit there are previous rulings that actually contradict and are contrary to the findings that were used to ban this particular player in this instance. It just makes it even more targeted. Because it's basically just saying "The rules and rulings don't matter even consistently within our own organization, or the greater organization that we stem from."

​@@Quandry1hell, the supposed yellow card at another event against this player ruled on this interactiong in a different way. It feels like the circuit judges messing with the one player in particular

@@Quandry1 especially when GW gives a ruling at a official GW event in the USA that stormravens cant be charged, Is there even a test for becoming a judge like there is in MTG?

a 5 degree angle didn't result in a ban, being a known jerk that pulls this kind of stuff all the time did ,the 5 degree angle that won a tournament was just the last straw

100%, after watching this I think he was punished for pushing down on the nose. The ref must believe he specifically knew this would give him advantage. Why did the ref think this is much more muddled but I gathered there is a lot of context that we do not know. BL: the ref is convinced he brazenly cheated.

@@godforge3185that’s on the judge, not the player. The guy should be unbanned immediately and issued an apology

When the reasoning includes "a history of this sort of behavior" I dont think you get to put on your monocle and top hat and go on about the injustice of such a little thing causing a ban XD

@@jkdragonjk6895 please open the 5:00 timestamp and type reason note 1 into this thread

Yes

It's such a undefined grey area of multiple rule interactions that its hard to say that the "judge fucked up" but he was certainly salty when he got home and found out that the player had fucking his mother... since that's the only explanation for such an unhinged lifetime ban ruling after the fact over the flimiest of excuses

TO only screwed up by AGREEING to the judges post event call but being the TO he has all the power to overrule a judge meaning that judge would have to bring in a higher power to overturn said overrule

The guy is an absolute chode and they wanted a reason to ban him lol

went home and did a science project that we can't be sure didn't involve tampering with this other model to make it work with this new retroactive model to claim as proof.

Insert joke about TOs measuring everything in millimeters 😏

Not only that, but it's an Aircraft model, and according to GW's rules, you can only charge an Aircraft model if your unit has the FLY keyword. The Hull rule shouldn't have even been brought up in this sense as well.

​@BronCral You would be correct except that, when using hover mode, the Storm Raven loses the aircraft keyword and all associated rules for being an aircraft.

"when measuring to and from a vehicle with a base (excluding aircraft and walkers) Always measure from the closest part of the model for all rules purpose (i.e measure from the hull or base, whichever is closest)" From the section on vehicles with bases, yes the hull measurements come into play when the Storm Raven is in hover mode.

@@craftyfirestorm "Hull" only applies to models without a base though. Even in Hover mode, the Stormraven has a true base. A lot of aircraft have a clear base, but this model has a base like every ground model. So you would measure from the base, not the Hull.

@@BronCral "Hull" explicitly does not only apply to models without a base, the section I just directly quoted talking about hull is from the section on vehicles with bases. It outright states you measure from whichever part of the model, HULL or base, that is closest to the measuring point. Don't believe me, check the version 1.2 rules commentary, it's on page 16.

Correct. Other competition miniatures games (flames of war comes to mind) get their stuff sorted out with regard to LOS and don’t have these kinds of problems.

should all be base to base

@@Scotty86doo100%. Takes all the guesswork out of it and allows people to pose models creatively without being penalised

I just had this argument online about a Leman Russ with internal sponsons and a tank with the old style ones on from 20+ years ago mean they could fit between a smaller gap in the terrain. Like if you worried about that then you must be a shitty player.

@@Scotty86doo Hell BattleTech's official rules, even when using the advanced ones including combined arms, don't even require the models in the first place.

It's even worse. If you look at his pictures, he's taking the pictures from 2 different angles which would make the wing tip appear higher than it was anyway. He hasn't even proven that the model adjusts because his evidence is faulty.

So, I agree with you that the idea of reversing his decision after the fact, issuing a red card and a lifetime ban was BS. That said, this situation where the charging unit only made it under the wingtip would likely happen a lot more often in cases of premeasuring due to the horizontal distance of deep strike having to be measured from the wing, but the wing not being a valid target for the charge. This means that the player using the flyer could position it in such a way where the only parts of the model that someone could deep strike at an angle to would be the wings, yet those wings aren't valid targets for a charge, changing what should have been a 9" charge to an 11 or 12 inch charge from deep strike. Based on my understanding of the story, the player was regularly using this mechanic and positioning to ensure deep strikers could virtually never charge his aircraft. In general, I think that rule interaction is a bit scummy, personally, but it IS the rules interaction, so I don't think it's the player's fault for utilizing the rules as they currently stand. Who's to say the rule wasn't used against him multiple times before he started using it? In such an environment, you adapt or you lose. The player also apparently even emailed the TOs and asked if they were ruling that the "back" of the model was greater than 5" or not, and was told that it was. So, perhaps the player should have clarified that he meant the "wings" which were positioned near the back of the model, but this was clearly an intended communication to clear this up before the tournament. I think issuing a ban after the fact was very scummy indeed. He should reverse the ban and issue an apology to the player.

@@marcusm3429 As Aircraft even in Hover mode have no OC did this really make or break that game?

So knowing that, would you claim that an opponent can't charge you due to the height of a wing you know can change throughout a game? Would you feel justified in measuring for shooting from that wing if it gave you an advantage while denying your opponent the same advantage?

How would you feel about the finger on the model during the call?

@@The_CGA the video maker even said in the interview that didn't happen, and thats a VERY bad call on the judge if hes letting people touch models during a ruling.

@@0redbishop0 If it was ruled that they couldn't disembark from that height then they can't be charged at that height either. That's where the issue came from. It was a clarification issue, not just "I want my cake and eat it"

@@The_CGA I can't speak for a Stormraven, because I don't have one, but when measuring my Vulture Gunships I have to push the nose down because otherwise it won't sit flat on it's base. (It's a very rear-heavy model)

Yup. This is the game that GW keeps making and players keep playing and buying. It’s perfectly possible to make an edition of 40k that doesn’t curb stomp the assault marine chad you’re remembering. They just don’t.

​@The_CGA yep, that's because competitive players are easily fleeced. They'll go out and dump massive amounts of money on a whole new flavor of the month army, slap it together and throw it on the table at the next event so they can win. Then when it gets nerfed and there's a new flavor of the month army they'll throw it in a closet or sell it for next to nothing and buy the next one. These people are the reason GW does this.

Wait wait wait, they're not using standard rules for the units? They're like, quite literally going off the physical properties of the model? What is this clownshow nonsense? And yes I know base measurements are going off the physical properties of the model, I think it's clear what I mean here.

@@EnsignEpic Giving me flashbacks to 4th editions LOS arguments. "I can see the elbow of that one Cadian guard, therefore I can fire at the full unit!" vs "Ah, my crippled Rhino is turned sideways and your Eldar can't see Land Raider behind it!" magic cylinder.

I disagree with you tbh, he added that to the model, he has to play it like that. why should the player be punished for correctly expecting to be able to move into line of sight and be able to shoot the model. That could lead to unfair situations where the player he’s playing against now suddenly cannot shoot. However if any part of the model is behind cover even the base, it gets cover.

because it is GW ... and they don't know how to build a logical set of rules.

It's not a complicated interaction in the end. The rules commentary covers Vehicles with Bases and allows models to disembark 5" vertical and 3" horizontal. TO told him he can't disembark from the wings. So by the same notion, the wings can't be charged. TO entertained the idea of being able to charge the wings during a game and decided to give the player a red card. Regardless of where the player pushed on the model, the TO giving the opponent the allowance to charge, but the player can't disembark? That's scummy

​@@grotwurksmekshop6607Oh wow that's scummy from the TO.

This is the exact kind of crap that keeps people from continuing or even starting to play. Seeing it at the highest levels of play sends a HUGE message to not invest.

Shit like this stopped me from playing tournaments anymore.

From what I'm hearing. This particular general model actually sits slightly higher than 5" even when just pressure fit onto the flight stand. So technically it probably shouldn't be chargeable under any normal circumstances. But also taking photo's of a different model at a different time that would also have to verify it wasn't tampered with to fit within chargable range would also be required and the only real solution would be to actually set up an examination of the exact model in question instead.

This really isn't anything new, players have had to adjust models over the course of the many editions 40k has gone through. I once had a friend convert an entire Tyranids army in 3rd ed to be crabs and crustaceans, he called it Hive Fleet Crustacia, come 5th ed, he was called out for "modeling for advantage," because his Carnifex's and Hive Tyrants were physically shorter than the stock built ones. Who remembers the kneeling Wraithknights or Wraithlords? How about an entire unit of prone scout marine snipers?

@@jjtgomez Yea, but if the ruling is this vague and goes back and forth between tournaments to a point not even judges can be consistent or understand the rules why is it resulting in a lifetime ban? Even if he was modeling for advantage make the rules clear so that this situation can't happen, because if it can trap a top player what about newer and less experienced players and judges? Also as someone more into the modeling aspect, it sets a bad precedent of discouraging kitbashing and modeling. Maybe the answer is just that aircraft have to go entirely.

@@PallyChan I think if anything, it highlights the need for better communication between event organizers with regards to cleaning up bad rules interactions. In regards to models on flight stands, this could easily be solved by GW to standardize the height by saying that all models on flight stands are to be considered no more than 5" in height regardless of how they are physically modeled. This would allow for any kitbashing, since height would be standardized.

@@jjtgomez Yes, something like this would be perfect! Or just model from the base so that the flight stand height doesnt matter (though I guess that could still be an advantage for hiding behind cover)

Did ya catch how the player was cheesing with his finger to throw off the balance of the mini? (Maybe)

Its also a model that has been around since early 5th edition and hasn't changed. Those stems get gummed up or weakened over repeated use. Its always to be assumed to be 5" or whatever from the table top, even if it Physically isn't. As long as your base is directly under the wing, your in engagement range. Remember using one with my Grey Knights when they got their new Dex back then and loading it up with a dreadnought, Kaldor Drago and a Paladin squad and zooming it into the middle of the enemy force.

@@SirLANsalot If I'm understanding what happened right, this person had a different win pulled, and was punished, because a judge retroactively said the same model was more than 5" from the tabletop and so he couldn't use one of the model's abilities. So, if the model is to be treated as 5", then the Judges should give him back a different victory and strike the Yellow card they gave him. However, if they're ignoring that ruling then this one is BS. This reads like a personal vendetta.

@@arthurmoore9488 absolutely that judge should be banned from the scene permeantly. What I was saying is that model has been known, for many years, to have a pretty shitty base. Which is why people understand that if your base is directly under any part of the model, your in "melee" range....which is still weird for an aircraft LOL.

@@SirLANsalot Oh I agree that would be the easy way to handle it. that would mean going against not just this judge, but the other judge as well. My point was he was retroactively denied a win, and possibly prize money, in one tournament, and now has been retroactively denied a win, and possibly more prize money in this one. The first win was pulled because the judge said the model was over 5" so it couldn't use it's ability. This win was pulled because the judge said the model should have been treated as 5" or under to allow the opponents ability (melee) to happen. Those rulings directly contradict each other. I may be wrong, but I think both of those events took place in roughly the same area.

Might throw a libel claim in there too. Damaging a players reputation by claiming he's cheating by following the rules he was told at the table isn't a small thing.

Because that would be intelligent.

while it would solve the 'model for advantage' issue ... it doesn't fix edge cases that depend on the distance being just over or under a fixed number.

@@NotTheStinkyCheese It completely removes the ones based on "how far from this flying model is my model which is directly under it", which is what is being discussed here. What you are calling "edge cases" outside of that is what is called "range" and is an active mechanic, not some obscure thing.

when you measure a different model at home, that you put together yourself and we cannot confirm or disprove that you did not infact manipulate the model to something non-standard to make it fit into your ruling. The exact model needs examined and measured again for comparison, not some different one constructed by somebody else.

​@@Quandry1well actually the judge said if the player's model was >5'' up it's due to modelling for advantage and if it's less, the he presumes the player must have used his finger to tilt the model and maje it >5''. Basically the player is 100% guilty for either of the contradictory reasons because the judge is upset and embarrassed. Also the ruling ostensibly does not "set precedent" because it's a bad ruling the judge does not stand by, but also if the player sucks up for a while year then MAYBE the judge will reconsider. Petit tyrant.

@@ScotRotum still changes nothing of what I said about the different model being used as proof. And that doesn't even cover all the potential problems with it.

Salty Judge from what I can tell

Player in question is infamous locally for his stormraven jank.

@@shatteredteethofgod not mutually exclusive

@scottcairns2933 I don't care if he's "Jank" the rule should be clearly defined in the rulebook, and the judge should have previous precedent from previous rulings. I'm guessing the reasons for him being infamous is the same reasoms that made the judge salty. The Hover rule should still prevent a vertical charge, if I base a model or change its pose slightly when I glue it there should never be a reason 1/16th or 1/8th of a inch of glue should make that difference.

@@Scotty86doo the rule is somewhat clear but requires the wing be 5” or less off the ground to disembark from the wing and if it’s more than 5” off the ground it’s unchargeable. I wasn’t at the previous GT he ran the jank Raven but was told he had it tilted for advantage and that he knows exactly what he’s doing. Not a rogue judge dropping the hammer on an unsuspecting carebear.

You see the problem is that you're significantly smarter than any of these people. So you're trying to bring sense into a world of monkeys

Fun note, these were second hand models the player bought pre-built from stores in his local area

@@grotwurksmekshop6607 ooof.

Don't use ruzziapedia as a source lmao.

​@@Wes-xk6hlhe said use a Russian website during a massive info and land war from them vs NATO. Lol he's not smart

I was just thinking that. I love to model my expensive armies in cool poses and look more alive. I would hate to get disqualified for a game I put hundreds of hours to build. If they are going to be that strict don’t let players build models. The game would die and that’s exactly why it’s stupid to be so strict.

10th de-simplified the game in many ways worse than where it tried to clean mechanics up like, cover. Take the arguing out of the game and there will be players!

I wonder how they did things back in 2nd edition. Just from reading the rule books I immediately identified multiple areas where the rules contradicted each other.

@@DGneoseeker1 You used to have a third person act as a moderator of sorts for games. You either talk it out or roll off to determine who is right. Fun is more important than balance.

It sounds like the ban was for actually messing with the model while the judge is measuring, which is fair, but I really don't understand how that was even possible in the first place. Surely, the judge should have clocked that while it was happening.

@@dozencatfish1667 That too, but If he was issued a lifetime ban for allegedy tampering with a model to get a favorable TO ruling, why would they "welcome him back if his communication improves?"

It's a crap TO. HE SHOULD HAVE A RULER, NOT A TAPE MEASURE!. also he had the option to say that the model wasn't legal before the tourney.

@dozencatfish1667 it shouldn't matter because the judge was in the wrong. Check "Vehicles with Bases" in the app. It states units can disembark 5" vertical amd 3" horizontal. Judge stated player could not disembark from the wings. How can the judge then entertain the thought of the wings being charged?

Even GW doesn't rule this way. For the record GW's ruling in tournaments, as shown in this video, is not what this judge went with.

Do you mean that it couldn't be charged by ground troops in hover mode? Being vulnerable to charges has been the trade off for being in hover since the aircraft's inception in 6th edition.

I'd flip it and say any aircraft in hover mode always counts as below 5 inches of height

@@Kindarya Or just use real height. Let flying units fly, force them to spend movement if they want to get into melee or let non-flying disembark (you know, as the literal english definition of the words in the rules means). Just apply english and add that non-fly units have to end any move in contact with battleground normally/only on riser stands if climbing ruins and other terrain features.

I always just play that vertical distance for a model on the ground floor is ignored.

​@@t0k3p0k3more likely OP meant "for the purposes of measurement" rather than "for the purposes of charging"

The game is inherently competitive.

@@terraneaux well that’s fundamentally wrong. The core of the game and it’s origins is DnD in space! 40K was a narrative RPG with a GM. Understanding the origins of the game makes it clear the current game design still has the same core. 15 years of 40K. The most fun I’ve seen anyone have in 15 years is throwing competitive out the window.

@@erupendragon7376 Just because there was a GM doesn't mean there isn't a winner and a loser. Scenarios had victory conditions. Are you talking about "tournament" 40k? I've played miniature games (not just 40k) since the 90's, and the most fun I've had is with other competitive players, whether at tournaments or not, who challenge each other mentally. And then you get the scrubs who rant about how terrible "competitive" play is but constantly angle shoot and cheat, then claim ignorance of the rules. What it comes down to is that most competitive players care about playing a sportsmanlike game, the anti-competitive crowd will throw a tantrum to make sure nobody has fun if you don't let them win.

@@terraneaux having winners and losers does not mean it’s competitive. Looks like you should play more games. Go have fun buddy.

@@erupendragon7376 No, that's literally the definition of a competitive game. You should use more precise language, unless your goal is just to hide your own scrubbiness and lack of sportsmanship.

I've not ran into any issues so far but I'm also away from the bigger scenes in the cities

This happened in Texas just recently hey, Huh.

Because Texas is full of assholes, that's why they all moved there in the first place. No one else wanted the assholes to live near them so they had to fuck off into the desert to be assholes together.

These things happen everywhere. This was just at a big name event which gets more visibility.

@@nathanlewis2681 There is a Tau player from Texas that just cheats every event he goes to.

The GW rules commentary on this specifically says that you use *any* part of the model to measure from while disembarking, I'd have fucking flipped on them if they tried to ban me for playing by the clearly written rules 😂

Disembarking rules are different between model types. There is a section in the rules commentary called "Disembarking Large Models." The rule states that the unit must be set up wholly within 3" of that model, and if this is not possible, it sets up within 1" of the base. Nothing about 5" vertical or 3" horizontal, just purely wholly within 3" or if that's not possible, within 1" of base. Are you saying that it is possible to disembark a Redemptor from the wingtip and still count as wholly within 3" in all directions of the Storm Raven? Or is the counter argument that the Redemptor is not a large model? (/s) In this case, the TO was right that Redemptors couldn't disembark from the wing tips as they physically cannot achieve the requirement of being wholly within 3" from the wingtip, (even more so when you take into account that the player's Storm Raven's we physically taller than 5" off the table) as such are forced to measure to be within 1" of the base.

@jacket2848 it's under Vehicles with Bases. The TO's are in their right to say that something hovering in the rough 5" area counts as above. If it was blatantly under 5" I 100% agree with you

@@jjtgomez check the Rules Commentary under Vehicles with Bases. It should be in red

@@grotwurksmekshop6607 So you're just going to ignore the part of the rules commentary of "Disembarking Large Models"? Tell me, what else of the rules do you ignore to fit your narrative?

This is legit the only sane way to rule it. Actually can't understand why it would be done any other way in the first place.

I don't think hover does this. The rules in 10th just say if a model has a base you measure distances from the base. There is no reference to aircraft or vehicle keywords. There are also no exceptions in the deep strike, charge or hover rules. It looks like both the player and the judge are operating with older edition rules.

@@davidjprentice152Look up GW's "rules commentary" and search for "vehicles with bases"

​@@davidjprentice152it gets more complex in 10th as models with the fly keyword have further rules than just the based vehicle ones

They really need to drop the dumbass LOS and measurement rules, if I shift my magnetized dragoon’s arm I shouldn’t be able to completely change the way an engagement plays out

That is not how competitive games works, if you can win people will make a competition out of it.

@@paniago82 that's precisely how 40k worked for decades. It's a modem thing where people are forcing a narrative tabletop game into a tournament game.

​@@paniago82a competitive tournament is not the same as a competitive meta-slaving esport game.

​@@paniago82doesn't mean it's a good game for competitive play. Airsoft for example usually has a winning and losing side but the game is entirely built on the honor system for calling your hits. The more competitive in nature an event becomes, the more likely people are to cheat or violate the spirit of the game because they want the reward for winning. When people do that, it takes the mutual fun out of the game because it turns into players trying to ref every interaction and the concern about the other's enjoyment is lost. 40k is fairly similar to this in how the game works best when people play the game to have a fun battle, not to stomp their opponent into the ground because they have the better rule sets for their pieces of plastic.

its also the fact that the rules interaction should of been the first thing considered. Player could not disembark from the wings so the wings could not be charged or be used to hold objectives

I wasn't gonna say it, but it does appear that the new winner of the tournament is a friend of the TO. Even if the ruling was not made for nepotistic reasons it's enough to make you question things.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I was at the Alamo GT the year before and the head judge was absolutely manipulating things in favor of his competitive team.

@aaronkelman6775 so then why did the TO rule in favor of the teammate? I get it but reversing a decision after the fact in favor of your teammate?

@@grotwurksmekshop6607 He didn't at all. Nobody that directly benefitted was on his team. You don't seem to really be aware of what happened here and are regurgitating speculation from other folks that's just not correct.

Funny thing, TO ruled that the wings could not be Disembarked from (per the Vehicle with Bases rule) so why were they chargeable?

More Like drinking when FAQ-ing.

Standard Flight bases are Over 5.5" and if this is the only one of the hovering models this is a problem for where a heldrake for example isnt then Id opt to say you cant melee any hovering unit. Punching a Helicopter seems dumb to me lol.

no a storm raven is a vehicle so you measure from hull not from base its also in the core rules

​@@lucasflanery9534yes, except in this case where this same tournament said you couldn't disembark from the wings which requires the exact same 5in

Tzeentch screamers come with the most abhorrent ball joint bases. I stopped using them, they've wound up goodness fricking knows where. The models are practically flat, but I'd basically say to people "Yup, they're floating high enough you can shoot them over scatter/etc." I dread to think of heavier models on that kind of stand...

This is the exact kind of crap that keeps people from continuing or even starting to play. Seeing it at the highest levels of play sends a HUGE message to not invest.

exactly theres no reason 2 models all but touching shouldn't be in melee distance if the one is not an aircraft, which hover isn't. theres no way this is how the game is intended to be played and just unfun rules lawyering nonsense.

I think it’s down to Games Workshop continuing to publish a game that can be cheesed (if guilty) or litigated (if bad judge). They’ve had literally 10 editions to clamp down and make a game that’s robust to competition play.

Narrative-chads stay winning

I don't play tourneys but I have land speeders on slightly taller stands so the squad is at different heights cos that looks cool and dynamic. I'd say measure to plastic base for everything, it's only chunky rectangles that don't have base. But yes the GK baby carrier could be at advantage as it can see over shorter ruins. It's so petty I can't be bothered to waste my life playing these sorts of people.

The Dreadknight comes on an oval base, the same one as the T’au Ghostkeel & the current Carnifex.

Let me clarify, the base is legal, and the cork is not. The cork makes the dreadknight like half an inch or more taller.

@@moomixgaming9986 Ah, yeah, that definitely could be considered more egregious than the “modeling for advantages” the TO argued lol

@@MorphicGalaxy well, id say its what puts the GMDK in range to the storm raven.

It's so rare to ever see something like this in the comp setting. If you don't like competitive games, that's fine, but don't use the rarest of instances of cheating as an excuse.

@@timb.4516 This wasnt a case of cheating. This was a case of an incompetent TO. TO stated player could not disembark from wings (per Vehicle with Bases rule you can as long as within 5" vertically and 3 Horizontally) so the wings should never been an area to charge

​@@timb.4516lol cheating. More like bad TO

Nah you don’t understand if I shift a magnetized dragoon’s lance down 3mm I can see your character’s 3rd tentacle

Don't get me started on the gladiator lancer shooting out of cover with 1mm of hull visible...

Can't wait for the day when someone gets accused of modeling for advantage because they painted their Imperial Fists the same color as the tape measure and made it hard for the judge to determine some measurement 🙄

Exactly