- - - - And this is why 'stalling' may also form part of the debate .

(However, I would also suggest that it is a Red Herring because there are numerous ways that people can 'stall' within the existing rules.)

Ahh, I think I understand what you mean. I think we agree that formations with no 'legal' move may not 'activate'. For example, if you have declared that your Swooping Hawks will enter by teleporting (and you choose not to bring them on at the start of a turn) you may not 'activate' them during the turn :- they do not have a 'legal' move even if there is an open gate available, because they are declared to be teleporting and so are not in the webway.

But does an off-table 'ground' formation behind a gate have a 'legal' move? If it 'stalls' it loses its on-table attack just like the aircraft you cite.

Actually, Ginger I think you're getting hung up on some slightly different interpretation of the underlying principles:

It's not "Every formation with a legal activation must be activated once each turn."

It's "Every formation on board must be activated once each turn. Aircraft off-board may activate, but choose not to come on board by taking the stand down action""

then

It's not "Off-table formations must be permitted to avoid coming onto the table."

It's "Off-table formations (excepting aircraft) do not have to activate but if they do they must move onto the table."

I can't think how I can put it any clearer than that, other than just by repeating myself endlessly?

I agree that we are getting hung up, but I would suggest that we are mixing up game ethics, gaming styles and even desired styles with the principles behind the rules.

IMHO A principle is an absolute statement that is amplified by other statements etc; it does not have exceptions. Compare my suggestion of the first principle against the original E:A rules:

"Every formation with a legal activation must be activated once each turn."

The basic rules allows for every formation to be activated, or for the player to declare that it is not going to be available at the start of the turn. In this respect the air and space rules are not an 'exception' because the player declares the turn that spacecraft are to be available, and aircraft always activate (though they need not necessarily arrive on table). Likewise Teleporters are either declared to be available at the start of the turn (and put on the table) or cannot 'activate' during that turn.

Taking your suggestion, we could extend this to be :-

"Every on-table formation with a legal activation must be activated once each turn".

but then we hit a problem defining the principle for off-table forces:

1. "Every off-table formation with a legal activation must be activated once each turn."
   
   seems to be unacceptable, but
2. "Off-table formations may be activated once each turn, or the player may "pass" any further activations."
   
   (allowing the player to pass the remainder of his turn) contradicts the first principle because a player cannot 'pass' with on-table formations still unactivated, and also contradicts the principle of alternative player activity and the implicit principle that the player declares the formations available to him at the start of the turn (by effectively declaring they are no longer available).
   It also raises the question "why were aircraft given the 'stand down' activation' if they can 'pass' to achieve the same result?" (quite apart from including an exception within the statement)

Hena, Zombo and others express the game ethics that it is "unfair" to 'stall', or that the game is "designed/intended" to be played on-table but these sentiments are expressions of style or desire; it is also "unfair" to 'snipe' with aircraft. IMHO it is the attempts to include these 'desires' within the principles of the game that is actually causing the current confusions - they have only been raised since the advent of 'gates' and only come to prominence with the advent of Necrons whose major strategies and tactics involve the use of 'gates'.

In summary, "passing" contradicts the main principles behind the game, while mandating that activations must take place on-table causes problems that make this "unfair" unless the player is given the option of some form of 'passing' activation.

I do understand that others use different 'styles' or 'ethics', and these may also vary depending on the game setting, but, and I stress this, these attitudes should not alter the underlying game principles. Rather the lists must contain 'exceptions' (special rules) to these principles where absolutely necessary (like the Necrons use of gates, or perhaps the use of gates in general) or 'guidance' to players to "play fair" (for 'sniping' etc).

Ginger: The original epic rules on activations were not written with portals/gates in mind. In the Epic Armageddon book, the only formations offboard would be aircraft, spaceships, planetfallers, teleporters and units transported in them. All of those situations are covered by the rule on "must activate if it can". Portals/gates only arrived with swordwind, so it's fair to assume that the original rule wasn't written with them in mind.

Because of this the "RAW" interpretation is the silly one; all formations offboard must come in through gates if they can. This is patently silly, so we're left with two alternatives; passing and standing down. Both break the Rules As Written, but a majority of people consider passing to be less potentially abusive.

As I mentioned before, I used to play "standing down", but found that with necrons in particular, it's just not fair on the opponent to be able to waste activations offboard before committing troops once the enemy is out of activations.

We're all mature people, fairness should be more important than slavishly following the rules as written, especially when the RAW leads to a daft interpretation.

Zombo, you make my point exactly; that 'gates' arrived after the original rules and have caused problems ever since. However, I believe there are a number of things we can do to the rules around 'gates' once we agree the original principles.

For example we could declare at the start of a turn those formations arriving from the webway during the turn, possibly defining which formation is behind a particular gate, or for the Necrons, which off-table formation is being 'rebuilt' etc. Doing this would define those formations with a 'legal' activation and may go some way to resolving several of the perceived issues with 'off-table stalling'.

Furthermore you originally allowed off-table formations to stall (which must have been via 'Marshalling'). That you don't do it now is because you consider it 'unfair' rather than illegal per se.

I consider both approaches to be against the original rules, though marshalling offtable less so. I certainly consider passing a much better solution.

EDIT:

To clarify, I agree with you that marshalling offtable is closer to being correct under the current rules, but I also agree with everyone else that it is deeply unfair and needs changing as proposed by this thread.

The criteria for whether an off-board formation can or must move onto the board are dealt with in the rule that allows the formation to stay off board.

Teleport - has its own criteria about when/if the formation comes on board and how that affects activations.
Aircraft - has its own criteria.
Wraithgates - has its own criteria.
Necron Portals - has its own criteria.

Special rules override general rules. Only the general rules not contradicted remain in force. If the Wraithgate rule says the formation can stay off board, then it can stay off board - in direct contradiction of this proposed general rule and 1.6 and any other section of the basic rules that state otherwise. This wouldn't force Eldar to move onto the table any more than the 1.9 armor save rules would override Reinforced Armor and force Leman Russ to only take one armor save before destruction.

Yup, the 'special rules' override the general rules, but I believe we should frame these 'special rules' within the basic principles of the game (which I have been trying to articulate at your request), rather than trying to refine the original principles.

If we find the 'special rule' causes problems, then by all means lets change it - I have made a few suggestions that I do not think have been considered, that also work within the original principles. I am sure there are others

That will require changing the special rules. This is the opposite of the approach we are taking. We're not trying to make the special rules fit some as-yet-undefined set of core principles. We're trying to come up with core principles that 1) help clarify certain implications/contradictions across the rules, and 2) don't change any existing rules. If changes are absolutely and unavoidably necessary, minimize them.


They haven't been considered because you're contemplating an overhaul that would retroactively change existing special rules and established mechanics. For example:


That's not only not the question, it's not even A question. The rules for when/if webway formations can come on board and how that happens are already defined. Answering this question is not required for those rules to function.

This question is only required for the application of a general rule - 1.6 in this case. It contains the assumption that you need a general rule application for the purposes of doing away with the special rule, i.e. changing the special rule.


What purpose would it serve to do so? Every off-board mechanic already deals with the issue of how formations get into play and they are all different. Even if we did do this it wouldn't apply to anything.

Agree. The special rules will override the core rules in any case, so why not clarify the mechanic to what people are generally using anyway? Add some clarifications as to what is acceptable and be done with it.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Neal, adding a statement that "off-table formations may only take activations which involve moving onto the board" together with the 'clarification' that a player may "pass" both seem to be changing the existing rules that I and others have been playing for many years and as such this appears to be exactly what you say you don't want to do. As far as I am aware, this new "definition" has only been presented when the 'problems' with the Necrons were raised.

The existing rules for gates (as I and others in the UK play them) work fine for the Eldar:- If the situation is unfavourable (usually in the last 1-3 activations of a turn) the Eldar player Marshalls off-table in alternate activations with whatever the opposing player wants to do. I have never heard of Eldar using off-table 'stalling' in the same way as the Necrons mainly because they are so much more fragile and the armies work in very different ways.

So, how does this "require changes to the existing special rules"? As Spectrar Ghost says, the Necron 'special rule' will override the general rules anyway.

Seriously? You've been playing with Eldar burning activations to Marshall/stall indefinitely as long as they don't want to bring formations on-board?

Is that how the EpicUK tourneys work gates?

The rules are clear that a formation which comes out of a gate "enters play." The only option the rule gives for off board formations activating is to enter play. The very idea that it's not in play indicates to me that the formation can only be treated as explicitly described. How did you come to the conclusion that it would be okay?