Use the 5 min warm up and agree with how to do it with your opponent if it's not covered in the tournament rules pack.

The Necron Tomb Complex explicitly mentions measurement "from where the Blitzkrieg Objective touches the Necron table edge.".

Would seem a little inconsistent if distance to the Blitz was counted one way, and distance from the Blitz is counted another.

I disagree with Mephiston that this is a 5 minute warmup question. A definitive answer (either way) should be FAQratted on. Because the last thing I want to see in a game is forgetting in the warmup, and an argument developing in the end phase. Because this could essentially decide the game.

Concise rules make everyone happy.

Morgan Vening

I'm in agreement with Onyx and also I don't see garrisoning off the Blitz very often either.

Oh and BTW E&C, "best Epic player in the world" should perhaps read "best Epic player in the UK...." at the very least, as the UK isn't the world and you have no way of accurately confirming that statement.

So 1-3cm (on a 2-6cm diameter obj) from the table edge point (as the obj should currently be measured going by the replies) would be a noticable advantage??? I can understand the diff between centre of obj and table edge point etc but that's laughable.

I have often found myself a few centimetres short of being able to reach the blitz goal, and if I was measuring to the centre of the objective I could have won the game. That's noticable.

Please read the Necron FAQ, pg 136 of Raiders 2 for an answer to this.


The whole thing is a storm in a tea cup...
Not worth arguing about.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

No, it's really not.... Your opponent would get the benefit of 1-3cm to contest it.... it works both ways and if you're 1-3cms from capturing/contesting it, so is he. Are we really quibbling over that much distance in this game...?? If we are, "storm in a teacup" sums this up nicely.

My point is that if I have a very small blitz goal and he has a very big one, I've got less distance to go to grab it. That could be very relevant for a slow army.

I'm not saying it's a big deal, but it is an issue, especially as Morgan Vening mentions, if it came up at the end of a game and the players had different interpretations.

3cm is 20% of an infantry move. 8.33-10% of most mech options. if you had the option to get 10-20% increase in milage on your car for free, would you take it? What if you had a larger (say 10cm diam) objective?

_________________
SG

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

See my above argument, SG. It works both ways....

10cm objectives? It certainly makes it easier for your opponent to contest /capture as well, eh?

Indeed it does, but the assumption that it affects both armies equally is flawed. A slow army will want a larger blitz to play against, while a faster one will need it less. Note that taken to extremes, a powergamer would attempt to take as small an objective as possible to maximize the distance the opponent has to travel. You eventually end up with an objective that is 0cm in diameter - a point on the board edge. If this is the logical progression, why not codify it and aviod the issue?

_________________
SG

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

I lost a point on a game due to the Opponent being 2 cm short of the table edge. This was after taking into account the 15cm distance to grab an objective. I was over-ruled after advising that the table edge was the correct ruling.

It may not mean anything to you, but for those of us that stick to the rules and play by them, only to be over-ruled by those who do not know these intricasies, it leaves a bad taste - regradless of whether it changes the result of the game or not.

Just like opoponents not knowing to start 90cm apart, or using the best stats between 2 different versions of the rules, or using the correct point values for count backs, or a list of other items I cannot now remember.

edit: My goodness, there was even a rules look up to see if units get the -1 modifier from cover for Firefights! Even after I advised the answer, there was a discussion. It appears rules are only accepted if the people fom the 'same group' advise it is so. Hence the group that bullies the most gets their way? It should not be like that.

If people go to or run tournaments, the least I expect is that everyone plays by the same rules or gain assistance from those who have proven themselves to have a handle of the rules through consistent games.

My suggestion: Have up to two other people (from different groups) chosen at the start of the day whom will act as the rules team. The organiser is not expected to 'know it all' however a team should have a handle on the rules. Obviously the two chosen should be people you trust to know the rules

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Why not set up an Overwatch at the start of the game on a Blitz? It happened in the tournament you just ran as well.

It is quite effective if you are concerned about teleporters and need to place a BM on them before an engagement.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Actually no, you lost a point because your tactics didn't go all out to deny him that point when you knew you couldn't hope to win anyway. Why didn't you march something to the objective earlier? What if you had been able to deny him the objective because your blitz marker was sized to let you deny him? What if he had a unit 2cm closer? It's all academic. You would have lost regardless. You didn't control any objectives, your opponent gained a single objective point and it didn't have an effect on the outcome of the game or the tourney results. Besides, it was played that way the whole day so it's a wash.


Did I say it meant nothing to me...? No. I view it as a minimal effect.

Are you kidding?! Proven themselves? Why do people have to prove themselves to you? You're unhappy you lost. Fair enough, but don't snipe at me because I'm not the biggest TO rules lawyer or rub my nose in the fact I don't get many games in as you. I don't see you or anyone else for that matter (apart from Floppy) stepping up to run anything. If you're unhappy that you lost because of 2cm then you should evaluate your play style. Just to be clear, you didn't lose because of 2cm....

It's a game. Sorry that my adjudication didn't let your toy soldiers lose in the way you wanted....

EDIT:
Ya know what Frogbear? If you feel that way, go run your own tournament. I'm tired of listening to this sniping shit.

I am not unhappy that I lost. That was a given after turn 2.

I am unhappy that I am playing by different rules to other people - that's all.

Please see the suggestion:

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats