Slitherine

In a (very) recent game we had just determined which side had gained the pre battle iniative, at which point my opponent wandered over to a terrain stand and bought some terrain specifically for the game.

Is this legal? And more importantly is it morally acceptable?

Personally i think the player in question should have been drummed out of the tournament for this disgraceful display of unsporting behaviour.

Perhaps he felt morality wasn't an issue given his opponent?

Would be interesting to see how many of your assertions as to what the rules say were proved wrong in that game. It's difficult for me to believe that would be more than in our game. Where you got spanked 12-8, by the way.

He should get +5 points for this and only playing against you by the way

Are you still whingeing on about that Dave )

It was a great purchase by the way, the points against you let me win the competition (with you in second of course) - this let me win a further piece of terrain which I am planning to use next time against you.

Well if un-named opponent above thinks telling a girl that came to dance with me that I was his 'partner', and then started dancing with her himself is morally acceptable what more could you expect from such a morally reprehensible man?

Personally I thought being spanked 25-0 by Ian was morally unacceptable. The rotter!

philqw78 wrote:Well if un-named opponent above thinks telling a girl that came to dance with me that I was his 'partner', and then started dancing with her himself is morally acceptable what more could you expect from such a morally reprehensible man?

That is nearly how it happened Phil

MatthewP wrote:Personally I thought being spanked 25-0 by Ian was morally unacceptable. The rotter!

Yes Matt - I only got 20 from Dave which is irritating!

timurilenk wrote:That is nearly how it happened Phil

Why let the truth stand in the way of a good story

philqw78 wrote:Why let the truth stand in the way of a good story

My motto as well

dave_r wrote:In a (very) recent game we had just determined which side had gained the pre battle iniative, at which point my opponent wandered over to a terrain stand and bought some terrain specifically for the game.

Is this legal? And more importantly is it morally acceptable?

Personally i think the player in question should have been drummed out of the tournament for this disgraceful display of unsporting behaviour.

Apparently most of the replys know exactly what game and what players this post refers to. Me on the other hand don't have a clue to any of that.

I don't see an issue or ANY moral compromise. Your post reads as if it's glaring and obvious how the player "disgraced" themselves......I can't see it. If the first time the player had a unit go disrupted and realized that they didn't have any disrupted markers, so they walked over and bought some, is that a problem as well. Would you "drum them out" for that as well. It's same the same type of action to me. A roll result makes it apparent that you didn't come completely prepared, so you spend a little money to make up for the lapse. It's a lapse, not captial crime.

Scot

I think this thread is more about play ground name calling than anything else. Normal people need not worry about it Scot.

ScotGore wrote:Apparently most of the replys know exactly what game and what players this post refers to. Me on the other hand don't have a clue to any of that.

I don't see an issue or ANY moral compromise. Your post reads as if it's glaring and obvious how the player "disgraced" themselves......I can't see it. If the first time the player had a unit go disrupted and realized that they didn't have any disrupted markers, so they walked over and bought some, is that a problem as well. Would you "drum them out" for that as well. It's same the same type of action to me. A roll result makes it apparent that you didn't come completely prepared, so you spend a little money to make up for the lapse. It's a lapse, not captial crime.

Scot

Scot - I was the player in question and it is clear to me that Dave speaks in jest - we were bantering about it in the bar - as Phil says a little bit of playground humour.

timurilenk wrote:

ScotGore wrote:Apparently most of the replys know exactly what game and what players this post refers to. Me on the other hand don't have a clue to any of that.

I don't see an issue or ANY moral compromise. Your post reads as if it's glaring and obvious how the player "disgraced" themselves......I can't see it. If the first time the player had a unit go disrupted and realized that they didn't have any disrupted markers, so they walked over and bought some, is that a problem as well. Would you "drum them out" for that as well. It's same the same type of action to me. A roll result makes it apparent that you didn't come completely prepared, so you spend a little money to make up for the lapse. It's a lapse, not captial crime.

Scot

Scot - I was the player in question and it is clear to me that Dave speaks in jest - we were bantering about it in the bar - as Phil says a little bit of playground humour.

As Phil has reminded us on at least one occasion, we do play with toy soldiers. "Normal people" at best see this with a mix of bewilderment and amusement and at worst....

I'm still quite taken with the title of this thread and implications that we can hold terrain to some standard of higher morality.....afterall someone or something should take the high ground in this bantering.

Sorry, I realized my error. If this type of behaviour is allowed to go unchecked then it will literally be possible for someone to *buy* the high ground and thereby gain both a tactical and moral advantage over an opponent.

shadowdragon wrote:Sorry, I realized my error. If this type of behaviour is allowed to go unchecked then it will literally be possible for someone to *buy* the high ground and thereby gain both a tactical and moral advantage over an opponent.

Exactly my point - where will this behaviour end? I predict that in the future people may simply go out and buy the latest "hot" competition army ready painted and ready to use.

We all know this sort of behaviour would lead us down the road to ruin and towards GW.

I would put forward the view that we need to stamp out this delinquent behaviour now before it's too late

ScotGore wrote:

dave_r wrote:In a (very) recent game we had just determined which side had gained the pre battle iniative, at which point my opponent wandered over to a terrain stand and bought some terrain specifically for the game.

Is this legal? And more importantly is it morally acceptable?

Personally i think the player in question should have been drummed out of the tournament for this disgraceful display of unsporting behaviour.

Apparently most of the replys know exactly what game and what players this post refers to. Me on the other hand don't have a clue to any of that.

I don't see an issue or ANY moral compromise. Your post reads as if it's glaring and obvious how the player "disgraced" themselves......I can't see it. If the first time the player had a unit go disrupted and realized that they didn't have any disrupted markers, so they walked over and bought some, is that a problem as well. Would you "drum them out" for that as well. It's same the same type of action to me. A roll result makes it apparent that you didn't come completely prepared, so you spend a little money to make up for the lapse. It's a lapse, not captial crime.

Scot

The longer your on this forum Scot, you'll soon get to know people on here pick on anyone called Dave...its just something we have to deal with.

Dave

dave_r wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:Sorry, I realized my error. If this type of behaviour is allowed to go unchecked then it will literally be possible for someone to *buy* the high ground and thereby gain both a tactical and moral advantage over an opponent.

Exactly my point - where will this behaviour end? I predict that in the future people may simply go out and buy the latest "hot" competition army ready painted and ready to use.

We all know this sort of behaviour would lead us down the road to ruin and towards GW.

I would put forward the view that we need to stamp out this delinquent behaviour now before it's too late

Quite agree stamp it out I say I hope this is covered in the new update.

david53 wrote:

dave_r wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:Sorry, I realized my error. If this type of behaviour is allowed to go unchecked then it will literally be possible for someone to *buy* the high ground and thereby gain both a tactical and moral advantage over an opponent.

Exactly my point - where will this behaviour end? I predict that in the future people may simply go out and buy the latest "hot" competition army ready painted and ready to use.

We all know this sort of behaviour would lead us down the road to ruin and towards GW.

I would put forward the view that we need to stamp out this delinquent behaviour now before it's too late

Quite agree stamp it out I say I hope this is covered in the new update.

No, Dave (btw you do have my sympathy with the poorly considered choice of name by your parents, but then again I suppose they had high hopes for their son than a wargamer)...anyway, back to the point....no, Dave, "cover" is already "covered" adequately.

dave_r wrote:We all know this sort of behaviour would lead us down the road to ruin and towards GW.

But I thought "roads" were useless in FoG. At the very least they are not allowed to go through any other terrain, moral or not.* Clearly this is not only an area, not sure if it counts as one or two choices, of potential abuse but also something that demands clearing up - especially if my opponent puts down a forest in front of me.

* Of course, I may have overlooked the moral exclusion to the rule excluding roads from going through terrain. Another case of being an "isolated international", which is okay if it comes with a tax exempt status.