On another forum I encountered a thread on dirty tricks. Courious to see what was contained therin I loked and was amazed to see the sheer number of cheating buggers that were posting within the thread and how blatent some of these people were. Some of the most outragous cheats suggested were:

knowing the measure of your finger tip to elbow
measuring angles and then using pythagorean thery to get the correct distance
over guessing cannons

Those were the ones off the top of my head.
Has anyone here ever encountered these types and how did you deal with them? Myself I had a coworker who used all of these and encouraged others to. Pissed me off but not much I could do so I discouraged it when I saw it from players and tried to avoid playing him when I could.

There are some things that you'll never be able to counter, like the tricks you've just mentioned. However, these in particular aren't necessarily game-breakers; at the end of third edition, I was so good at guessing ranges that I incurred redshirt ire at Games Day 2001 in Baltimore. I was helping my teammates guess mortar ranges, and when I told him to guess 23 and 3/4 inches, and that landed the shot right on the Sybarite's head, they were NOT happy. No tricks, just good estimation skills. You can't even really tell that from cheating, even though I wasn't.

Honestly, the only kind of cheating you can worry about, or need to worry about, are things like incorrect rules usage, fudging numbers, fudging die rolls, fudging movement or things of that nature. Anything you simply cannot catch, so you just can't worry about it.

efarrer wrote:knowing the measure of your finger tip to elbow
measuring angles and then using pythagorean thery to get the correct distance

Wait, so these guys literally lay their arm on the table, and measure at right angles the rise and run and then calculate the result. Those are both blatant pre-measuring. Of course, sometimes we mutually agree to allow pre-measuring, so in that situation it's okay.

over guessing cannons

I flat-out called my opponents cheaters to their faces when they deliberately over-guess cannons. They got the message, and don't do it any more.

Overguessing cannons is cheating? Can you explain this?

When people premeasure their elbow, tell them you have
something premeasured you'd like to throw down on the table.
You're just afraid it might tip over the table.

malfred wrote:Overguessing cannons is cheating? Can you explain this?

I'm thinking it's overguessing to hit a unit that is out of LOS behind the "target."

malfred wrote:
When people premeasure their elbow, tell them you have
something premeasured you'd like to throw down on the table.
You're just afraid it might tip over the table.

All my friends know that I'm under strict medical orders not to lift heavy objects, so this wouldn't work for me.

I've been told I put a mean look on when someone is trying to cheat me.

I guess the problem I have with people trying to cheat me is, they still don't win so what have they accomplished?

If you're gonna cheat, at least win. lol

I have seen guys who have a 'Nid- swarm army, and even when told NO template/Blast markers were in my army, they consistently measured 2" between EVERY fig every turn(with Tape Measure). This may be in the rules, but I seem to remember a guy by the name of Mackenro(Tennis Player-Maybe not spelled right) who used similar'head games' to distract his opponent.

Cheating....not really.

Make me want to take a Crowbar to his head.....definately.

We just have to be careful about whom we play, if we have a choice....

"measuring angles and then using pythagorean thery to get the correct distance "
Measuring angles is cheating, sure, but simply using the Pythagorean theorem is not. Sure you can't be very exact, but I use the theorem in my head sometimes to see if I have a chance. I really dont consider it cheating. It merely helps in guessing, and honestly doesnt come up as being applicable very often.

A few of my friends and I have been called cheaters behind our backs, usually after a rogue trader win. I believe the win isn't worth anything if you cheated to get it. I caught one player in our local store with loaded dice and called him out immediately in front of several other players. He didn't come back after that, and I don't blame him. Most people I've met who try to pul outrageous crap are usually by themselves and become scarce when the light is turned on them.

I use one cube of dice, all identical, and call out what I'm rolling for every time I roll. I count out the proper number of dice in front of my opponent, put them in a cup and roll them into a dice tray. If one rolls out on to the table or floor I call out whether I'll take the roll. If a dice is cocked (rare in the tray), I try and balance another dice on top and keep the roll if it stays. When I'm rolling many to hit or wound dice, I remove the misses and leave the successful rolls for my opponent to witness. I don't ever lean on the table or hold the tape over it until I've nominated a target or guessed range. I don't want anyone to have an excuse to claim shenanigans or call me a cheater.

Almost always when my opponent can see how I play, and that I am watching them closely, they don't try anything egregious. That's not to say I haven't ever been fooled, I'm not a paranoid by nature. But if you bring your A-game and have a good working knowledge of the rules most cheaters straighten up a little at least.

Most annoying cheating in my eyes is moving.
"I move it there... no there... (pushes figure a bit forward and backward)... no I think I move it there."
And you see the figure wandering and wandering and then think "I should have placed a mark on the starting point.". Winning inches in souch a way just makes me want to do things which I want not to mention but they always include physikal pain of my opponent.

Loaded dice? Really? lol that is hilarious.

Not sure about getting a tray and a shaker, although it's probably a good idea on those boards where the dice shoot everywhere or don't roll just slide.

Dice cups are good. I'll have to consider doing that. When all else fails you can
hide your leader inside it, cowering like the inferior commander he is...

LOL It is NOT a dice cup. Its a fortified command bunker...........

If some tournaments are to be believed, it's a drop pod...

It's not a dice cup, it is not a command bunker, it is not a drop pod...

it's an anti-greasy fingerd, cheetos eatin, fatty fat playing a fzorgle list shield.

Most annoying cheating in my eyes is moving.
"I move it there... no there... (pushes figure a bit forward and backward)... no I think I move it there."


I agree. Or the person who moves a tank, a couple of infantry units and a dread, then goes back to the tank and tells me he doesn't want it there after all. I tell that player too bad, as there is no way to tell for certain where the tank was originally. Or the guy who tries to target something completely out of the arc of one side of his tank, then asks if he can turn to optimize his shooting.

Ooops...sorry Symbio Joe, I need to learn how to quote.

Just try to make a working replica of a Bolter.
Take it to a "Cheaters" table.
Ask him/her if they think you can rapid-fire it at them, then Charge them?
You are wearing Termie Armour, so wait to hear their response before you blow them away with your witty diatribe.

I did say a WORKING replica......

You know... a sock full of 2nd Edition dreadnoughts would stop this problem real quick.

djones520 wrote:You know... a sock full of 2nd Edition dreadnoughts would stop this problem real quick.

As it happens, you can hold the old 2nd Ed Carnifex in such a way as to have the talons stick out between your fingers, with the main body held inside your hand. Makes an excellent set of brass knuckles. Even better if you happen to own one that's still made of lead.

BYE

I agree. Or the person who moves a tank, a couple of infantry units and a dread, then goes back to the tank and tells me he doesn't want it there after all. I tell that player too bad, as there is no way to tell for certain where the tank was originally.

Well thats against the rules anyway. you can move a model/unit around until you find the right spot you want it in within its legal movement range all you want, but once you have gone on to another model you cannot go back and move one you already moved as per the rules.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

djones520 wrote:You know... a sock full of 2nd Edition dreadnoughts would stop this problem real quick.

As it happens, you can hold the old 2nd Ed Carnifex in such a way as to have the talons stick out between your fingers, with the main body held inside your hand. Makes an excellent set of brass knuckles. Even better if you happen to own one that's still made of lead.

BYE

I've got two of the Screamer Killers... When I get back to the States, I think I'll bring them with me to some tournaments.

The Power Cosmic wrote:

malfred wrote:Overguessing cannons is cheating? Can you explain this?

I'm thinking it's overguessing to hit a unit that is out of LOS behind the "target."

Overguessing with a cannon isn't cheating, or even unsporting, per Gav and an article he wrote for WD.

Yeah I thought the main purpose of picking out a model for cannons is the direction, not the range. Over/underguesing, taking the bounce into account, was all good.

PenguinDude wrote:"measuring angles and then using pythagorean thery to get the correct distance "
Measuring angles is cheating, sure, but simply using the Pythagorean theorem is not. Sure you can't be very exact, but I use the theorem in my head sometimes to see if I have a chance. I really dont consider it cheating. It merely helps in guessing, and honestly doesnt come up as being applicable very often.

What was suggested was measuring A+B and then using math to get C (which was felt to be legal by the person because it didn't measure the path). I use the method you suggested all the time. I have no problem with that (and in fact control one variable by knowing exactly where I placed my artillery on the table). In that case it's fine, but as soon as you measure a single thing on the table it ceases to be fine.

mauleed wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

malfred wrote:Overguessing cannons is cheating? Can you explain this?

I'm thinking it's overguessing to hit a unit that is out of LOS behind the "target."

Overguessing with a cannon isn't cheating, or even unsporting, per Gav and an article he wrote for WD.

I'd have sworn that there was an FAQ which forbade the practice of deliberatly choosing to overshoot into a target outside of LOS, and indeed as I read the second line of the section on cannons I see that the only valid targets are in LOS.

efarrer wrote:

mauleed wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

malfred wrote:Overguessing cannons is cheating? Can you explain this?

I'm thinking it's overguessing to hit a unit that is out of LOS behind the "target."

Overguessing with a cannon isn't cheating, or even unsporting, per Gav and an article he wrote for WD.

I'd have sworn that there was an FAQ which forbade the practice of deliberatly choosing to overshoot into a target outside of LOS, and indeed as I read the second line of the section on cannons I see that the only valid targets are in LOS.

Ok the only thing I could find in the FAQ is the note reminding players not to take actions they know will fail, which is where the deliberate overguess falls in my eyes. Guess as close as you want to to the original target, hoping for carry through and I won't complain, but adding another 10 inches on to try and hit the model behind the unit. No.

Except I know overguessing won't fail. It'll work great!

Cheating is intentionally breaking a rule. I've never seen any rule you break when you overguess.

mauleed wrote:Except I know overguessing won't fail. It'll work great!

Cheating is intentionally breaking a rule. I've never seen any rule you break when you overguess.

Is this even an issue now. In V4 is there anything really "guess" at this point?

I have always favoured measurement in wargames, having grown up in an atmosphere where it was the rule.

I know 40K makes a big thing of not allowing pre-measurement of shooting but it is allowed for movement, and can therefore permit the abuses mentioned above.

The easiest fix would be simply to allow everyone to measure as much as they want.

However quite a few players regard guessing ranges as an important part of the game.

Lord knows, I have been sorely tempted to aim at the nearby Glade Riders, but guess a range that should carry into the forest (and the treeman surfing in it) a couple of feet further back.

fellblade wrote:Lord knows, I have been sorely tempted to aim at the nearby Glade Riders, but guess a range that should carry into the forest (and the treeman surfing in it) a couple of feet further back.

I do that every single time the guy is dumb enough to put the glade riders there.

But if it's the first time I've played you (or the first time you've seen me use cannons), I'll generally warn you before you complete your move.

Unless you brought 2 treemen, then you get what's comin' to ya.

mauleed wrote:Except I know overguessing won't fail. It'll work great!

Cheating is intentionally breaking a rule. I've never seen any rule you break when you overguess.

If you target a unit then guess a range that you know will fail to hit them in order to hit a target out of LOS, then you may not be breaking any specific rule, but you certainly are going against the spirit of the rules.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Here are some of the more common cheats I have witnessed:

Roll more dice then supposed to for hitting and wounding enemy
Roll less dice when taking armor saves
Pickup dice very quickly including some that missed
Move units extra distance during movement phase to help reach assault
Loaded dice
Claim additional wargear not actually on army list

- G

Ozymandias wrote:

mauleed wrote:Except I know overguessing won't fail. It'll work great!

Cheating is intentionally breaking a rule. I've never seen any rule you break when you overguess.

If you target a unit then guess a range that you know will fail to hit them in order to hit a target out of LOS, then you may not be breaking any specific rule, but you certainly are going against the spirit of the rules.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

First time for everything I suppose, but I agree RAW fails here.

Although one could argue, using RAW, that the shot should then automatically miss as per the shooting rules, as I see nothing within the cannons rules that specifically breach shooting line of sight rules, which state that a shot fired at a target which is out of the line of sight will automatically miss (p.26), and you as well as your opponent both are aware that you are not aiming at the stated target (ie. you are soing something which will automatically fail by your own intent).


Cannons, and thier incredible accuracy, are one of the many reasons I think 40K is a better game.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Here are some of the more common cheats I have witnessed:

Roll more dice then supposed to for hitting and wounding enemy
Roll less dice when taking armor saves
Pickup dice very quickly including some that missedMove units extra distance during movement phase to help reach assault
Loaded dice
Claim additional wargear not actually on army list

- G

I've seen both of the bolded and one of my freinds had the dubious pleasure fo playing a person who did the italisized. Never have I seen loaded dice (although I was once accussed of loading my leadership dice to roll 11's and 12's, and my shooting to roll 1's and 2's). Nobody fails rolls like I do.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Here are some of the more common cheats I have witnessed:

Roll more dice then supposed to for hitting and wounding enemy
Roll less dice when taking armor saves
Pickup dice very quickly including some that missed
Move units extra distance during movement phase to help reach assault
Loaded dice
Claim additional wargear not actually on army list

- G

I've had most of these pulled on me.

One time during a tournament, my opponent had a drop podded dreadnougt to the left of two squads of grey hunters. and my death company jump packed over, assaulted the 1st squad, then massacred into the second squad. I moved them to the right, to make sure the unit would be out of assault range of the dread.

During his movement phase, I was asked a question and turned away from the table. When I turned back, his dread was about 4 inches from the unit. Now, I don't know the actual distance, but the dread was at one end of a footwide template before, and was at the other end of the template after he he.

I still beat him and took Best Sportsman at the tourney.

Nobody fails rolls like I do

I used to be that way, you just have to find the right army and the right dice color and your die karma will properly align.

I always use dice with the same color as my armies primary paint scheme, and mix the blood of a sacrificial virgin in with my highlight colors. Works like a charm

What I like to do during friendly games is laying my codex near the unit that has to move or charge. making it look like I need to get a tape measure or something for the game.
Taking in the effect that the length of the book is 11" I normally can assume that I can charge that turn.
I DO refrain from this during a RTT or any tourney.
This works well with my ravenors

Jinx wrote:What I like to do during friendly games is laying my codex near the unit that has to move or charge. making it look like I need to get a tape measure or something for the game.
Taking in the effect that the length of the book is 11" I normally can assume that I can charge that turn.
I DO refrain from this during a RTT or any tourney.
This works well with my ravenors

There a simple word for what you are doing in that case. It's measuring. If you know a dimension of some thing not part of the table (ie. the length and width of the table), and use it as a guide. That is measuring in a situation where it is not allowed, and thus gets the designation of cheating. If you ereally feel the need to measure might I suggest LoTR or some other game were measuring is a part of the game.

Ozymandias wrote:
If you target a unit then guess a range that you know will fail to hit them in order to hit a target out of LOS, then you may not be breaking any specific rule, but you certainly are going against the spirit of the rules.

Repeat after me: there is no such thing as the spirit of the rules.

mauleed wrote:Repeat after me: there is no such thing as the spirit of the rules.

Bullpuckey. The "Spirit of the Rules" haunted my dice for years after 2nd Edition died.

The spirit of the rules do exist.

Crush your enemy, but make him want to have a beer with you when it's done.

Cheating means less of the latter is likely to occur.

Sure they exist--in each gamer's head. Your "spirit of the rules" is not mine, and mine is not yours. That's why we go by the letter instead, or at least attempt to (GW sure doesn't make it easy sometimes).

With a title like this thread has, I expect to see people chanting "Jerry, Jerry", at any time.

mauleed wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

malfred wrote:Overguessing cannons is cheating? Can you explain this?

I'm thinking it's overguessing to hit a unit that is out of LOS behind the "target."

Overguessing with a cannon isn't cheating, or even unsporting, per Gav and an article he wrote for WD.

I'm sure I read exactly the opposite somewhere. I'm afraid that I don't take what Gav says as seriously as perhaps I should. :S

A cannon crew aiming at something they can't see and expending ammunition on it is absurd.

Just because the "spirit of the rules" isn't outlined in writing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that it is unwritten is what distinguishes it from the "letter of the rules."

Pariah Press wrote:

mauleed wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

malfred wrote:Overguessing cannons is cheating? Can you explain this?

I'm thinking it's overguessing to hit a unit that is out of LOS behind the "target."

Overguessing with a cannon isn't cheating, or even unsporting, per Gav and an article he wrote for WD.

I'm sure I read exactly the opposite somewhere. I'm afraid that I don't take what Gav says as seriously as perhaps I should. :S

A cannon crew aiming at something they can't see and expending ammunition on it is absurd.

Just because the "spirit of the rules" isn't outlined in writing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that it is unwritten is what distinguishes it from the "letter of the rules."

A beginner who overguesses is making an honest error in judgement. A longterm player who overguesses to hit a target behind has changed his target. He is not aiming at the target he has stated he is aiming at... in fact creating a situation wherin he abuses the spirit and letter of the rules. HE is not aiming at the initial target but rather the illegal target. This is a form of cheating for the following reasons:

1. The stated target is not the intended target.
2. The player has full knowledge of the illegality of the shot (ie. the number guessed is not correct for the stated target and thus not his best guess).
3. The new target is not a valid target (being out of line of sight).

By using a guess which is intended to target an illegal target, with full knowledge that you are intending to hit a target other than the stated target, you have broken the letter of the rules. You know the game well enough to win without abusing the rules. Why break the spirit and letter of the rules?

efarrer wrote:

Pariah Press wrote:

mauleed wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

malfred wrote:Overguessing cannons is cheating? Can you explain this?

I'm thinking it's overguessing to hit a unit that is out of LOS behind the "target."

Overguessing with a cannon isn't cheating, or even unsporting, per Gav and an article he wrote for WD.

I'm sure I read exactly the opposite somewhere. I'm afraid that I don't take what Gav says as seriously as perhaps I should. :S

A cannon crew aiming at something they can't see and expending ammunition on it is absurd.

Just because the "spirit of the rules" isn't outlined in writing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that it is unwritten is what distinguishes it from the "letter of the rules."

A beginner who overguesses is making an honest error in judgement. A longterm player who overguesses to hit a target behind has changed his target. He is not aiming at the target he has stated he is aiming at... in fact creating a situation wherin he abuses the spirit and letter of the rules. HE is not aiming at the initial target but rather the illegal target. This is a form of cheating for the following reasons:

Just want to see how far the quote chain can go. Umm... cannons. Anyone who overguesses should get the "dread in a sock" template upside the head.

The Power Cosmic wrote:

efarrer wrote:

Pariah Press wrote:

mauleed wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

malfred wrote:Overguessing cannons is cheating? Can you explain this?

I'm thinking it's overguessing to hit a unit that is out of LOS behind the "target."

Overguessing with a cannon isn't cheating, or even unsporting, per Gav and an article he wrote for WD.

I'm sure I read exactly the opposite somewhere. I'm afraid that I don't take what Gav says as seriously as perhaps I should. :S

A cannon crew aiming at something they can't see and expending ammunition on it is absurd.

Just because the "spirit of the rules" isn't outlined in writing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that it is unwritten is what distinguishes it from the "letter of the rules."

A beginner who overguesses is making an honest error in judgement. A longterm player who overguesses to hit a target behind has changed his target. He is not aiming at the target he has stated he is aiming at... in fact creating a situation wherin he abuses the spirit and letter of the rules. HE is not aiming at the initial target but rather the illegal target. This is a form of cheating for the following reasons:

Just want to see how far the quote chain can go. Umm... cannons. Anyone who overguesses should get the "dread in a sock" template upside the head.

I dunno. Couldn't a cannon crew arc their cannon a certain
degree? There are wizards and stuff on the battlefield and all,
maybe they could know there's a dude all the way over yonder.

I don't have to worry about cannons, though...

The Power Cosmic wrote:

efarrer wrote:

Pariah Press wrote:

mauleed wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

malfred wrote:Overguessing cannons is cheating? Can you explain this?

I'm thinking it's overguessing to hit a unit that is out of LOS behind the "target."

Overguessing with a cannon isn't cheating, or even unsporting, per Gav and an article he wrote for WD.

I'm sure I read exactly the opposite somewhere. I'm afraid that I don't take what Gav says as seriously as perhaps I should. :S

A cannon crew aiming at something they can't see and expending ammunition on it is absurd.

Just because the "spirit of the rules" isn't outlined in writing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that it is unwritten is what distinguishes it from the "letter of the rules."

A beginner who overguesses is making an honest error in judgement. A longterm player who overguesses to hit a target behind has changed his target. He is not aiming at the target he has stated he is aiming at... in fact creating a situation wherin he abuses the spirit and letter of the rules. HE is not aiming at the initial target but rather the illegal target. This is a form of cheating for the following reasons:

Just want to see how far the quote chain can go. Umm... cannons. Anyone who overguesses should get the "dread in a sock" template upside the head.

Quote chain FTW.

I have no problem with over-guessing from my opponent. If they want to try to hit something else, fine. Would I do it? Probably not, but mostly only because I don't play anything with Guess Range. Me and my bunch of pointy eared poofter armies....

Platuan4th wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

efarrer wrote:

Pariah Press wrote:

mauleed wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

malfred wrote:Overguessing cannons is cheating? Can you explain this?

I'm thinking it's overguessing to hit a unit that is out of LOS behind the "target."

Overguessing with a cannon isn't cheating, or even unsporting, per Gav and an article he wrote for WD.

I'm sure I read exactly the opposite somewhere. I'm afraid that I don't take what Gav says as seriously as perhaps I should. :S

A cannon crew aiming at something they can't see and expending ammunition on it is absurd.

Just because the "spirit of the rules" isn't outlined in writing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that it is unwritten is what distinguishes it from the "letter of the rules."

A beginner who overguesses is making an honest error in judgement. A longterm player who overguesses to hit a target behind has changed his target. He is not aiming at the target he has stated he is aiming at... in fact creating a situation wherin he abuses the spirit and letter of the rules. HE is not aiming at the initial target but rather the illegal target. This is a form of cheating for the following reasons:

Just want to see how far the quote chain can go. Umm... cannons. Anyone who overguesses should get the "dread in a sock" template upside the head.

Quote chain FTW.

I have no problem with over-guessing from my opponent. If they want to try to hit something else, fine. Would I do it? Probably not, but mostly only because I don't play anything with Guess Range. Me and my bunch of pointy eared poofter armies....

Maybe this will become more of an issue when GW releases the
Fantasy version of Apocalypse, um, and call it Ragnarok. Yeah,
that's it.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, I hope you know Pythagorean Theorem has nothing to do with angles. Pythagorean Theorem only deals with triangle side and hypotenuse lengths. If you were going to use angles you would need the law of sine’s and cosines, even then you need at least one known side length. If anyone has those tables (sine/cosine) memorized in their head and don't need a calculator, then they deserve to win hands down.

smart_alex wrote:At the risk of sounding pedantic, I hope you know Pythagorean Theorem has nothing to do with angles. Pythagorean Theorem only deals with triangle side and hypotenuse lengths. If you were going to use angles you would need the law of sine’s and cosines, even then you need at least one known side length. If anyone has those tables (sine/cosine) memorized in their head and don't need a calculator, then they deserve to win hands down.

It has to do with a single 90 degree angle.

malfred wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

efarrer wrote:

Pariah Press wrote:

mauleed wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

malfred wrote:Overguessing cannons is cheating? Can you explain this?

I'm thinking it's overguessing to hit a unit that is out of LOS behind the "target."

Overguessing with a cannon isn't cheating, or even unsporting, per Gav and an article he wrote for WD.

I'm sure I read exactly the opposite somewhere. I'm afraid that I don't take what Gav says as seriously as perhaps I should. :S

A cannon crew aiming at something they can't see and expending ammunition on it is absurd.

Just because the "spirit of the rules" isn't outlined in writing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that it is unwritten is what distinguishes it from the "letter of the rules."

A beginner who overguesses is making an honest error in judgement. A longterm player who overguesses to hit a target behind has changed his target. He is not aiming at the target he has stated he is aiming at... in fact creating a situation wherin he abuses the spirit and letter of the rules. HE is not aiming at the initial target but rather the illegal target. This is a form of cheating for the following reasons:

Just want to see how far the quote chain can go. Umm... cannons. Anyone who overguesses should get the "dread in a sock" template upside the head.

Quote chain FTW.

I have no problem with over-guessing from my opponent. If they want to try to hit something else, fine. Would I do it? Probably not, but mostly only because I don't play anything with Guess Range. Me and my bunch of pointy eared poofter armies....

Maybe this will become more of an issue when GW releases the
Fantasy version of Apocalypse, um, and call it Ragnarok. Yeah,
that's it.

One can only hope they do a Warhammer Fantasy: Ragnarok. Maybe we'll eventually see some interesting kits, like a Kemhrian Sphinx from Warmaster, an actual Franz on Dragon, new versions of Nagash and the Vermin Lord, plastic Stank, and a new Doomwheel. I know I'd actually get around to finishing my Skaven if a new Vermin Lord was done up, not that I don't love the old model.

mauleed wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:
If you target a unit then guess a range that you know will fail to hit them in order to hit a target out of LOS, then you may not be breaking any specific rule, but you certainly are going against the spirit of the rules.

Repeat after me: there is no such thing as the spirit of the rules.

Another reason why we will never play a game together.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

efarrer wrote:A beginner who overguesses is making an honest error in judgement. A longterm player who overguesses to hit a target behind has changed his target. He is not aiming at the target he has stated he is aiming at... in fact creating a situation wherin he abuses the spirit and letter of the rules. HE is not aiming at the initial target but rather the illegal target. This is a form of cheating for the following reasons:

1. The stated target is not the intended target.
2. The player has full knowledge of the illegality of the shot (ie. the number guessed is not correct for the stated target and thus not his best guess).
3. The new target is not a valid target (being out of line of sight).

By using a guess which is intended to target an illegal target, with full knowledge that you are intending to hit a target other than the stated target, you have broken the letter of the rules. You know the game well enough to win without abusing the rules. Why break the spirit and letter of the rules?

When you're rules argument involves mind reading, it's generally not a very good rules argument.

I ran a IG army in a RTT in WA my first battle was with a Tau player i was shooting at his broadsides with shield drones the guy never said who was making the save and when rolled a 2 he said the Broadside was making the save now at this time i knew nothing about tau .

In any right triangle the hypotenuse is equal to the square root of the sum of the square of the two other sides...

C = SQRT[A*A + B*B]

- G

I still feel like the one I see the most is movement. From 6.75" infantry moves in 40k to wheeling moves that guys measure in a straight line instead of a pseudo-arc, that (both literal and figurative) corner cutting hurts.

One of the biggest non-arguments I ever had at a GT was over Tau broadsides in a unit trying to shoot one at a time (as in not selecting all their targets at once).

one little thing: I always find it cool when playing on someone else table and the owner tell everyone, before the game starts:
My table is 4" by 7".
Just a little bit of sportmanship

mauleed wrote:
When you're rules argument involves mind reading, it's generally not a very good rules argument.

When the case is obvious and as you've said you never miss your intended target , then it's not mind reading, it's identifying a cheater.

You know when you overguess, don't you? Even if the other person doesn't know you have broken the rules, you know that you have. So I'll say it out loud and with gusto. The rules say you can't target something you can't see. If a person overguesses deliberately, and it beggers belief that they don't know what they are doing, then they are choosing a new target, not the one that they have said they are targetting, and not one they could legally target, and as well they have ignored the rules of cannons regarding the best guess.

That's not mind reading, it's being alert.

The person who chooses to overguess to target a model he cannot legally target is a cheater, by the word of the rules. If a person is telling people "wink wink nudge nudge, I'm aiming at the unit 10" in front" and guess 20", they have exposed themselves as a cheat. Cannons do not ignore line of sight. They had no intention of hitting the target, and choose to do something that would fail. It's cheating pure and simple. You know it, which is why you suggested mind reading was required to know intent.

You did not choose, I note, to address the line of sight rules. Instead, you try to say I'm saying mind reading is required. It is not. Just a desire on both sides to respect the rules, not attempt to bypass them. That Gav suggested it as a possible option is not a suprise. Have you read any of the battle reports? Expecting designers to follow the rules seems to be a stretch.

In the end it's no different then the person who slips that extra inch of movement in during the movement phase or says, "Of course I have a ward save". The other person may not know they been cheated, but the cheater does. Shame on anyone who makes the choice to cheat, but it's thier shame, not mine. I've given you the rules and all you've come back with if it requires mind reading it doesn't count. Here's the truth, if a person knows they are cheating or are caught making an error it's up to them to address thier behavior.

So ultimately I'm saying the guesser needs to read thier own darn mind and choose not to cheat. If you have an actual counterarguement using the rules to support you please tell me where the rules allow you to choose that illegal target.

Here are the pages and rules I used to reach this position

Line of Sight (p.26 paragraph 1)
Firing a cannon (p.87 paragraph 2, final line)
Intent (based on the charge ruling in the current Warhammer 7 FAQ page 2 first paragraph of answer of first charge question.)

If you can find a page which supports your position, please give me the location.

That's alot of talk about people cheating without you referencing a rule being broken. (and no, a page number with no explaination doesn't cut it).

The rules are crystal clear on the point: I pick whatever model I want to target, and guess any distance I want. And that's exactly what the overguesser does....something explicitly allowed in the rules.

But you keep on with the longwinded posts. I'm sure someone somewhere is reading all of that.

mauleed wrote:That's alot of talk about people cheating without you referencing a rule being broken. (and no, a page number with no explaination doesn't cut it).

The rules are crystal clear on the point: I pick whatever model I want to target, and guess any distance I want. And that's exactly what the overguesser does....something explicitly allowed in the rules.

But you keep on with the longwinded posts. I'm sure someone somewhere is reading all of that.

It is crystal clear you intend to cheat.

Don't sugar coat it.

Just because the rules don't explicitly say you can't, you say they say you can. That's not an arguement, that a cheater's excuse.

Actually, the RAW explicitly allows him to do so. Same went for 40k in 3rd ed.

Consider it poor sportsmanship if you like, but it is by definition not cheating. Exploiting a glitch, maybe, but it breaks no rule.

mauleed wrote:That's alot of talk about people cheating without you referencing a rule being broken. (and no, a page number with no explaination doesn't cut it).

The rules are crystal clear on the point: I pick whatever model I want to target, and guess any distance I want. And that's exactly what the overguesser does....something explicitly allowed in the rules.

But you keep on with the longwinded posts. I'm sure someone somewhere is reading all of that.

To be perfectly clear the lines are


p.26 "Only those who have line of sight to the target can shoot and the rest automatically miss."

p.87 " (remember the target must be visible from the machine itself)"

FAQ Using the deliberate failed charge as an example "Declaring a charge you know can not be completed ... is cheating)

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Actually, the RAW explicitly allows him to do so. Same went for 40k in 3rd ed.

Consider it poor sportsmanship if you like, but it is by definition not cheating. Exploiting a glitch, maybe, but it breaks no rule.

If you do something you know will fail, for your own advantage you have cheated. You can't charge a unit you obviously cannot reach for the exact same reason.
The action is not legal, so it fails because completing the action = cheating.

I have a mate I played the other day, and I ahd either locked everything in combat, deepstriking or dead. and I got him to deepstrike shoot with the Zoanthroape which forced my templars to assualt, it the lictor following my men just behind. at the end of the turn I started my turn and he accused me of cheating and skipping his turn. I tried to explain it to him for about 15 minutes, but he wouldn't relent and forfeited... The moral don't let people cheat!!!

efarrer wrote:

mauleed wrote:That's alot of talk about people cheating without you referencing a rule being broken. (and no, a page number with no explaination doesn't cut it).

The rules are crystal clear on the point: I pick whatever model I want to target, and guess any distance I want. And that's exactly what the overguesser does....something explicitly allowed in the rules.

But you keep on with the longwinded posts. I'm sure someone somewhere is reading all of that.

To be perfectly clear the lines are


p.26 "Only those who have line of sight to the target can shoot and the rest automatically miss."

p.87 " (remember the target must be visible from the machine itself)"

FAQ Using the deliberate failed charge as an example "Declaring a charge you know can not be completed ... is cheating)

That's the rub. You are saying you are targeting the Glade Riders but in reality you are targeting the Treeman out of LOS behind them. Tell me how that's not breaking the above rule. Just because you say you are targeting the Glade Riders (even though you know that you are not)?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Both sides of this argument are being intentionally dense. PLEASE STOP IT.

Side 1: The RULES AS WRITTEN allow you to pick a unit you can see, then pick a range at which your cannonball starts it's path of carnage.

Side 2: When you intentionally choose a range which cannot possibly hit the named target, you are not actually targeting that unit.

Using RAW, there is TECHICALLY nothing wrong with overguessing. This is however, the worst kind of .

This could be solved with a rule (either in the rulebook or a house rule) that if the cannon shot misses the named target (i.e the path of the cannon ball after land+bounce doesn't impact the named unit) then it misses all models it would have otherwise hit.

After 15+ posts on this topic, hasn't it become painfully obvious sides have been taken and no one is moving from them? Let's move on, shall we?

Viperion

efarrer wrote:
knowing the measure of your finger tip to elbow

The tip of my thumb to the end of my palm (if that makes any sense) is 6 inches, and power to me for congradulating my opponent with an occasional thumb's up.

When I first started I was a horrible measurer, but after playing one opponent over and over and over again and guessing my D-Cannons all the time I can guess 24" to about a half an inch, 1/4" is pushing it :p. But it came in handy later when I had a multimelta land speeder zipping around.

I knew a guy who would fudge his movement, adding about a half an inch. "it's just relaxed" he would say, the greatest Weird Pete rules lawyer of all time. That's the only thing I would really consider cheating, other than padding lists. Oh and picking up a couple extra dice for the to-wound roll, sometimes you have to keep an eye on that.

What to do? They're your friends, presumably. If they are pushed to cheat you can either take it as a compliment or walk away. The measuring thing you can figure out by measuring from deployment. In a store environment it's a different story, but they are just the guys at the store. No offence to the guys at the store.

efarrer wrote:

smart_alex wrote:At the risk of sounding pedantic, I hope you know Pythagorean Theorem has nothing to do with angles. Pythagorean Theorem only deals with triangle side and hypotenuse lengths. If you were going to use angles you would need the law of sine’s and cosines, even then you need at least one known side length. If anyone has those tables (sine/cosine) memorized in their head and don't need a calculator, then they deserve to win hands down.

It has to do with a single 90 degree angle.

That much is a given. He is talking about measuring the other two angles. you dont need to measure a 90 degree angle, it's perpendicular. If you have to explain that to anyone, they probably dont know anything about math. He meant the other two. Also, pyth. thm. only works for right triangles anyways. So why would you measure anything else? Measuring the other two angles does you no good. Measuring the lengths does though.

Personally I dont think you should measure. Its called guessing for a reason. I use Pyth thm, I estimate the two other lengths of a triangle then figure out the hypotenuse, or resultant vector of the two. Im usually within an inch or less. I dont see how this is cheating at all. As long as you dont measure. Reguardless I think the guessing is fun, it keeps the kiddies away. Nobody enforces that though. Everyone just says there in no more guessing. I dont see it anywhere in the rules or FAQ that guessing is gone. If that is the case then why are the 5th ed codices still coming out with weapon ranges that have "G"s infront of them? IDK.

And I don't see anything wrong with Pythagoreaning. It's the same as calculating averages before rolling eg if my 14 guardians shoot and charge those 5 terminators are they going to do anything?.

There's some tricks to Pythagoreaning (say 3 and 4 gives 5 or 2' and 3' gives < 48", and it can come in handy for longer ranges. But I find it easier to just guess anyway using the fact that the table is 4' across.

Tacobake wrote:And I don't see anything wrong with Pythagoreaning. It's the same as calculating averages before rolling eg if my 14 guardians shoot and charge those 5 terminators are they going to do anything?.

There's some tricks to Pythagoreaning (say 3 and 4 gives 5 or 2' and 3' gives < 48", and it can come in handy for longer ranges. But I find it easier to just guess anyway using the fact that the table is 4' across.

THe problem was the person was saying he measured the a+b= and then did the calculation to get the c, all the while telling his opponent that that was not "measuring" the distance to the target.

efarrer wrote:

Tacobake wrote:And I don't see anything wrong with Pythagoreaning. It's the same as calculating averages before rolling eg if my 14 guardians shoot and charge those 5 terminators are they going to do anything?.

There's some tricks to Pythagoreaning (say 3 and 4 gives 5 or 2' and 3' gives < 48", and it can come in handy for longer ranges. But I find it easier to just guess anyway using the fact that the table is 4' across.

THe problem was the person was saying he measured the a+b= and then did the calculation to get the c, all the while telling his opponent that that was not "measuring" the distance to the target.

sounds like premeasuring, to me

mauleed wrote:

efarrer wrote:A beginner who overguesses is making an honest error in judgement. A longterm player who overguesses to hit a target behind has changed his target. He is not aiming at the target he has stated he is aiming at... in fact creating a situation wherin he abuses the spirit and letter of the rules. HE is not aiming at the initial target but rather the illegal target. This is a form of cheating for the following reasons:

1. The stated target is not the intended target.
2. The player has full knowledge of the illegality of the shot (ie. the number guessed is not correct for the stated target and thus not his best guess).
3. The new target is not a valid target (being out of line of sight).

By using a guess which is intended to target an illegal target, with full knowledge that you are intending to hit a target other than the stated target, you have broken the letter of the rules. You know the game well enough to win without abusing the rules. Why break the spirit and letter of the rules?

When you're rules argument involves mind reading, it's generally not a very good rules argument.

When it's completely obvious that someone is overguessing, no "mind reading" is necessary. When it's less than obvious, the sportmanlike thing would be to say nothing and let them take the shot. If my opponent is wearing an eye patch, I will give them the benefit of the doubt regardless.

Sound good?

I don't see a lot of difference between different sorts of assistance in estimating the range of a shot. The table is littered with models on 1 inch bases between 0 and 2 inches apart. It is not usually difficult to use these as a guide to ranges.

The whole thing about guess weapons and no pre-measurement is silly and childish and smacks of playing with toy soldiers.

Just let people measure everything. End of problem.

Viperion wrote:Both sides of this argument are being intentionally dense. PLEASE STOP IT.


This could be solved with a rule (either in the rulebook or a house rule) that if the cannon shot misses the named target (i.e the path of the cannon ball after land+bounce doesn't impact the named unit) then it misses all models it would have otherwise hit.

Viperion

Sure, let's totally re-write the rules for cannons, mortars, Helstorm rocket batteries, the EarthShaker, the Hellcannon, the Doom Divers, & stone throwers. Let's simplify. Eliminate both the artillery die and the scatter die from the game. Get rid of the round templates, and just say that artillery shots do either d6 or 2d6 hits, at strength whatever, with no armor saves. If you can see it, you can shoot at it using your ballistic skill.

I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic, or if I am actually starting to like this idea... .

skullspliter888 wrote:I ran a IG army in a RTT in WA my first battle was with a Tau player i was shooting at his broadsides with shield drones the guy never said who was making the save and when rolled a 2 he said the Broadside was making the save now at this time i knew nothing about tau .

The shield drone rules were changed to accomodate majority toughness and saves, bro.

fellblade wrote:

Viperion wrote:Both sides of this argument are being intentionally dense. PLEASE STOP IT.


This could be solved with a rule (either in the rulebook or a house rule) that if the cannon shot misses the named target (i.e the path of the cannon ball after land+bounce doesn't impact the named unit) then it misses all models it would have otherwise hit.

Viperion

Sure, let's totally re-write the rules for cannons, mortars, Helstorm rocket batteries, the EarthShaker, the Hellcannon, the Doom Divers, & stone throwers. Let's simplify. Eliminate both the artillery die and the scatter die from the game. Get rid of the round templates, and just say that artillery shots do either d6 or 2d6 hits, at strength whatever, with no armor saves. If you can see it, you can shoot at it using your ballistic skill.

I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic, or if I am actually starting to like this idea... .

I think guessing and scatter dice and the such are traditional inclusions from the grand old days of beer and pretzel war-gaming.

I definately agree that it sounds like a workable idea, especially if BS gets involved.

I agree with pariah. There is no way to proove they are overguessing. You would have to be able to proove that you can read thier mind. I would just let them, then dock em on sports. Although one could argue that it is simply a tactic. Although a slightly underhanded one, Ive seen worse.

Well, for the case of using a Cannon to overshoot intentionally against a unit...this is my way of handling it.

You're guessing 30" for a unit clearly 10" from your cannon?

Are you stupid?

No?

Do you think I'm stupid?

Go ahead and measure.

I'll break your tape, and then your arm.

Funny thing is, I've only had to do it once.

I've never had a problem since--and I despise playing Fantasy, by 10th edition the rules will still suck, they'll just suck differently.

Yeah. I'm sure you broke someone's arm over a game of Warhammer. :S

Stelek, no one believes any of your crap.

Anyway, I tell people I'm doing it now. And if they don't like it, too bad. It's legal, and encouraged by GW. That's more than I need to do it with a clear conscience.

If someone wants to fantasize about breaking my tape measure over it, that's even better.

mauleed wrote:Stelek, no one believes any of your crap.

Only thing I've agreed with you so far on. Bloody immature thing for him to say.

Oh right, immature.

You guys can't seem to figure out how to play a damn children's game honestly.

I'm glad no one believes me. Saves the shock for the in-game first meeting.

Yes, what's a children's game without a broken arm or two?

mauleed wrote:Anyway, I tell people I'm doing it now. And if they don't like it, too bad. It's legal, and encouraged by GW. That's more than I need to do it with a clear conscience.

Fair enough. If, by some happy chance, I have the opportunity to game with you, let's play something other than Fantasy, 'kay?

Sure, just as long as you don't get upset when my lascannon guy moves and shoots his bolter.

Hey, it's not like I'm going to complain if you do it to me. I'm not looking for a leg up, I'm just looking to play by the rules, even if you or I don't like them.

We were talking about Fantasy? ZOMG. lol

That's what I thought when they mentioned a cannon.

mauleed wrote:Sure, just as long as you don't get upset when my lascannon guy moves and shoots his bolter.

Eh, what's one more bolter? Especially if you went to the trouble to model it on. Besides, I have assault marines with flamers, bolt pistols, and chainswords, so we'll be in good company there.

Hey, it's not like I'm going to complain if you do it to me. I'm not looking for a leg up, I'm just looking to play by the rules, even if you or I don't like them.

Oh, I know. I guess that there are certain moves (clipping, shooting over units with cannons) which, while not strictly-speaking illegal, strike me as being extremely bad manners. They make it difficult to "get into" the game and treat it as a battle simulation, because they are completely artificial, having no analogue in the background of the setting. Obviously, when one is dealing with the fantastical elements (demons, dragons, magic, etc.) it becomes far easier to suspend one's disbelief when something odd happens.

mauleed wrote:Sure, just as long as you don't get upset when my lascannon guy moves and shoots his bolter.

Hey, it's not like I'm going to complain if you do it to me. I'm not looking for a leg up, I'm just looking to play by the rules, even if you or I don't like them.

As long as you don't play Blood Angels or Dark Angels (I presume) I'm perfectly fine with you doing that. As far as I know those are the only two books that specifically replace the bolter when you upgrade. My memory says the others use the phrase may take, or something similar.

That's one of the many reasons I prefer 40K. I have fewer rules arguements.

Sure, just as long as you don't get upset when my lascannon guy moves and shoots his bolter.

Or Chaos... as long as you aren't playing them, either. The book specifies that you're REPLACING the bolter when you buy a special or heavy weapon on any selection that allows it.


Eric

But mauleed plays Ultramarines, like a real "Dakka Tough Guy!"

Pariah Press wrote: But mauleed plays Ultramarines, like a real "Dakka Tough Guy!"

Until they got hammered by the new minidex, I'd always be willing to go BA vs Smurfs. Now I'd have to give the game to the smurfs without arguement. I feel the BA book is that bad.

Though for other marine players, I'd look at the PoS books given by the cult of JJ and know what is coming when the main book is redone. I think it's safe to safe the fun varient stuff will be gone by this time next year, with people of certain other boards rejoicing at thier loss... But that's for another thread.

malfred wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

efarrer wrote:

Pariah Press wrote:

mauleed wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

malfred wrote:Overguessing cannons is cheating? Can you explain this?

I'm thinking it's overguessing to hit a unit that is out of LOS behind the "target."

Overguessing with a cannon isn't cheating, or even unsporting, per Gav and an article he wrote for WD.

I'm sure I read exactly the opposite somewhere. I'm afraid that I don't take what Gav says as seriously as perhaps I should. :S

A cannon crew aiming at something they can't see and expending ammunition on it is absurd.

Just because the "spirit of the rules" isn't outlined in writing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that it is unwritten is what distinguishes it from the "letter of the rules."

A beginner who overguesses is making an honest error in judgement. A longterm player who overguesses to hit a target behind has changed his target. He is not aiming at the target he has stated he is aiming at... in fact creating a situation wherin he abuses the spirit and letter of the rules. HE is not aiming at the initial target but rather the illegal target. This is a form of cheating for the following reasons:

Just want to see how far the quote chain can go. Umm... cannons. Anyone who overguesses should get the "dread in a sock" template upside the head.

Quote chain FTW.

I have no problem with over-guessing from my opponent. If they want to try to hit something else, fine. Would I do it? Probably not, but mostly only because I don't play anything with Guess Range. Me and my bunch of pointy eared poofter armies....

Maybe this will become more of an issue when GW releases the
Fantasy version of Apocalypse, um, and call it Ragnarok. Yeah,
that's it.

OVERGUESSING can never realistically be outlawed. There is no way to "prove" what your opponent was thinking. You may suspect it, but you can't prove it.

Sure you can. I admit it.

mauleed wrote:Sure you can. I admit it.

You could just be lying to avoid looking stupid...

mauleed wrote:

efarrer wrote:A beginner who overguesses is making an honest error in judgement. A longterm player who overguesses to hit a target behind has changed his target. He is not aiming at the target he has stated he is aiming at... in fact creating a situation wherin he abuses the spirit and letter of the rules. HE is not aiming at the initial target but rather the illegal target. This is a form of cheating for the following reasons:

1. The stated target is not the intended target.
2. The player has full knowledge of the illegality of the shot (ie. the number guessed is not correct for the stated target and thus not his best guess).
3. The new target is not a valid target (being out of line of sight).

By using a guess which is intended to target an illegal target, with full knowledge that you are intending to hit a target other than the stated target, you have broken the letter of the rules. You know the game well enough to win without abusing the rules. Why break the spirit and letter of the rules?

When you're rules argument involves mind reading, it's generally not a very good rules argument.

Oh! So it's not cheating, because you can get away with it. Nice to see you being so honest.

Salvation122 wrote:

mauleed wrote:When you're rules argument involves mind reading, it's generally not a very good rules argument.

Oh! So it's not cheating, because you can get away with it. Nice to see you being so honest.

And so nice to see you being so accusatory.

With the whole Cannon versus Overshoot thingy...

I actually agree with both sides of the argument, weirdly.

1) There is no rule that states that you have to hit the target you are aiming at (bit like Scatter still being able to hit other units in 40K) - as long as you are aiming at a target in LOS and range then the shooting requirements are fulfilled...

2) It does appear to break LOS rules (although with the Treeman example, isn't it moot as the Treeman is a Large Target?).


Now, when it's blatant, I agree that it should be called, or sportsman points docked.

But, what about if said Treeman lurking in the Woods is 5" behind the Glade Guard...

...guess is off by 1", and then the "bounce/wind(whatever it's called)" roll is 4".

Would you dock points - there is no way to tell if the extra inch of guess was intentional, or luck of the dice?

A very minor point, and unlikely to occur, but just thought I would mention it.


Personally, I have seen:

Extra movement (vehicle front-to-back, for example)
Fudging assault distances (I play Guard, its amazing just HOW many people want to get into combat from 13" away)
Fast dice pick-up(one guy, banned from the group now, was so fast the dice had barely stopped moving). My way around this is to roll the bunch of dice, check the opponent is paying attention, then start picking out the hits, allowing the opponent to help pick them up

There are a few other examples that I can't quite remember right now.

I just think it is a little...sad that someone has to cheat to try to win at a game of toy soldiers. I can understand it from some of the younger gamers, but in adults, nah. Especially the "I must win or the universe ends" type people [yes, it's nice to win - and I don't care I lost to you if you outplay me with a better list or better tactics, but no need to cheat to make it happen] - I almost feel sorry for them.

Treadhead. Spot on.

If you have to cheat to win, wouldn't it be more fun to stay at home and play with yourself?

Pun intended.

But the other way, they can have BOTH.

Treadhead wrote:With the whole Cannon versus Overshoot thingy...
Now, when it's blatant, I agree that it should be called, or sportsman points docked.

But, what about if said Treeman lurking in the Woods is 5" behind the Glade Guard...

...guess is off by 1", and then the "bounce/wind(whatever it's called)" roll is 4".

Would you dock points - there is no way to tell if the extra inch of guess was intentional, or luck of the dice?

Of course I wouldn't call it for 1". I would give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, and only call him on it if it was a clear-cut case.

Pariah Press wrote:

Treadhead wrote:With the whole Cannon versus Overshoot thingy...
Now, when it's blatant, I agree that it should be called, or sportsman points docked.

But, what about if said Treeman lurking in the Woods is 5" behind the Glade Guard...

...guess is off by 1", and then the "bounce/wind(whatever it's called)" roll is 4".

Would you dock points - there is no way to tell if the extra inch of guess was intentional, or luck of the dice?

Of course I wouldn't call it for 1". I would give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, and only call him on it if it was a clear-cut case.

...like when the guess was off by something egregious, like, you know, three inches. Three inches wrong on the guess, plus a '10' on the first artillery dice roll, and another '10' for the bounce... that's like, almost two feet of overguessing!

If you have to cheat to win, wouldn't it be more fun to stay at home and play with yourself?

But the other way, they can have BOTH.

I really hope 5th edition contains a rule that allows you to declare victory* if there's a rhythmic thumping on the underside of the table from your grinning, sweat-beaded, heavy-breathing opponent.

*and swift exit

The shield drone rules were changed to accomodate majority toughness and saves, bro. so that was legal stonefox? if so i was pissed for nothing

Cannons do shoot on a parabolic arc. It makes total sense that you could shoot over the heads of a unit of Dwarves and have the cannon ball land somewhere behind them.

The rules make sense there. A rule that just reflects reality is hard to call too cheesy. A better question is why archers can't do the same sort of thing.

Asmodai wrote:Cannons do shoot on a parabolic arc. It makes total sense that you could shoot over the heads of a unit of Dwarves and have the cannon ball land somewhere behind them.

The rules make sense there. A rule that just reflects reality is hard to call too cheesy. A better question is why archers can't do the same sort of thing.

But it doesn't actually allow the targeting of the second unit. LOS rules are not contermanded in the cannon section. In fact in the catapult section (which does function in a a near perfect parabolic arc) it mentions that you need to follow the line of sight rules to shoot with the catapult, and in the cannon section itself it mentions LOS rules must be followed. It is allowable to target a unit and hope it goes through to hit the target behind that unit, but when you target a unit you cannot see, and (by choosing to angle the shoot through the unit and past into the second unit, you have ceased to be playing by the rules of the game. Not just the sportsmanship aspects but the actual rules. To target a unit you can't see by way of overguessing is simply put cheating by the current rules of the game as the target must be visible from the cannon(p.87 paragraph 2 sentence 2), and the deliberate overguess establishes that you know the targeted model is not the model you declared out loud, but one you could not legally target (otherwise you would have said I target the Enchantress behind that unit and guessed the same number), By choosing to overguess you thus reveal your knowledge that what you are doing is not allowed by the rules as they are written.

skullspliter888 wrote:The shield drone rules were changed to accomodate majority toughness and saves, bro. so that was legal stonefox? if so i was pissed for nothing

Don't taze me bro!

efarrer wrote:It is allowable to target a unit and hope it goes through to hit the target behind that unit, but when you target a unit you cannot see, and (by choosing to angle the shoot through the unit and past into the second unit, you have ceased to be playing by the rules of the game.

Except that this is completely untrue. I'll ask you to do exactly the same thing as everyone else who makes your claim. Please show us what rule is being broken by guessing an arbitrary distance that is longer than the actual distance to the unit.

To target a unit you can't see by way of overguessing is simply put cheating by the current rules of the game as the target must be visible from the cannon(p.87 paragraph 2 sentence 2), and the deliberate overguess establishes that you know the targeted model is not the model you declared out loud, but one you could not legally target (otherwise you would have said I target the Enchantress behind that unit and guessed the same number), By choosing to overguess you thus reveal your knowledge that what you are doing is not allowed by the rules as they are written.

Please prove that the a player who selects a distance that is too long is overguessing the distance to the target. Note that you will be unable to do so since measurement only occurs _after_ the guess is made.

I know that you, like everyone else on the side of the argument that would rather play their own imaginary rules than the ones that are written down, will simply ignore this demand and continue to pretend that players who are breaking no rules are cheating.

efarrer wrote:

Asmodai wrote:Cannons do shoot on a parabolic arc. It makes total sense that you could shoot over the heads of a unit of Dwarves and have the cannon ball land somewhere behind them.

The rules make sense there. A rule that just reflects reality is hard to call too cheesy. A better question is why archers can't do the same sort of thing.

But it doesn't actually allow the targeting of the second unit. LOS rules are not contermanded in the cannon section. In fact in the catapult section (which does function in a a near perfect parabolic arc) it mentions that you need to follow the line of sight rules to shoot with the catapult, and in the cannon section itself it mentions LOS rules must be followed. It is allowable to target a unit and hope it goes through to hit the target behind that unit, but when you target a unit you cannot see, and (by choosing to angle the shoot through the unit and past into the second unit, you have ceased to be playing by the rules of the game. Not just the sportsmanship aspects but the actual rules. To target a unit you can't see by way of overguessing is simply put cheating by the current rules of the game as the target must be visible from the cannon(p.87 paragraph 2 sentence 2), and the deliberate overguess establishes that you know the targeted model is not the model you declared out loud, but one you could not legally target (otherwise you would have said I target the Enchantress behind that unit and guessed the same number), By choosing to overguess you thus reveal your knowledge that what you are doing is not allowed by the rules as they are written.

That's what we in debate club call 'begging the question'.

"It's cheating because you cheated!"

The target was legal declared, and a legal value was guessed. Case closed. Move on, you're making a fool of yourself.

mauleed wrote:

That's what we in debate club call 'begging the question'.

"It's cheating because you cheated!"

The target was legal declared, and a legal value was guessed. Case closed. Move on, you're making a fool of yourself.

No it's called cheating.



A fair number of people have agreed with my assessment.
You've admitted you know what the actual target is, and the one defining characteristic of cheaters I have met over time is thier tendency to try and bully others when caught...

Case closed. Move on, you're making a fool of yourself.

Buoyancy wrote:

efarrer wrote:It is allowable to target a unit and hope it goes through to hit the target behind that unit, but when you target a unit you cannot see, and (by choosing to angle the shoot through the unit and past into the second unit, you have ceased to be playing by the rules of the game.

Except that this is completely untrue. I'll ask you to do exactly the same thing as everyone else who makes your claim. Please show us what rule is being broken by guessing an arbitrary distance that is longer than the actual distance to the unit.

[
Please prove that the a player who selects a distance that is too long is overguessing the distance to the target. Note that you will be unable to do so since measurement only occurs _after_ the guess is made.

I know that you, like everyone else on the side of the argument that would rather play their own imaginary rules than the ones that are written down, will simply ignore this demand and continue to pretend that players who are breaking no rules are cheating.

And that is a great example of the problem of so-called guess range weapons. Anyone who has played the game or worked in a field which requires measurements is not guessing. They know the distance. I know I do. I can eyeball well enough to know distances to within an inch. And if you can do that it's not a guess. Since you know the target, the deliberate over guess is a cheat, bypassing the rules of the game by ignoring the line of sight rules.

efarrer wrote:

Buoyancy wrote:

efarrer wrote:It is allowable to target a unit and hope it goes through to hit the target behind that unit, but when you target a unit you cannot see, and (by choosing to angle the shoot through the unit and past into the second unit, you have ceased to be playing by the rules of the game.

Except that this is completely untrue. I'll ask you to do exactly the same thing as everyone else who makes your claim. Please show us what rule is being broken by guessing an arbitrary distance that is longer than the actual distance to the unit.

[
Please prove that the a player who selects a distance that is too long is overguessing the distance to the target. Note that you will be unable to do so since measurement only occurs _after_ the guess is made.

I know that you, like everyone else on the side of the argument that would rather play their own imaginary rules than the ones that are written down, will simply ignore this demand and continue to pretend that players who are breaking no rules are cheating.

And that is a great example of the problem of so-called guess range weapons. Anyone who has played the game or worked in a field which requires measurements is not guessing. They know the distance. I know I do. I can eyeball well enough to know distances to within an inch. And if you can do that it's not a guess. Since you know the target, the deliberate over guess is a cheat, bypassing the rules of the game by ignoring the line of sight rules.

Hence why 'Guess' range weapons in 40K now just scatter a bit more widely. It's a pretty reasonable solution. I believe they did about the same thing with Nova Cannons in BFG too. I suspect the guess element only remains in WFB because estimating ranges for charges is such an important element, so it fits in reasonably.

(With Cannons, it would be fairly easy to remove the Guess element and just have the Artillery Die number represent the number of ranks the cannonball penetrates.)

efarrer wrote:A fair number of people have agreed with my assessment.

So what? About 30% of people anywhere will believe just about any random thing, no matter how little evidence there is for it.

efarrer wrote:And that is a great example of the problem of so-called guess range weapons. Anyone who has played the game or worked in a field which requires measurements is not guessing. They know the distance. I know I do. I can eyeball well enough to know distances to within an inch. And if you can do that it's not a guess. Since you know the target, the deliberate over guess is a cheat, bypassing the rules of the game by ignoring the line of sight rules.

Do we really have to continue to listen to your imaginary version of the rules? Please show us which rule the player is breaking by picking an arbitrary distance for the cannon shot. Until you can do so, I'm simply going to remind you that you are incorrect.

@ mauleed
Do you really have a bolter modeled on your lascannon troops and fire the bolter if it moves? I'm not quite sure how I would react to that if I saw it in person. Laugh hysterically or stand there dumbfounded.

You are a clever, clever man. But it still stinks of

Buoyancy wrote:

efarrer wrote:And that is a great example of the problem of so-called guess range weapons. Anyone who has played the game or worked in a field which requires measurements is not guessing. They know the distance. I know I do. I can eyeball well enough to know distances to within an inch. And if you can do that it's not a guess. Since you know the target, the deliberate over guess is a cheat, bypassing the rules of the game by ignoring the line of sight rules.

Do we really have to continue to listen to your imaginary version of the rules? Please show us which rule the player is breaking by picking an arbitrary distance for the cannon shot. Until you can do so, I'm simply going to remind you that you are incorrect.

Per the FAQ

You cannot choose to charge if there is no reasonable chance of success.

Per LOS (p.26)
A shot aimed at a target that cannot be legally hit automatically misses.

Per cannons (p. 87)
The target must be in line of sight

Thus by using each part of these together. Overguessing isn't simply cheese, it is illegal, whereas guessing accurately and hoping to pass beyond the unit by the dice would not be.

It's not simply going against the spirit of the rules (which specifies you should try to guess the distance to your stated as accurately as possible), but cheating because the person (ie. Mauleed) has full knowledge that he will miss. And I refer back to Mauleed's brag earlier in this thread as a refernce point for his knowledge that he is not attempting to hit the target he has jokingly called. I should note the document he uses to support his arguement was in a prior edition, and no longer has relevance.

Yes I do and yes I do.

The problem with efarrer's whole premise is that it depends on 'target' being something other than what the rules actually say it is. It's a great argument until someone cracks the rulebook open and looks to see what the target of a cannon shot is.

If I was fortunate enough to play him, I'd overguess even when I didn't need to, just to see him flip out over it. If I can get him to throw some figs, or threaten me with violence, then it's like christmas morning.

OK guys, let's take this to the wildly popular WHFB You Make Da Call forum. Just want to talk about incidents of cheating here and not accuse other posters of cheating.