Just wondered what people's thoughts on this were. So for example if your opponent forgets his unit has counter-attack do you remind them about it, or is their own fault for not knowing/remembering their own rules? And where do you draw the line, how much of an effort do you make to help your opponent out (reminding if they forget to move a unit etc).

It is not my responsibilty to remind my opponent of their rules or call them out when they misplay in a tournament game.

Our local 40k group has a player who gets all his rules confused, not knowing how to roll his Hits, asking for my Strength when he wounds.my units, etc. When we play for fun, I ask him why he's asking me for the wrong stats or failing Hits that I know he made. When we play in a tournament, I supply my numbers and rules, but his army is his problem.

I've always been in favor of reminding people of non-optional rules they have, for fun or in tournament play. 40k is a complicated game and not everyone has enough time or mental real estate to dedicate to this game to get all the rules right all the time. Plus it feels nice to win because I outplayed my opponent and not because he forgot a rule. Also, I recently suffered a minor stroke and my memory has been a little shaky so I can hope that a little karma will come back my way regarding remembering all my rules...

Coming from a MTG background, in a tournament I would let my opponent forget his rules unless it benefits me. At a competitive level I'm a player, not a baby sitter. In a friendly game I'm the first person to make sure my opponent has all their rules right (As the manager of my game store I often chime in on other friendly games if I know both players as well). In for fun games or practice games it benefits EVERYONE to play correctly. It teaches the game, it creates a friendly environment, and makes sure every one is playing on an even field.

I try to remind people of their rules, but man, I have a hard enough
time with my own.

 gardeth wrote:
I've always been in favor of reminding people of non-optional rules they have, for fun or in tournament play. 40k is a complicated game and not everyone has enough time or mental real estate to dedicate to this game to get all the rules right all the time. Plus it feels nice to win because I outplayed my opponent and not because he forgot a rule. Also, I recently suffered a minor stroke and my memory has been a little shaky so I can hope that a little karma will come back my way regarding remembering all my rules...

100% agreed!

Is the forgotten rule a "may" or a "shall". If may, then I wouldn't have any problem not reminding or not being reminded.

If it was a shall, then both players would technically be cheating, regardless of whose benefit it was.

Shotgun wrote:
If it was a shall, then both players would technically be cheating, regardless of whose benefit it was.

I think it's best to stay away from the "c-word", but yes, this is what bothers me.

If there is an automatic, non-optional effect that has triggered, even if it's not for your army, and you know it and pretend not to... that's just not cool.

If it's optional, it's your call. But if it's automatic, you shouldn't be pretending not to know the rules. That's a personal pet peeve of mine and is at the very least poor sportsmanship, imo.

On a tourney i have a rule of thumb i expect of my selve what i expect of my opponent during the game i tell my opponent nothing of his army (you should know your army so should he) untill the game has finished afther the game if we have time ill suggest to look up some things he has forgotten.

But in a friendly game i would remember my opponent of the things he forgets.

I will remind the opponent of rules etc in normal games, but I will only do it so many times. There's a difference to reminding the player once or twice and then keep telling them all the time.

I'm with Gardeth. There's a difference between reminding an opponent of something he could choose to do, and something that's non-optional. If someone is forgetting to re-roll their twin-linked guns, it's just decent sportsmanship to remind them.

If they're choosing not to hit&run out of a combat, well, that's on them...

It would really depend on the situation. If it is a case in which his rule should have come into play regardless of whether I would like them to or not like twin-linked or an invul save then I would feel obliged to remind him money on the line or not. If he chooses not to make use of some of those extra rules like fleet when charging me that's on him.

 Redbeard wrote:
I'm with Gardeth. There's a difference between reminding an opponent of something he could choose to do, and something that's non-optional. If someone is forgetting to re-roll their twin-linked guns, it's just decent sportsmanship to remind them.

If they're choosing not to hit&run out of a combat, well, that's on them...

This is the distinction as I see it, too

It depends on who I'm playing. In a friendly game I will for sure because it looses its fun for them if I'm stomping someone because they forgot something. In the local shop tournaments are open to everyone including the younger crowd. It's not evenfun for me to beat up on them so I try to coach them a little if they really need it.

Non-optional rules, really both players need to vigilant about it, whether it benefits them or not. Optional rules or abilities, I'll give a reminder or two in a friendly game. In a tournament though, I expect a little higher level of play.

Each player is responsible for knowing their own rules and army. If you go into a game with the attitude that they do not remind me of any rules that are beneficial to me, and I do not remind you of any rules that are beneficial to you, we are both equal.

It is not fair to me if I remind my opponent of all the rules that benefit them, but then when I forget a rule if my opponent (who might not know the rules very well) says nothing to me.

If they forget a rule that is on them, it is not my place to remind people of their rules, or know their codex. At the end of the game you might want to tell them what they forgot, so they will learn and remember it for next time, but that is up to them.

 Blackmoor wrote:
Each player is responsible for knowing their own rules and army. If you go into a game with the attitude that they do not remind me of any rules that are beneficial to me, and I do not remind you of any rules that are beneficial to you, we are both equal.

I do not believe this statement is true. For one thing, one person may have more beneficial rules to remember. For another, one person may simply have a better memory.

It is not fair to me if I remind my opponent of all the rules that benefit them, but then when I forget a rule if my opponent (who might not know the rules very well) says nothing to me.

This, I agree with.

However...

In a tournament setting, if I am faced with an opponent who takes this approach, I am going to slow down my play so that I don't miss something. Given the issue so many tournaments have lately with games finishing on time, I'd rather work with my opponent to create an atmosphere where we both treat the rules as a neutral party, not an edge to be gained or lost due to faulty memories, rushed play, or even over consumption of alcohol.

Games don't need to be antagonistic from the get go, and I've found that most people, if you demonstrate that you're not trying to pull a quick one on them, will be equally willing to not pull a quick one on you.

That, plus, I'd rather win a game because of my decisions, than because my opponent forgot a rule.

Its a personal thing. For myself, if there is a rule that would kick in automatically that they are not using (i.e. they forget to roll FNP or something similar), I feel personally obligated to remind them. That's an attitude that I carry over from Fantasy that I admit does not translate well into the 40k community. I do not expect the same in return, for reasons Blackmoor stated, but I would feel like a turd getting a cheap win against someone because they forgot a rule.

If I like my opponent, I will try to make sure they don't mess anything up.

Otherwise, if your an ass or run some net list, fail all you can.

I will remind my opponent of rules if I remember them; I shall not lose sleep if we both forget.

Totally agree with Redbeard and Phazael's statements here... but I come from a fantasy background, too, although i didn't really make the connection that it might be viewed differently (more likely to remind the opponent of an automatic rule) in fantasy.

If you know you're more well versed in the game then it wouldn't be a bad idea to remind your opponent of all the rules. It's a game; you're in it to have fun and meet people (I hope); you'd be providing excellent sportsmanship; lastly, you will build better connections with people/strangers. I don't think it should be all about winning. Don't get me wrong, I love playing competitvely, but I also like to make sure everyone is getting the most out of it too. Say you walk your opponent through a lot of rules that he would have forgotten on his own or maybe you point some things out he would miss. Next time you play that guy he is going to retain more of that and remember that you were a cool, nice guy that helped him. Next time he plays another opponent he's going to be a better matchup, thus, you just gave somebody more experience points, persay. Thus, you're contributing a service to increase the skill level in your local meta/tournament all by just being friendly and there to have fun. In return you have increased the chances of you and your locals of having more intellectually stimulating and fun games. If everyone did this, nobody would need to remind anyone of rules. It's like starcraft- doesn't it feel better to EARN a victory against a WORTHY opponent rather than an easy win or cheese victory?

I think you should always remind people of stuff they forget or might have missed. On the subject of it might help them out to a victory, all I can say is that if you are really that great of a player it should not matter, you should be winning on tactics not rules.

If an opponent forgets a rule for his own army, then that's his own fault. He should be remembering those kind of things, it's his army, after all.

I think the issue comes when it's rules in your own army. So, for example, if your opponent was to move a melta-heavy squad up to your Avatar of Khaine, obviously meaning to shoot at it. Do you point out the Avatar is immune to melta? But even then, I don't think you're obliged to.

 Jabeedo wrote:
Coming from a MTG background, in a tournament I would let my opponent forget his rules unless it benefits me.

This rule has changed recently. It used to be mandatory for you to alert your opponent of a missed trigger. It still is illegal to not remind your opponent of an ability of a creature (such as if they put an indestructible creature into their grave yard when it shouldn't have died, etc.)

If your opponent has missed out on applying a non-optional rule, such as a morale check for 25% casualties in a phase, or getting +1 attack for two ccw's, or whatever, then you are obligated to point it out, whether it is to your benefit or not.
That comes under the category of 'playing the game by the rules'.
Deliberately not playing a game by it's rules to your advantage is behaviour that does have a name that starts with a 'C' and ends with 'heating'. You can rationalize it all you like, but at the end of the day you have made a conscious decision to have the game rules broken to your advantage. It's not a form of cheating that can be penalized, so it's entirely to be regulated by the conscience of each player.
The justification of 'he should know the rules better' is pretty feeble. If YOU know the rules better, you should be playing by them.
Reminding a player that he can choose to use 'hit & run' or that he can use a krak grenade on a monstrous creature in close combat, or any other optional rule or wargear, that is a courtesy that you do not have to extend to an opponent unless you are feeling charitable towards them.

 The Shadow wrote:
If an opponent forgets a rule for his own army, then that's his own fault. He should be remembering those kind of things, it's his army, after all.

I think the issue comes when it's rules in your own army. So, for example, if your opponent was to move a melta-heavy squad up to your Avatar of Khaine, obviously meaning to shoot at it. Do you point out the Avatar is immune to melta? But even then, I don't think you're obliged to.

You don't have to remind your opponent that the Avatar is immune to Melta, but you have to tell him that in the first place. So if you make it blindingly clean turn 1, and he moves a MM attack bike towards it turn 3, then that's his problem. But if you expect him to know it and then tell him mid-shooting phase, you're a jerk.

I tell my opponents everything at the beginning of the game. And if he asks, I'll tell him again. But if he forgets that I have Iron Arm on for T7 (and I mark these out) and shoots lasguns at me, forgetting that Strength 3 doesn't wound T7, I won't tell him until he's in the shooting phase.

I am starting to feel that MTG players are the ones I don't wanna play against. They take competitive play to a level beyond the threshold of mutual fun.

MTG players are largely just gamers. It's just that when there's events with hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake, they use tightly defined rules. This doesn't impact people playing casually at Friday Night Magic events at all - except that the precise rules mean they can resolve disputes.

GW would do well to learn from WotC in that regard. Having well defined rules does not mean a game cannot be played casually.

Did Stormin Norman call the general of the republican guard and tell him he is deploying his tanks wrong in Desert Storm & we were annihilating them left and right? NO! this is a war game, on some friendly level you can help out your friend if he is new or ignorant, but playing a regular opponent, if they forget to add extra attack for charge, thats his command problem. Its not your job to make sure your opponent uses his army to it full potential. let them learn from his mistakes, it will make a much Bigger impression,

I'd love it if an opponent would remind me about Blood Angels 'Red Thirst' at the appropriate moment just once...

I don't expect them to, but that would be a mark of true class.

 axeman1n wrote:
I am starting to feel that MTG players are the ones I don't wanna play against. They take competitive play to a level beyond the threshold of mutual fun.

How so? There's only been 2 people who mentioned being MTG players, and I cited actual rules where you must be honest with your opponent.

I usually will if it is a new player or perhaps the old player that has not played in awhile or trying out a new army.

Well this is in the tournament section, so if its in a tournament it is their job to remember things. However, outside of a tournament I will always remind them of their options or things they have forgotten if need be.
Unless they are rude... Then they can go play somewhere else.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 axeman1n wrote:
I am starting to feel that MTG players are the ones I don't wanna play against. They take competitive play to a level beyond the threshold of mutual fun.

How so? There's only been 2 people who mentioned being MTG players, and I cited actual rules where you must be honest with your opponent.

MtG has much tighter rules, thousands upon thousands of cards with varying levels of interactions, FAQs so long you'd need half a wing of the Library of Congress to fill, and strict;y defined rule set that addresses almost anything and everything that is played.

A higher level tournament in MtG IS serious business. You need to know what your doing, else stringent rules might find you disqualified for not playing by the strict interpretation of the rules. But you work your way up to that point in lesser tournaments with the gamut of people from bestest buddies to WAAC TFGs that you learn how to deal with.

But normally MtG is fun and not as leaky rulewise as WH40k.

The fact that you have to ask the question is answer enough.

40k is serious business.

 CaptainJay wrote:
Just wondered what people's thoughts on this were. So for example if your opponent forgets his unit has counter-attack do you remind them about it, or is their own fault for not knowing/remembering their own rules? And where do you draw the line, how much of an effort do you make to help your opponent out (reminding if they forget to move a unit etc).

In a friendly, I point stuff out. Sure.

In a tournament, know your gak.

I think people who don't know the rules so well should probably get more friendly games in before they move in to tournament play. If they still struggle, they should make themselves handy reference cards. It's nice that in WH40k the newer codexes have added a reference section at the back with rules in more detail and not just stats, etc.

That said generally I remind people if they miss something. I don't want to win because you forgot you paid 60pts to give that guy an invulnerable save. I want to win because I beat you out in a fair fight I have more fun that way anyway.

Wow this forum is all just replays now. Isn't it? Just in the short time I've been here it's all too apparent that people don't know what a search function is.

It's not like he's asking how cover works or something. It's as fair a topic for discussion as any.

Yeah, I'm just sandy lol. Anyway definitely like being helped even in competitive play. After my disastrous mistake of putting my multi-melta devastator squad shots into my buddy's avatar!

zaak wrote:
If everyone did this, nobody would need to remind anyone of rules. It's like starcraft- doesn't it feel better to EARN a victory against a WORTHY opponent rather than an easy win or cheese victory?

This, exactly. I go to GTs and stuff all the time. I don't want to win on some rules shenanigans, I want to know I won because of better tactics. I might not win every game, but I at least will (hopefully) win the one's who I beat but give info to a reason to stay with the hobby. I'd like to think that if more people did this, more people would stick with it, improving the player base as a whole. We were all new once, why not help someone out?

In a tourni i feel like it shows a lack of sportsmanship, and, depending on my opponents sportsmanship level i may or may not remind them. I played against a few TFG at tourni's that were not fun to play against and not showing anything resembling sportsmanship. They didnt get reminded of anything. However, most of the time, in tourni play and always in regular games, i feel like reminding people about stuff they forgot is honest, good game play.

For me the line is Base rules Vs codex rules.

I feel that I should remind someone of something if it occurs in the base rules of the game, whether if benefits me or not. This is because there should be a reasonable expectation that I am aware of those rules.

i.e. I declare a charge, if you don't immediately roll for overwatch, I will say, ok now you roll overwatch as it is one of the steps in the charge subphase, and willfully skipping it to me would ammount to cheating. Similarly I will remind opponents to take saves etc.

If something is in my opponents codex I don't feel that it is a reasonable expectation that I have memorized all their stats/special rules etc. (even if I have). Because it is perfectly reasonable for me not to know that say Immotek has a 3++ save, if I shoot him with an AP 2 weapon and my opponent just takes the wound....not my issue

To use a sports analogy, If I coach ultimate frisbee in a self judged league, I expect both sides to call the game rules, so that if a player runs out of bounds I expect him to call it. What I won't do is tell the opponent how to utilize his own players to win the game.

That said I have a bad habit for reminding players of everything I do remember.

To me the worst thing is people who only remind their opponents of their rules when it helps them... that is total DB in my opinion.

I have a rule about it, wrong or not you decide. If I'm playing a newbie I go out of my way to remind him of his special rules or he forgot to shoot/assault. I want the newbie to have a good experience. If I'm playing a vertern in a tournament, I'm usually curtious. I will allow them to roll a forgotten invulnerbale save, shoot a unit they forgot etc., however if I make a mistake and they stonewall me on it. Well if they want it hard core then fine.

As a pet pieve I hate meeting guys who show up to a competitive tournament saying "I'm just here playing for fun" and pulls out a Mournfang, Leadblaechers with Hellheart and Greedfist from Ogre Kingdoms. What the ????! These are the guys I stonewall as a rule, no going back no reminders. At least be honest that you built that army to punch me in the face with.

I wish 40K would import the MtG mindset here. In Magic, if you misrepresent, attempt to trick or confuse, or fail to make sure the rules are being followed as closely as you know them, you are breaking the rules. You may even be Cheating (with a capital C, because that means you get kicked out and officially ostracized from competitive play). Know the rules well still helps a ton in Magic, because it can stop you from getting into bad situations to begin with, but a player CANNOT allow another player to break the rules, or forget about them, without potentially facing penalties.

There are a ton of reasons why Magic is a successful tournament game and that 40K is not, and while this probably isn't the biggest one, I think that what I see as rampant cheating (or at least the acceptance of same) is a serious issue that would need to be overcome in order to grow.

Magic is a successful tournament game because their rules faq texts are longer than all card texts combined (ie clear rulings and support), their rules are simpler, and you cannot start a thirty minute argument over a cocked card or a card being 1/10000th of an inch away from attacking.

 Phazael wrote:
Magic is a successful tournament game because their rules faq texts are longer than all card texts combined (ie clear rulings and support), their rules are simpler, and you cannot start a thirty minute argument over a cocked card or a card being 1/10000th of an inch away from attacking.

Yes, there are more reasons than what this thread covers that Magic is more successful. I mentioned that. I think the biggest are that WotC WANTS it to be (whereas GW actively does not), Magic takes less sq ft/player and is quicker (allowing 500+ people to play 9 or more rounds in one room in one day) and that WotC supports and clarifies it's own rules.

Nothing can be done about the space and speed of 40k, so the rest of this may be moot, but if TOs agreed to work together and replace the INAT they could tighten up the sloppy rules GW makes, as well as train people to be competent judges and institute nation/worldwide penalties on cheaters. Until either GW or independent TOs do that, though, there is no chance of having a meaningful tournament circuit for 40k or WHFB.

The issue here is what amounts to cheating? How can you prove I knew you had an invul save and decided not to remind you to take it?

Beyond that cheating is much easier to see/catch in MtG, because it is a simpler game. Cards + rules. In 40k the game is Rules + models + dice + terrain + measurement....

I'm also not sure cheating is any more rampant in 40k than in MtG. I think that is a myth propagated by a very few people.

Whether or not you can be proved to have cheated is irrelevant to question of whether or not it is cheating.

+1 Karvala

I can't prove whether you used loaded dice either. We're not talking about what can be proved, it's more about, what's the decent thing to do.

I don't think it's ever cheating not to remind your opponent of something, it's just being a dick, and wanting to win so badly that you're willing to be a dick to get an advantage. I don't want to win games that way.

My opinion is that MTG gets it right by dividing rules it into two categories:

Mandatory rules are just that: mandatory. If a rule says "you must do X" then you must do it, and both players have an obligation to maintain a legal game state where X has been done. If you notice that X is not being done and stay silent because it gives you an advantage then you are cheating. Similarly, if your opponent asks you a question about something that is public knowledge (for example, the stats of your unit) you are required to give an honest answer to the question, and if you lie you are cheating.

Optional rules are just that: optional. If a rule says "you may do X" then it's perfectly acceptable for X not to happen and you'll still have a legal game state. If you notice that your opponent forgot to do X then you have no obligation to help them make a better decision.

Stupid decisions are just that: stupid decisions. If your opponent makes a bad decision then too bad for them, you have absolutely no obligation to help them plan their actions. Similarly if your opponent asks a question that is a purely matter of opinion (for example, "you'll probably win that assault, right?") then you are free to give whatever answer you like.

So, specific 40k examples:

Twin-linked is a mandatory rule on non-blast weapons. It says that you must re-roll misses, so if you knowingly allow an illegal game state where a missed attack has not been re-rolled then you are cheating and should be punished appropriately.

Twin-linked on blast weapons is an optional rule. It states that you may re-roll misses, so deciding not to re-roll a shot that hits nothing is a legal (though obviously stupid) decision and you have no obligation to say anything.

Declaring shooting against an Eldar Avatar with a unit with bolters and melta guns is just a stupid decision and you have no obligation to say anything until the unit has committed to shooting and the melta guns must be blocked from firing.

I find people don't really like it when I compare Magic to 40k, but Peregrine just laid it out a lot better than I usually can. That was pretty much perfect.

What's really annoying is players who only chirp up to remind you of a rule when it helps them. In fact it might have occurred several times then the culprit finally protests when it's not beneficial for them - that is a clear case of knowingly cheating. It's also in very poor form to argue a rule one way then another in a following game - that is also knowingly cheating. Both of these cases are obvious to most everyone.

My initial thoughts are exactly as Peregrine has laid out. If you're aware of mandatory rules, you must remind the player.

CaptainJay wrote:Just wondered what people's thoughts on this were. So for example if your opponent forgets his unit has counter-attack do you remind them about it, or is their own fault for not knowing/remembering their own rules? And where do you draw the line, how much of an effort do you make to help your opponent out (reminding if they forget to move a unit etc).

Not reminding your opponent of his own rules when it benefits you is what I call "soft cheating." It isn't technically illegal, but it's pretty shady nonetheless. The most typical example I see is And They Shall Know No Fear. Players who are new to Marines (especially ones who started with another army) often forget that they cannot be swept, and after getting caught while trying to flee combat, will simply pick up their models out of habit. Now, technically, the models aren't removed, and it is the controlling player's responsibility to know that. (It's also your responsibility to re-roll your own twin-linked shots, etc.)

If you know better though, it's still pretty underhanded to let your opponent remove the models by mistake. Cheating that you aren't technically culpable for - soft cheating.

Soft cheating is usually never acceptable in a friendly game. (I've got one opponent with whom the games are a little more cutthroat, and this sort of thing might fly there.) Even in a tournament, if my opponent has cause to know better (a veteran player, experienced with their army) I will listen to my conscience and point them in the right direction. In competitive play, I can see situations where this would be acceptable. If you're a relatively new or inexperienced player, and happen to realize your vastly superior opponent slipped up, then by all means keep your mouth shut and reap the benefits.

For me, personally? In competitive play, if it would mean the difference in degrees of my victory, I will tell my opponent. If it would change the outcome of the game, I might tell. If it would change the degree of my loss, I will probably keep my lips zipped. In any event, I hope that helps.

 Jimsolo wrote:
If you know better though, it's still pretty underhanded to let your opponent remove the models by mistake. Cheating that you aren't technically culpable for - soft cheating.

That's not "soft" cheating at all, it's just plain cheating. ATSKNF does not say that you may choose to avoid being swept, it says that the unit is not swept, period. There is no choice involved, even if you would prefer that your models be swept (for example, so they aren't locked in combat and preventing you from shooting the enemy unit). If you allow your opponent to remove the models you are allowing an illegal game state and therefore you are cheating.

(It's also your responsibility to re-roll your own twin-linked shots, etc.)

It is also your responsibility to say something if your opponent is about to create an illegal game state by not re-rolling a miss from a twin-linked weapon. The re-roll is NOT optional, the die must be re-rolled no matter what. This is no different than moving your models an extra 1" just because you feel like it.

In a tournament setting, why is it my responsibility to not only know your rules, but remind you when and how to use them? Once money hits the table, I'm worrying about my rules and my tactics. If I have to remind you of how the rules work for your armyas well, it's burning time and mental work. I volunteer rules and stats for my army, that's just courteous. But I shouldn!t have to pkay your army and mine.

TL/DR: don't play tournaments if you don't grasp the rules.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
In a tournament setting, why is it my responsibility to not only know your rules, but remind you when and how to use them?

Because if you knowingly allow an illegal action to occur then you are cheating.

 Peregrine wrote:
My opinion is that MTG gets it right by dividing rules it into two categories:

Mandatory rules are just that: mandatory. If a rule says "you must do X" then you must do it, and both players have an obligation to maintain a legal game state where X has been done. If you notice that X is not being done and stay silent because it gives you an advantage then you are cheating. Similarly, if your opponent asks you a question about something that is public knowledge (for example, the stats of your unit) you are required to give an honest answer to the question, and if you lie you are cheating.

Optional rules are just that: optional. If a rule says "you may do X" then it's perfectly acceptable for X not to happen and you'll still have a legal game state. If you notice that your opponent forgot to do X then you have no obligation to help them make a better decision.

Stupid decisions are just that: stupid decisions. If your opponent makes a bad decision then too bad for them, you have absolutely no obligation to help them plan their actions. Similarly if your opponent asks a question that is a purely matter of opinion (for example, "you'll probably win that assault, right?") then you are free to give whatever answer you like.

So, specific 40k examples:

Twin-linked is a mandatory rule on non-blast weapons. It says that you must re-roll misses, so if you knowingly allow an illegal game state where a missed attack has not been re-rolled then you are cheating and should be punished appropriately.

Twin-linked on blast weapons is an optional rule. It states that you may re-roll misses, so deciding not to re-roll a shot that hits nothing is a legal (though obviously stupid) decision and you have no obligation to say anything.

Declaring shooting against an Eldar Avatar with a unit with bolters and melta guns is just a stupid decision and you have no obligation to say anything until the unit has committed to shooting and the melta guns must be blocked from firing.

But Peregrine, we can't have that, enforcing it might improve the game and make it more enjoyable for everyone involved, why do we want that?

 Peregrine wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
In a tournament setting, why is it my responsibility to not only know your rules, but remind you when and how to use them?

Because if you knowingly allow an illegal action to occur then you are cheating.

Big difference. Screwing up rules can and will happen. That an opponent needs to monitor. But when someone forgets their own army's rules and it screws them, not my responsibility. When I plunk down money to play, I expect people to know what they are doing or know where to find out.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
But when someone forgets their own army's rules and it screws them, not my responsibility.

If they forget something in a way that creates an illegal game state and you decline to say something about it then you are cheating. For example, if you allow your opponent to forget about ATSKNF and remove their marines against a successful sweeping advance then you are cheating because ATSKNF is not an optional rule. You MUST keep the marines locked in combat whether you like it or not.

Of course, like I said previously, rules that are optional are entirely different. If your opponent forgets that their psyker is armed with a force weapon and doesn't activate it even though they have a warp charge available and it would benefit them to use it you have no obligation to remind them about it.

Sorry, Peregrine, but when an action is performed which results in an illegal game state, the only person who can be held responsible for cheating is the person who took the action. Not reminding your opponent about their own 'must do' actions is, while both unethical and perhaps amoral, not hard-and-fast, tournament-ejection cheating.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, it is my opponent's responsibility to do his own 'must do' actions, and to know his own rules. If I don't remind him of them, I am at worst a piece of filth. If anyone is guilty of violating the rules in that situation, its my opponent.

I'd love for there to be a way to make 'soft cheating' a form of hard cheating, but it's completely unenforceable, since the soft cheater will always have plausible deniability. Until then, it's underhanded at best, shameful at worst, but not a clear form of cheating.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Sorry, Peregrine, but when an action is performed which results in an illegal game state, the only person who can be held responsible for cheating is the person who took the action.

No, the person who allowed it to happen is also responsible. If you know that an action is illegal and allow it to happen anyway you are cheating.

Not reminding your opponent about their own 'must do' actions is, while both unethical and perhaps amoral, not hard-and-fast, tournament-ejection cheating.

Depends on the tournament. In MTG it would be "hard and fast" cheating. IMO 40k should work the same way.

I'd love for there to be a way to make 'soft cheating' a form of hard cheating, but it's completely unenforceable, since the soft cheater will always have plausible deniability.

Whether or not you can catch someone cheating doesn't have anything to do with whether it's cheating. If I bring loaded dice the fact that I could probably avoid getting caught doesn't magically prevent it from being cheating.

 Jimsolo wrote:
...I am at worst a piece of filth....

Um, so why would you want to feel this way about yourself? Why would you not choose to hold yourself to a higher standard?

And this crap about 'money on the table'? As if money is worth giving up your integrity? For one thing, we're talking about piddly-small amounts of money, these aren't poker stakes... But for another, you can always make more money. You can never get your integrity back. You want to be known as TFG, put money first. Put winning above being a decent human being.

All of us should strive to make the game enjoyable for our opponents, and part of that is helping with the rules that you do happen to remember. You don't have a responsibility to know everything about their army, but when you do know something, share it. Whether it's legally required or not, because it's the right thing to do.

Just like what Peregrine said: optional rules, it depends on you if you want to be gracious or not and reminding your opponent is entirely up to you and is in no way cheating. Me, I usually remind friends or people I generally like if in a casual setting unless we specified that this is a serious practice game. In tournaments though, it's part of the sets of skills you need to know the rules of your army (and maybe even the rules of the opponent if you are so inclined) and if my opponent didn't remind me of my optional rules, that's my fault and I will give them no grievances.

Mandatory rules though are a different ballpark. I've lost games in M:tG because I pointed out those mandatory rules. And that's just fine. I don't want to win because of illegal moves, whether it was committed by me or my opponent. I want to win it fair and square, and reminding your opponent about mandatory rules, whether it benefits me or not, is the proper thing to do.

If both parties forget I wouldn't call it intentional cheating, but it is letting an illegal game state happen. In MtG you can be penalized for that in a tournament setting, and penalties can lead to automatic losses or being banned from official tournaments if you let them pile up. I don't think those would work in 40k, given that they're not governed by a single entity.

Peregrine wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Sorry, Peregrine, but when an action is performed which results in an illegal game state, the only person who can be held responsible for cheating is the person who took the action.

No, the person who allowed it to happen is also responsible. If you know that an action is illegal and allow it to happen anyway you are cheating.

Not reminding your opponent about their own 'must do' actions is, while both unethical and perhaps amoral, not hard-and-fast, tournament-ejection cheating.

Depends on the tournament. In MTG it would be "hard and fast" cheating. IMO 40k should work the same way.

Well I'll be darned. Underneath that cynical, callous exterior, Peregrin's an idealist after all! (Just kidding, Peregrine. No offense meant.) Really, though, while I agree that 40k SHOULD work the same way, there's no way to enforce that. The viewpoint that 'that's the way it should work' is great (in theory) but I can't see any realistic way to make it work in practice. (And incidentally, every Magic game I've ever seen, 'must do' actions are the responsibility of the controlling player, and the opponent cannot be ejected for the first player's failure to correctly play his own deck.) If there's a way to make this work in reality, please, I'd love to hear it. I've got a tourney that I'm running in the near future, and it would be great to be able to usher in a new era of accountability.

I'd love for there to be a way to make 'soft cheating' a form of hard cheating, but it's completely unenforceable, since the soft cheater will always have plausible deniability.

Whether or not you can catch someone cheating doesn't have anything to do with whether it's cheating. If I bring loaded dice the fact that I could probably avoid getting caught doesn't magically prevent it from being cheating.

No, but loaded dice can be proven. Whether or not you knew and understood that your opponent was not playing by the rules is a different matter, and in every functional instance (note the qualifer ) I cannot see any way of being able to prove it.

And being able to prove it is ABSOLUTELY what makes it hard-and-fast cheating.

Redbeard wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
...I am at worst a piece of filth....

Um, so why would you want to feel this way about yourself? Why would you not choose to hold yourself to a higher standard?

That's at worst. The worst types of this behavior (doing it in friendly games, doing it when you're winning, doing it when your opponent is new or inexperienced) are types I don't engage in. However, I DO think it's an underhanded tactic to keep in the playbook for competitive play.

When it comes to competitions, fair play is for opponents that either A) I don't need to use treachery to defeat and B) opponents who will reciprocate.

Here's an example. My first ever 40k tournament, I faced an orks player. A number of penetrating hits from my (in 5th edition) melta weapons failed to destroy his vehicles. Why? Because I wasn't adding the pluses from using an AP 1, melta weapon against an open topped vehicle. He knew damn well that those should have been added, and said nothing. (And he went on to place top 3, I believe.) Could I prove that he knew? Of course not. The inability to prove it is what makes it 'soft' cheating. It can't be actual, verifiable cheating unless there's some way to prove it.

Against THAT guy? I have no qualms about not reminding him that the Quad Gun is twin-linked. (In a tournament, mind you. Even against people who would do it to me, I will play ethically in a friendly game.)

And this crap about 'money on the table'? As if money is worth giving up your integrity? For one thing, we're talking about piddly-small amounts of money, these aren't poker stakes... But for another, you can always make more money. You can never get your integrity back. You want to be known as TFG, put money first. Put winning above being a decent human being.

All of us should strive to make the game enjoyable for our opponents, and part of that is helping with the rules that you do happen to remember. You don't have a responsibility to know everything about their army, but when you do know something, share it. Whether it's legally required or not, because it's the right thing to do.

The former governor of Minnesota once said, "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat."

I'm never going to advocate actually breaking the rules. (Allowing my opponent to do so out of ignorance is both another thing and entirely on him.) When it comes to a competition, I don't put money down for a 'no, after you sir, no after you sir,' ice cream social. That's for friendly games. There's a reason that we call tournament style play something other than a friendly game. Because it isn't friendly. If I step in the ring with Mike Tyson at a paying venue and he crushes my orbital socket because I expected a friendly sparring match, that's my own damn fault.

My integrity? Intact. I play friendly and helpful games, with impeccable ethical standards, designed to entertain all parties as well as to teach new players. And at competitive events, I play competitively. If that means I'm up against a bigger, meaner gladiator, and I have to throw sand in his eyes to get the upper hand? So be it.

 Jimsolo wrote:
(And incidentally, every Magic game I've ever seen, 'must do' actions are the responsibility of the controlling player, and the opponent cannot be ejected for the first player's failure to correctly play his own deck.)

You can't be ejected (at least for just a single incident) and the penalty for missing your opponent's actions is less than the penalty for missing your own, but you get a penalty along with your opponent. It's been a while since I've read the tournament rules for MTG, but IIRC it was something like a game loss for the person who broke the rule, and a warning for the person who didn't correct it. There's an element of judge's discretion involved, but the fundamental point is that both players have the responsibility to maintain a legal game state at all times, and it is cheating to allow your opponent to do something illegal just because it benefits you.

No, but loaded dice can be proven.

Only if you're stupid enough to make them obviously loaded. Dice that are a bit skewed in the right direction are undetectable for all practical purposes because nobody is going to test-roll your dice enough times to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are not properly random. But that doesn't mean it isn't cheating to use them.

Against THAT guy? I have no qualms about not reminding him that the Quad Gun is twin-linked.

Since when does cheating justify more cheating? If I was running that event and I knew what had happened I would have removed both of you and seriously considered banning you from any future events.

I'm never going to advocate actually breaking the rules.

But that's exactly what you're doing. Allowing your opponent to do something that breaks the rules as long as it benefits you is breaking the rules. If you know that, say, a die has to be re-rolled then you have an obligation to ensure that it is re-rolled.

If I step in the ring with Mike Tyson at a paying venue and he crushes my orbital socket because I expected a friendly sparring match, that's my own damn fault.

That's a bad analogy. What you're talking about is more like arranging that boxing match, hiding a knife in your glove, and stabbing him to death so that you "win".

If that means I'm up against a bigger, meaner gladiator, and I have to throw sand in his eyes to get the upper hand?

So it's ok to cheat as long as you're up against a difficult opponent?

There's a problem here that was cleared up by my first day in Magic's Judge Program. People are concerned with "proving" that somebody is cheating. What you need to know is that a tournament is not a US court of law. I don't need overwhelming evidence of cheating to issue an appropriate penalty. I just need to be pretty sure. It can take a long time to get judges to a state of being good and accurate with their 'pretty sures' but running out the cheaters grows and legitimizes the game and is absolutely worth it.

I understand you have a different point of view than me about this, and that's okay. I'm not going to convince you at this point, and you aren't going to convince me, so there isn't any point going round and round on it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(And incidentally, every Magic game I've ever seen, 'must do' actions are the responsibility of the controlling player, and the opponent cannot be ejected for the first player's failure to correctly play his own deck.)

You can't be ejected (at least for just a single incident) and the penalty for missing your opponent's actions is less than the penalty for missing your own, but you get a penalty along with your opponent. It's been a while since I've read the tournament rules for MTG, but IIRC it was something like a game loss for the person who broke the rule, and a warning for the person who didn't correct it. There's an element of judge's discretion involved, but the fundamental point is that both players have the responsibility to maintain a legal game state at all times, and it is cheating to allow your opponent to do something illegal just because it benefits you.

I do have a couple of questions about this, though. (I haven't played MtG since the Urza's Saga, so I'm obviously not up on the way things are done currently.) It seems like this opens up the door for even worse things, though. If I'm reading you right, a player can (theoretically) be penalized for a violation they were unaware was happening. (Which, of course, someone who was letting it happen would always claim was the case.) However, when it comes to violations that one player allows to happen because it isn't an effect under their control (soft cheating) versus violations that arise from one player legitimately not being aware of the violation (ignorance) I think that violations of ignorance are always going to be more common than violations of intent.

And honestly, I think I would prefer to play where 'soft cheating' violations of intent than play in a world where violations of ignorance are punished. I don't think players should ever be penalized for not knowing their opponent's rules. My apologies for not clarifying that. (Seriously, my bad.) In order to realistically (and fairly) enforce a system like this, there would have to be a way to do it without punishing any innocent parties, and THAT'S where I think it breaks down. (Unless I'm missing something, of course.)

 Jimsolo wrote:
However, when it comes to violations that one player allows to happen because it isn't an effect under their control (soft cheating) versus violations that arise from one player legitimately not being aware of the violation (ignorance) I think that violations of ignorance are always going to be more common than violations of intent.

The point is that if you're playing in a major tournament you're expected to understand the game well enough to notice if your opponent is failing to do something they are required to do. But yes, ignorance is possible which is why the penalty for missing your opponent's mistake is less severe than the penalty for making the mistake. IIRC it's just a warning, so it only becomes a problem if you have a pattern of minor offenses.

And honestly, I think I would prefer to play where 'soft cheating' violations of intent than play in a world where violations of ignorance are punished. I don't think players should ever be penalized for not knowing their opponent's rules. My apologies for not clarifying that. (Seriously, my bad.) In order to realistically (and fairly) enforce a system like this, there would have to be a way to do it without punishing any innocent parties, and THAT'S where I think it breaks down. (Unless I'm missing something, of course.)

Yes, enforcing the rule is difficult, but the question here was "is this cheating" not "can we punish this appropriately". Cheating is still cheating even if it's not practical to catch and punish the cheaters.

 gardeth wrote:
I've always been in favor of reminding people of non-optional rules they have, for fun or in tournament play. 40k is a complicated game and not everyone has enough time or mental real estate to dedicate to this game to get all the rules right all the time. Plus it feels nice to win because I outplayed my opponent and not because he forgot a rule. Also, I recently suffered a minor stroke and my memory has been a little shaky so I can hope that a little karma will come back my way regarding remembering all my rules...

Exalt!

In a friendly game if i notice they forgot them i will remind them. In a competitive game it is their responsiblity to know their rules, i don't have time to go back and correct them in a timed event.

This is during tourney games.
it all comes down to: I am not playing your army. I may or may not know your rules. If you do something that is cheating you, I am going to let you. I am not your mommy and I will let you fail. There isn't a sportsmanship score at most events no so being your mommy doesn't help me. If you ask me I will tell you the truth. I may not know the right answer for your army so I won't volunteer the possibly wrong answer.

Be sportsman like. War gaming is a gentleman/woman's culture. Don't be a dweeby weener.

 Las wrote:
Be sportsman like. War gaming is a gentleman/woman's culture. Don't be a dweeby weener.

I appreciate courtesy and give it as often as possible. However, at a tournament, I am not going to play my opponent's army as well as my own. I have been in enough pool tournaments to know that your.opponent is not your friend while sharing a table. Same with any gaming tournament, we spent.money to play for prizes, I don't intend on handing a game to my opponent.

Talking strictly in the sense of rules being broken, not optional rules being forgotten - It's not cheating but nor is it competitive play.


It's ridiculous to label something that is strictly a process of human thought as breaking the rules, it's completely impossible to prove and therefor irrelevant to any ruleset effective to the table of play. But if you proceed to share your knowledge with your opponent (or anyone else involved in the tournament at all really) of all his beneficial yet illegal plays that contributed to your victory, you should not act too suprised if you get DQ'd for cheating. At best you didn't adhere to the global rules of the tournament, at worst you were manufacturing game results and tournament standings.


But when competing at the highest level you can assume this question will not even be relevant. If your time is spent playing at a level under the highest tier (probably all of us), use of your opponents making mistakes on rulings as a tool to win matches is just taking an advantage not available at the actual competitive level of play and abusing it to try to win games. Just to spell it out: this is not equivalent to competitive play. This might help you place higher in your current tournament. This is taking advantage of the fact that the rules wizard isn't watching every table at once. This will do no favours toward your level of skill, Playing competitively is not winning a tournament against people who haven't yet grasped the rules of the game fully to such an extent that it has a noticeable affect on the outcome of a game. In fact if you need to use anything further than your army list, your brain, and the correct GW rulings to beat these people I'd say you are playing quite far from competitively, unfortunately.


Stepping your game up is playing competitively. Relying on your opponent's to bring their own game down is not.

The "punishment" for allowing an illegal game state is essentially non-existent unless there's patterns of it at a specific event. If you consistently "forget" to remind your opponents to reroll twin linked shots, it's not lack of knowledge. That's why both players get some form of punishment - it really is both players fault.

Now, the person who failed to do the reroll gets the worse punishment, but it's both players' fault.

I see deliberately and knowingly not playing by any rule as cheating. It doesn't matter if it is to your benefit or not....it is cheating.
Come to think of it, it is the very definition of Winning At All Costs.

It doesn't mean that you have to "coach" your opponent;
"You do know that your unit can Hit-And-Run, right?"

It does mean that you have to follow the rules;
"No, don't just remove those models. You have an Invulnerable Save!"


...

 BladeTX wrote:
Wow this forum is all just replays now. Isn't it? Just in the short time I've been here it's all too apparent that people don't know what a search function is.

Heh! I had a quick look and couldn't see a related discussion, also I think it's reasonable enough question, especially as this is an opinion-based question (no right or wrong answers really) though there is definitely a sort of consistent response.

Steelmage99 wrote:
I see deliberately and knowingly not playing by any rule as cheating. It doesn't matter if it is to your benefit or not....it is cheating.
Come to think of it, it is the very definition of Winning At All Costs.

It doesn't mean that you have to "coach" your opponent;
"You do know that your unit can Hit-And-Run, right?"

It does mean that you have to follow the rules;
"No, don't just remove those models. You have an Invulnerable Save!"


...

I think this is probably pretty close to my view. I think it also depends a lot on the opponent as well, so for example my first opponent was a really friendly guy, we had a great chat (knew some mutual friends through the club) and I was happy to coach him during the game (for example telling him to fire the HBs, not the Lascannons at full BS at my horrors, admitly after he'd shot the vendetta, but hey I'm only human). Where as my last opponent was significantly less friendly and the stakes had been raised by the final game, so I'm much less prepared to help him out (so reminding him about counter-attack for example). Definitely interesting to read what people think.

At daboyz gt last year I played against a necron with assault pretorians... he tried to assault my flamers of tzeentch (back when they were broken!) and basically the overwatch killed him.... He lost 400points to my overwatch...

I told him what they did at the start of the game... he made the choice to assault... should I have told him not to assault?

I think he would have felt insulted like i was telling him i was superior at the game... when clearly it was just the fact i had a unit that was way undercosted and had he done that maneuver vs any other army there he would have been fine?

How about the time I played dash of pepper at NOVA? BTW, he was one of the top 10 best players I've ever played against (AND a good sport for most of it!). Should I have told him rules like, you could have *not* fired a certain model so he could deny me a cover save when a unit of 4 models with blasters was about to shoot?

I think the rule should be "don't do to your opponent what you wouldn't like them to do to you"

IMHO...
1) ask them if they know what your army does
2) address anything they don't know/directly ask
3) if they know nothing give them the basic run down of stats/pass your rulebook to them for them to look over during your turns (so as not to slow the game down)
4) relax its just a game


4)

 frgsinwntr wrote:
I told him what they did at the start of the game... he made the choice to assault... should I have told him not to assault?

I think he would have felt insulted like i was telling him i was superior at the game... when clearly it was just the fact i had a unit that was way undercosted and had he done that maneuver vs any other army there he would have been fine?

Literally nobody is suggesting that you should ever offer strategic advice to an opponent in a competitive setting. What many of us are saying is that, had you forgotten about Wall of Death with the Flamers, he should be obligated to remind you to take your overwatch shots.

I personally remind my opponents of most things, but I wouldn't call them cheaters or anything close to it for not reminding me of something.

 CaptainJay wrote:
Where as my last opponent was significantly less friendly and the stakes had been raised by the final game, so I'm much less prepared to help him out (so reminding him about counter-attack for example).

Which, again, is cheating. Using the Counter Attack USR is not a decision that your opponent makes, it is a mandatory effect that is triggered as soon as a unit with the USR is charged. You are required to make the LD test and, if successful, roll the additional attacks. If you allow your opponent to skip either of these mandatory actions then you are participating in creating an illegal game state and cheating. And if I was a TO I'd seriously consider blacklisting you from any event I run since you admit to cheating.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CaptainJay wrote:
Where as my last opponent was significantly less friendly and the stakes had been raised by the final game, so I'm much less prepared to help him out (so reminding him about counter-attack for example).

Which, again, is cheating. Using the Counter Attack USR is not a decision that your opponent makes, it is a mandatory effect that is triggered as soon as a unit with the USR is charged. You are required to make the LD test and, if successful, roll the additional attacks. If you allow your opponent to skip either of these mandatory actions then you are participating in creating an illegal game state and cheating. And if I was a TO I'd seriously consider blacklisting you from any event I run since you admit to cheating.

Over-react much? There's always got to be one drama queen on the internet preaching hellfire and damnation.

Also notice I said 'less prepared to' rather than 'didn't'. The point I was trying to make is the friendlier you are more likely are your opponent will want to help/assist you.

There was actually some serious cheating going on the tournament, one of my club mates played some-one who claimed all the symbols on his die were 6's (discovered half-way through the game this wasn't the case) called the ref over, who awarded him (my friend) +3 KPs for the error (it was purge the alien) but my friend still lost the game, too much damage already done I think.

 RiTides wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
I'm with Gardeth. There's a difference between reminding an opponent of something he could choose to do, and something that's non-optional. If someone is forgetting to re-roll their twin-linked guns, it's just decent sportsmanship to remind them.

If they're choosing not to hit&run out of a combat, well, that's on them...

This is the distinction as I see it, too

I agree.

If you want to go farther and offer tactical advice, that is very good sportsmanship, but really people ought to know the rules in order to enter competitions.

The issue I see with needing to remind my opponent of his rules (his armies rules) is to what extent am I expected to know them? I usually will remind people, but just to keep with the twinlinked gun example.

So say I play against a space Marine bike army and I don't know that he has twin linked bolters...if I don't remind him to re-roll that is cheating?

Or is it only cheating if I know he has them and don't say anything?

At which point penalties on me forgetting my opponents rules are unenforcable. If you are going to penalize me for not knowing every rule an opposing model may have I probably won't show up.

At some level opponents need to know their own rules.

That is why I draw the line at Base rulebook rules, I should be expected to know those and make sure they are followed. I should not be required to know every armies rules and make sure they get followed.

IF my opponent is playing Daemons for example and I have never faced them before, do I need to know that he must roll warp storm? Or is that on him?

Like I said if I remember the rule I'll remind my opponent. But I am hardly cheating if I cannot remember his armies rules if he does not.

Obviously this is not enforceable for the reasons you state Breng77, no one can expect you to know all the rules (although many top-level players do), and no one can prove whether you didn't remind someone because you didn't know, versus didn't want to.

I don't think anyone here has claimed that the onus is on you to know all your opponent's rules and remind them of all of them, because that would be ridiculous. To suggest that's what is in question is a clear strawman argument.

That said, I have to say that I've played plenty of top-flight players, and watched others play, and none of these players have taken the approach that they won't remind an opponent of rules (not choices) in order to gain a competitive advantage.

Meaning that those of you who are arguing that it's competitive play to let an opponent forget something that you do remember are probably not looking at the big picture.

The only way that one can improve is by pushing yourself against better opponents. If you win games against opponents who forget things, then you're not learning to play your best. While this might mean that you sneak an extra win here or there, it also means that when you play someone who doesn't make those forgetful errors, you're at a disadvantage.

When you consider the big picture, what you're thinking of as "competitive play" is actually a losing long-term strategy, and therefore, not the best competitive play. It's not just good sportsmanship to remind your opponent of rules that are to their advantage, it's also the best way to improve your own game, and that's the goal of the true competitive player.

I agree entirely, if I remember something that my opponent does not I will remind him, because I want to win following the rules. However, there are people on this thread claiming that if I don't remind him I should be warned for cheating because I am allowing Illegal actions to take place.

What I am saying is that everyone should be expected to remind each other of base rules should they be forgotten because that is in the realm of things every player should know.

If you know the rules for your opponents models you should remind them if they forget to use them. But there should be no expectation that you will remind them.

Essentially, my feeling is that you should know your army better than I do. If you don't remember your rules there is no fair expectation that I do.

I completely agree with you on sportsmanship, and the ethics that you should always follow the rules to the best of your ability.

What I don't agree with is that this "reminding" people or in fact "forgetting" rules should generally be policed as cheating, unless a pattern is established (player A is reminded of how the rules work, continues to play them wrong.)


Also you would be really surprised how often in playing top players I find that they do not in fact know all the rules.

Those advocating that both parties receive punishment for allowing an illegal board state are also so saying that the "other" player (ie the one that didn't remind about twin linked bolters on bikes) receive an essentially irrelevant warning. If said player receives enough of them consistently (never reminds biker players about twin-linked) it's not a lack of knowledge - it's a lack of willingness. And that's bad.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue I see with needing to remind my opponent of his rules (his armies rules) is to what extent am I expected to know them? I usually will remind people, but just to keep with the twinlinked gun example.

So say I play against a space Marine bike army and I don't know that he has twin linked bolters...if I don't remind him to re-roll that is cheating?

Or is it only cheating if I know he has them and don't say anything?

At which point penalties on me forgetting my opponents rules are unenforcable. If you are going to penalize me for not knowing every rule an opposing model may have I probably won't show up.

At some level opponents need to know their own rules.

That is why I draw the line at Base rulebook rules, I should be expected to know those and make sure they are followed. I should not be required to know every armies rules and make sure they get followed.

IF my opponent is playing Daemons for example and I have never faced them before, do I need to know that he must roll warp storm? Or is that on him?

Like I said if I remember the rule I'll remind my opponent. But I am hardly cheating if I cannot remember his armies rules if he does not.

There are three points to look at:

Is it cheating if your opponent makes a rules error and you are unaware of it? - Obviously not.

Is it cheating if your opponent makes a rules error and you are aware of it and you allow him to do it to gain advantage? - Yes, by common definition of the word

Is it a behaviour that can realistically be punished in a tournament setting? - No.

Just because you won't be punished for doing it does not mean it is not cheating.

(And just to restate - the above applies to rules errors, not your opponent failing to use optional actions/wargear to best effect, or making poor tactical decisions)

While true someone continually not reminding other players of non-optional rules could very likely be doing so purposefully, again, how do you even start warning them? The other player would need to know that they forgot to remind them of a rule, but if they forgot the rule....

Again, not advocating the not telling people about rules they are missing. I am advocating that doing anything about it is no workable with how tournament currently run.

More often than not I allow rules errors in my opponents favor than anything. Either they don't have an impact on the game, or I'm winning considerably and don't see the value of harping on rules at that point.

I tend to tell them if they are forgetting stuff etc - but I only rarely play in tournaments - plus often Karma works and if you tell them - then they miss (or whatever) anyway

In some cases not reminding your opponent of rules is blatant cheating.

ie your opponent is playing a space marines derivative with ATSKNF and forgets that they have ATSKNF you letting them suffer normal morale issues when they forget, and you know better is cheating.

Ignorance of the rules on both parties is still bad, and honestly the only excuse.

40k should be played tactically, and friendly. This game is about community and hobby not just winning. You should win through tactics and luck of dice, not through memory of RAW.

Imagine if 40k were digital, and you played on a digital tabletop where the dice were rolled for you and the rules were enacted as you move your units declare shoot/charging etc. The neutral computer (the rules) would enact the rules regardless if someone forgot or not. So if you know a rule that your opponent forgot that is not optional, ie it has to happen, not a choice. You should remind your opponent.

Friendly, new person, or relaxed setting, always try to help each other on rules because it makes both parties a better player. With the speed of new codex releases, we're all going to forget something about Eldar rending, Tau markerlight fired seeker missiles, the Salvo rule or something else that's funky or unique to 6E/Codex.

A local for funsies tournament? Still help people out.

As soon as there is money paid for a tournament with an expectation of prizes for 1st, 2nd, 3rd based on Generalship; no love, no help. If I'm paying a large chunk of change for a regional or GT, I'm in it to win it (and still have fun). But I'm not in it to ensure everyone knows their rules. I take the time to reread the rulebook and purchase a good deal of the new codecis to learn the new rules. At that level of play (and my monetary input), I don't see how it would be considered cheating if someone can't know their rules. What's worse is not knowing the rules and disputing every action. Good way to get hit with slow play.